If you were beginning to fear that this series of posts was going to go on forever, then at least I will have recreated some of what I felt as I listened to the conference presentations. Seriously though, there will be two more installments after this one. Part five will deal mostly with Werner Gitt's talk, “In the Beginning Was Information,” while part six will focus mainly on Georgia Purdom's talk “The Intelligent Design Movement, How Intelligent is it?”
Monday, July 18. Afternoon.
Phillip Bell was one of the youngest speakers at the conference. He was a handsome fellow with an Australian accent. Unlike his fellow AiG'ers, he was plainly nervous. His subject was “Ape Men, Missing Links and the Bible.” He had the unpleasant task of having to explain away all of those highly suggestive hominid fossils that keep turning up on various African plains.
I was particularly interested in this talk. It wasn't that long agao that I was on the fence about this whole issue. For me, the various transitional fossils linking human beings to our ape-like ancestors were a particularly compelling piece of evidence in favor of evolution. As far as I was concerned, creationists had yet to come up with a remotely plausible reason for why I shouldn't draw the obvious conclusions from those fossils.
Well, they still haven't. Bell's talk was made up entirely of standard creationist boilerplate. All of those fossils were either “fully ape” or “fully human” Piltdown man was a hoax. Evolutionists will find a tooth or a toe and simply concoct an organism to go with it. There's great controversy about the evolutionary relationships among the various hominid fossils.
There was also the standard material about world views and interpretations of the evidence. He reiterated the standard imprecation ot allow the Bible to influence how you interpret the evidence. The Bible is quite clear that Adam was formed from the dust of the Earth (Gen. 2:7) and that he was the first man (1 Cor 15:45). Therefore we should not find any transitional forms between apes and humans. If we find something that appears to be transitional that's not evidence for evolution; it's evidence that we haven't properly discerned the importance of the particular fossil.
Thus, “Lucy” was just an ape and Neanderthal man was fully human. It's a familiar argument, but it won't wash. You can assign whatever label you want to a given fossil, but it's not going to change the fact that the fossils we have show a clear progression from hominids with mostly ape-like features through those that are more and more like modern humans.
Also making its appearance was the beloved creationist ploy of using quotations out of context. Thus we have a quote from Peter Bowler (reviewing a book by Hnery Gee) saying: “We cannot identify ancestors or missing links and we cannot devise testable hypotheses.” (Incidentally, this is one example of something I noticed in several of the talks. Namely, that rather than quoting a book directly, they would quote from some second-hand source like a review. Odd.) There was a quote from The New Scientist, from Bernard Wood, that seems to suggest that it is an illusion to think that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors. And another from the same article that goes, “Certainly the search for the missing link is doomed to failure.” Yet another from Henry Gee about evolutionary reconstructions requiring imagination and story telling. Still another to the effect that, “The more fossils we dig up, the less we know.” (Incidentally, to see how Jonathan Wells once made similar misuse of Henry Gee's writing, read my account of an ID conference available here.)
Now, I have not yet looked up the sources of these quotes for myself, but I can tell you what I am going to find. The illusion being referred to above was not the idea that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors, but rather that there was a smooth, linear progression from one hominid species to the next. The search for the missing link is doomed to failure because we would have no way of recognizing it even if it were staring us in the face. And it's very difficult to test statements of the form, “Fossil A is a direct ancestor of fossil B.” That's a far cry from saying that the plethora of hominid fossils somehow hurt the case for the descent of humans from ape-like ancestors.
Bell closed his talk with a truly bizarre statement. He summarized the fossil evidence as follows: There are thousands of hominid fossils, a statement he backed up by citing the Catalog of Fossil Hominids from the British Museum of Natural History. Then he said there are hundreds of human fossils. And there are numerous extinct ape fossils. But nothing in between!
But many of those hominid fossils are, indeed, “in between” in the sense he has in mind.
All in all, not a very convincing talk. However, feeling ornery, I decided to wait by the stage to ask him a few questions of my own. There was quite a large crowd around him, so I had to wait some time for my turn.
As I listened to the things other people were asking, I was struck by how foolish the organizers had been in not allowing a more public Q&A session. Most of the questions were so fawning and obsequious that the speakers could only have grown in stature by answering them. “Sir, you're smart, you're handsome, you're eloquent. If I worked really hard do you think I could be half the human being you are?” That sort of thing. At other talks I saw people posing for photographs with the speaker (at times thrusting their young children forward to be filmed with the speaker as well), others grabbed whatever scrap of paper they could find to collect an autograph. It seemed like many in the audience viewed the conference presenters as rock stars.
Partly because of where I was standing and partly because of my own nervousness, I was the last one to get to Mr. Bell. So it was just the two of us standing there. We had a very pleasant conversation.
I started by asking him about his closing statement, the one about the thousands of hominids and all that. I suggested that all of those hominds were, indeed, in between. His reply seemed to agree that that was the case, but then he went off about naming conventions and about how something he was calling Kenyanthropus was misnamed and on and on. So I tried again and asked, “But the issue is what did the British museum have in mind when they used the term hominid in their catalog? You offered hominid fossils as something separate from ape and human fossils. So what are they?” We were off to the races again.
I didn't want to press this point, since I was little unsure myself of what the technical definition of “hominid” was. So I went on to something else. I decided to ask him about some of the quotes he had plainly abused.
During the talk Hill implied that the search for the missing link was doomed to failure because it never existed. I pointed out that actually Wood's point was that we shouldn't think in terms of missing links, because even if we had the right fossil in front of us we would have no way of recognizing it as such. That was Gee's point as well. He replied with the Phillip Johnson argument that having a large number of candidate “missing links” is somehow a problem for evolutionists, and given the rampant controversy among paleoanthorpologists scientists shouldn't be so arrogant about talking about human evolution as a fact. I replied that he was confusing two separate questions. One question involves reconstructing specific evolutionary lineages. I said that sometimes we might have genetic and embryological evidence to supplement the fossils but in general it is very difficult to reconstruct specific lines of descent. Hence Gee's remarks about imagination and story telling. But a separate question is whether the fossils we have are consistent with the hypothesis of human descent from ape-like ancestors. That hypothesis gets stronger as we dig up more fossils. I concluded by saying that the reason we seem to know less as we dig up more fossils is that there are many possible lines of descent through the thicket of hominid fossils, and it's very difficult to pick out the right one.
He replied by talking about bushes versus trees, and about how those “iconic” diagrams of the ape to human transition that evolutionists use to prattle about are all nonsense. I had to laugh at this point. This was exactly the point Wood was making in the quote I mentioned previously. What he was saying to me at this point was quite right, and it showed that he did understand the quote properly.
A bunch of other things came up as well, but I don't remember all of the transitions. At one point he boasted that he does not believe that evolutionists should be ridiculed and that most are sincere in their beliefs. I pointed out that his boss at AiG, Ken Ham, wrote a book whose title was The Lie: Evolution. He replied that it was evolution itself that was the lie, but that scientists were not necessarily lying in teaching it. I pointed out that perhaps Ham should have called the book The Falsehood: Evolution but that a lie implies deliberate deceit. He answered that Satan was the deceiver. I said “So you're telling me that if I read this book carefully I won't find any implication that scientists are being deliberately dishonest?” He avoided the question.
(Since then I have skimmed through Ham's book. He says next to nothing about the scientific evidence for or against evolution, focussing instead on the importance of a literal Genesis to Christianity. But he is very clear that scientists are not being turthful when they say they are motivated to accept evolution by a desire for scientific truth. Actually, they are motivated by a desire to reject God.)
Another thing that came up was the distinction between what professional evolutionary biologists do and what certain popularizers say. He replied, gesturing at the remnants of the audience who were still milling around, that all most of these folks ever hear about evolution is what's in the popular literature. I had to stifle a laugh again, because his tone and facial expression achieved a level of condescension that would be termed the height of snobbery if someone on my side of this managed to achieve it. Anyway, he said that popularizers are giving an incorrect impression of the evidence for evolution and that was what he was trying to correct in his talk.
I replied that it is certainly true that occasionally a Gould or a Dawkins might be a little less precise than they ought to be in some paragraph or other. But the fact is a conference like this one isn't devoted to making science popularization more precise. It is devoted to convincing people that evolution is total nonsense, and that people would be foolish to believe it. If that is the goal, then you should really have more than a popular level understanding of the subject.
Though I didn't say it at the time, I was thinking about what a field day someone like Bell could have with every chemist who has ever described an atom as a mini solar system with electron planets orbiting a proton/neutron Sun.
Bell was not amused, and responded that the professionals don't seem to worry too much about the misconceptions the popularizers are perpetuating. I replied that they have more important things to worry about, and they figure that such inaccuracies as there are in the popularizations pale in comaprison to the nonsense that comes out of AiG.
We went on for quite a while, discussing the Cambrain explosion and the growth of genetic information and the like. In every case his answers suggested to me that he just didn't know what he was talking about. He did say that he will reread the sources of the quotations we discussed, since he didn't want to misuse scientist's words. I'm not optimistic that he will actualy do that, but I'll take what I can get. We shook hands and parted on friendly terms.
Dinner was next, and then three talks in the evening: “The History and Impact of the Book The Genesis Flood”, by John Whitcomb, “The Truth About the Scopes Trial,” by David Menton, and “Genesis: The Bottom Strip of the Christian Faith,” by Carl Kerby. Somehow I couldn't work up any enthusiasm for any of this, and I spent the evening at a nearby Barnes and Noble instead. It was nice to spend some time browsing through real books.
Next Up: Werner Gitt uses information theory to prove that people have souls.
To Be Continued
170 Comments
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 24 July 2005
Pierce R. Butler · 24 July 2005
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 24 July 2005
Jim Lippard · 24 July 2005
ICR's "Back to Genesis" conferences have often had relatively green creationists presenting a boilerplate "Ape Men" talk, such as one I attended in Tucson on December 1, 1989 where the presenter was Michael Girouard, M.D., who seems to have faded away from the creationist public speaking circuit.
Henry J · 24 July 2005
Re "And it's very difficult to test statements of the form, "Fossil A is a direct ancestor of fossil B.""
Perhaps phrase it as "Fossil A is a close relative of the ancestor of fossil B"?
Henry
steve · 24 July 2005
Is the bathroom wall broken again? My comments aren't showing up there.
steve · 24 July 2005
I was all set to add this to it, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4708459.stm but noticed my posts from this afternoon still weren't up.
Mike Walker · 24 July 2005
steve · 24 July 2005
freelunch · 24 July 2005
Henry J · 24 July 2005
freelunch,
Re "All you have to do is mangle English so badly that even Humpty Dumpty would scream."
Okay, but can you do that without getting egg on thine face? (heh heh)
--
steve,
Re "Is the bathroom wall broken again? My comments aren't showing up there."
I wondered about that, too. I posted there a few hours ago, and it didn't even show up in a subsequent preview (somebody once said that pending posts show up if one clicks the "preview" button, so I tried that).
Henry
Hyperion · 24 July 2005
natural cynic · 24 July 2005
Well, I like one of the Gnostic interpretations of the Adam&Eve story. The serpent is an incarnation of Jesus, and eating the fruit leads Adam towards wisdom.
I've taken a bite and I'm sure you have too
Jaime Headden · 25 July 2005
Appologists comment that "that very day" was the time of the Fall and the setting of mortal lifespan. Entropy begins. Adam's Sin, in otherwords, and commencing Mortal Sin (hence the "mortal" bit). But take that as you will. This was how the doctrine started, anyway. Ken Ham should note that the story of creation between Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order and apparently the reason for creation. Also, there is a passage in the Epistles that comments on "A day to God is like a 1,000 years to man," and so forth, indicating that time to God is not the same as time to man. So before man entered the world, aka before the Expulsion from Paradise, the nature of day/night and time was different. Appologetically, anyway.
BTW, is it possible to NOT make ad hominem remarks in this thread? That one can refer to the theories and not the mentalities of the particulars for the sake of an argument? Id'ers not being stupid but rather believing first and investigating to fulfill the belief as the foundation ofr the argument without trying to call them stupid? Please? It does science no service to call people stupid. This goes back to Part Three as well, where this behavior was common.
ajp · 25 July 2005
I'm genuinely not trying to be a smart-ass when I say this, nor do I feel that I'm being 'unnecessarily' cynical, but wouldn't a reasonable approach be to somehow(?) appeal to American avarice --rather, avarice in America (don't get me wrong: I live in oz, but I greatly admire the 'idea' of the US). My point is this: this is exactly the wrong time for the US to be going to sleep over what is, and what is not, science: Asia awakes (not that I'm interested in sides beyond the practical purpose described here)! There is simply no sign, or reason to suppose, that they will ever be letting hokey world-views trafficked about by fruitloops and dingleberries interfere with the doing of science. Ya on the blocks...right now! There is much to lament about the race you had with the USSR and the victory dais(?) is far from being a safe place (some might reasonably argue less safe), but it certainly got the crowds cheering. A lot of these people (AiG/ID/et al) are scared/scarred....scare them some more.
Jaime Headden · 25 July 2005
Natural Cynic's comments puts me in mind of an interesting aspect of Gnosticism, that of the rejection of prophetism. In this just so story, without death, one cannot reach heaven which, according to Revelations, is the goal of human existence. Thus ... Mortal Sin cannot be considered sin. But ... that would be based on a LITERAL interpretation....
ts · 25 July 2005
Mike Walker · 25 July 2005
I came across this wonderful example of how many hoops Biblical literalists will jump through to prove that the Bible is scientifically accurate...
The Biblical Value of Pi.
Got to love the furious handwaving involved.
Mitch · 25 July 2005
where's the "mayhem"? he says "evolutionists" shouldn't be ridiculed? how modest of him. disappointing conversation.
386sx · 25 July 2005
Mike Walker · 25 July 2005
Pointing out discrepancies in Genesis or in the Bible in general is a fruitless exercise. There is nothing that the literalists haven't see before.
After all, if you start from the standpoint that the Bible is infallible, then it doesn't matter how many "problems" there are in the text. If you squint long and hard enough while standing on your head with you feet in a plastic bucket, you will find that all these problems go away (or something like that).
Of course, those very same literalists will leave home in the morning and promptly ignore or rationalise away all those inconvenient passages about loving thy neighbour and storing up treasures.
Inerrancy can be a bit of a bitch sometimes.
SEF · 25 July 2005
Jaime Headden · 25 July 2005
Historically it seems there was both a more secular and a priestly creation story, and both actual soruces have very different writing forms, the latter being much more liturgical in nature than the former. One is meant to simplify and "just so" tell the creation as a succession up until man (ignoring the last act of creation, in this sequence the most powerful and significant, is woman, and thus the very vessel of creation in human progeny), the other is the so-called "true" creation as priests understand it. Or so they say.
Alan · 25 July 2005
I apologise if this is a trite question. The fact that life on Earth is all built on L-amino acids seems overwhelming evidence of common descent. Yet I haven't seen it used in arguments with Craetionists?
SEF · 25 July 2005
Many of them aren't advanced enough to understand it. Of the few who are, some would excuse it as design (without any reason given for that design of course!) while others already accept common descent (at least on their good days but not on their bad days, eg when avoiding confronting the ones of their ilk who are even more wilfully stupid and ignorant than they are).
ajp · 25 July 2005
Following me in 39334 SEF in 39343 (hiya) seems to suggest that perhaps I'm the one who should be scared more. If what you say is true, the US, and perhaps therefore all of us as you suggest, is/are already screwed.A stat I saw recently (New Scientist, 9/7/2005) suggested that YEC was running at 45%, Nov 2004 (though trending down). As you pointed out, not all of America has gone OTT, but that can't be too far off of the necessary critical mass to make Wilde's (I think it was) comment about democracy being the bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people, a little less funny.
a maine yankee · 25 July 2005
Never underestimate the "power" of fanaticism when joined with power. Take Trofim Denisovich Lysenko and the "fall" of Soviet biological science.
It was due to Lysenko's efforts that many real scientists, those who were geneticists or who rejected Lamarckism in favor of natural selection, were sent to the gulags or simply disappeared from the USSR.
Oh, but it can't happen here!
Alan · 25 July 2005
is it possible to NOT make ad hominem
To the extent that was directed at me, I am suitably admonished.
SEF
But the concept is so simple, that's why I thought it might be too obvious. I doubt Creationists are stupid, and the majority are just misinformed. Though the ability to reflect is probably not an important selection pressure on their leaders.
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 25 July 2005
Alan · 25 July 2005
39350
And a direct consequence of of the implementation of Lysenko's politically motivated dogma via forced collectivisation was the famine that killed possibly 30 million Ukrainians. Consequences can be serious.
Joseph Alden · 25 July 2005
Hey Nick, nice move. You have me banned, yet you allow Lenny the Fraud Flank, to come to the board and drop F-Bombs everywhere, while also accusing Crhistians of being criminals ?
That took a lot of guts, Nicky.
Maybe we IDers should start calling you Matzke the Nazi.
Add this to the list of evos double-standards, # 6,942. THEY can come to the board with bogus B.S., yet us IDers are kept off. Why, Matzke, what are you afraid of ? Now we know that this website is dedicated strictly for pimping the evos progaganda.
Looks like you are a fraud too, just like Lenny.
Matzke the Nazi. That has a nice ring to it.
Adios, for now.
Alan · 25 July 2005
Mr Alden
The eloquence of your argument and your Christian generosity of spirit is most compelling. You are a credit to your beliefs.
ajp · 25 July 2005
Sorry about appalling grammar in tha last comment. After a few hours at PT I needed some benzo's. I'm certainly having trouble now. I off to bed...see ya.
Alan · 25 July 2005
Katarina · 25 July 2005
The rude Mr. Alden has a point, I have seen less creationist comments on this site lately. It certainly helps the comments stay on-topic, but it makes the discussions seem a little more closed off. I know we started off letting them spout their nonsense and abuse at everyone, but it got to be too much. Still, there must be some polite creationists left who are willing to post a comment and share their objections with our reasoning here at PT.
SEF · 25 July 2005
"there must be some polite creationists"
It seems unlikely. If they were polite in the fullest sense they probably wouldn't have come here at all. They would already know that their faith has no justification (that rather being the point of it) and would not be so rude as to lie about it. Nor would they be likely to presume to tell people that all/any science is wrong while displaying profound stupidity and ignorance of it in what they are saying. If they were genuinely interested in science, they would be more likely to turn to proper scientific resources (whether books, journals, classes or academic internet sites) rather than going to a blog (known to be frequented by the lower classes of creationist as well as by some scientists and science-friendly types).
Les Lane · 25 July 2005
steve · 25 July 2005
steve · 25 July 2005
steve · 25 July 2005
Perversely, it appears that Rapture Ready guy is not as loony as Joseph Farah. Here's the original Farah column he was talking about http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45210
That is some high-octane craziness.
Katarina · 25 July 2005
I don't think creationists that frequent blogs are necessarily of the "lower classes," but sure, a lot of that type turn up.
I personally know a few creationists who are very good, well-intentioned, honest, and also, very intelligent people. Really. I do not claim to know how it's possible, but they exist. They have very good manners, too. They are just not that internet savvy.
I got just as annoyed as everyone else of the repetitiveness of Creationist Troll and others, but an exchange on the blogs with someone on the other side does go toward sharpening one's debating skills. I admit that much of the time, it is not that useful, but sometimes it is, and even if not, it allows a person to see the flaws (such as assumptions that are too general)in their debate approach.
So the point is, maybe the polite ones don't come here because they perceive something in the discussion that either intimidates them, or turns them off, or is insulting. Many comments seem to have something against religion in general, or right-wing Christians in particular, or the validity and usefulness of the Bible, and not just anti-evolution creationism. I always find that disconcerting, and that is a flaw worth pointing out, I think.
Albion · 25 July 2005
Evopeach · 25 July 2005
I have been reading on this subject for 30 years from both sides of the debate and I am amazed by the egocentricity on both sides.
My interests currently:
How can a theory survive for so long when there is no underpinning for its basis that abiogenesis happened, here's how and here's how everything developed from there at least up to say a working reliable replicator.
Could someone define your current understanding of closed, open, isolated and constrained systems in the slot argument?
I reread Shaprio's "Origins" again for the third time and its still a classic exazmination of the various theories by the most prominent people and even now there are no solutions to the abiogenesis question after the interimn period.
"Abiogenesis; An Examination of the Current Theories" is another very interesting book.
I often wonder what percent of real scientists work ot thoughts in doing real science in many fields ever even devot one nanosecond to evolutionary origins, mechanisms, macro-evolution .... maybe 1 %.
EVO
Mandos · 25 July 2005
As for "believing in YEC" and the number of Americans who do, I wonder if this is not due to a difference in use of the word "believe." I mean, they may "believe" in YEC as a component of religious ritual, but do they believe it to the exclusion of also "believing" in evolution as scientific fact? Belief may be rather slippery.
There's an analogue here with "pro-life," also. A lot more people ritualistically identify with a dogmatic "pro-life" position than actually hold that view.
steve · 25 July 2005
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 25 July 2005
Joseph Alden · 25 July 2005
Hey Steve,
You might be interested to know that it is I who has asked Lenny the Fraud to respond to MY QUESTIONS, regarding the scientific Theory of ID.
HE REFUSES TO DO SO, because he is a coward and doesn't want to be exposed as the fool he is, in front of his fellow evos.
Get your facts straight before you start defending the crack-head,
a.k.a Lenny the Fraud.
Katarina · 25 July 2005
Never mind.
harold · 25 July 2005
Evopeach -
"I have been reading on this subject for 30 years from both sides of the debate and I am amazed by the egocentricity on both sides."
You may have a point there. However, your reading seems to have been a bit incomplete.
"How can a theory survive for so long when there is no underpinning for its basis that abiogenesis happened, here's how and here's how everything developed from there at least up to say a working reliable replicator"
A good theory of abiogenesis would be a nice addition to the theory of evolution, but the theory of evolution is about cellular and post-cellular life (eg viruses) life on earth. This is like asking how chemists could develop the atomic theory and table of elements without a perfect understanding of big bang cosmology.
"I often wonder what percent of real scientists work ot thoughts in doing real science in many fields ever even devot one nanosecond to evolutionary origins, mechanisms, macro-evolution .... maybe 1 %."
Well, this mistaken at both the factual and logical level. From a logical point of view, the number of scientists involved in a field is not necessarily related to its vitality. Relatively few scientists are involved in advanced particle physics, but it's still a vibrant field.
Factually, scientists in molecular biology, genetics, clinical biomedical sciences, agriculture, as well as field biologists, deal with evolutionary mechanisms every day. So in fact, the number is far greater than 1%.
I haven't read the books you mention, so I'll leave it to others to comment on that.
"Could someone define your current understanding of closed, open, isolated and constrained systems in the slot argument?"
By "slot", I'm sure you meant "2LOT", or "second law of thermodynamics". I'm puzzled by the idea that there is a conflict between the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. TalkOrigins actually has a good piece on very basic thermodynamics, which I've linked. For a more detailed discussion, you'd probably have to go to a physics or chemistry site, or better yet, book (there may be some engineering books with good treatment of thermodynamics as well). It's a worthwhile topic on its own, but it's only peripherally related to evolutionary biology.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
Hyperion · 25 July 2005
Perhaps the answer would be to instigate some sort of age limit? The problem seems less to be caused by creationists than by twelve year olds on summer vacation like master Alden here.
Mike Walker · 25 July 2005
Jim Harrison · 25 July 2005
Abiogenesis is a diferent topic than evolution. and nobody claims that accounts of how life originated have anything like the cogency and empirical support of the modern theory of evolution. Research on abiogenesis is getting somewhere, however; and we shouldn't assume that it's still merely a topic of philosophical speculation. Recent basic research on RNA chemistry and the multiple roles of RNA in living eukaryotes, for example, is really very exciting and certainly bouys up the RNA-world hypothesis.
Mike Walker · 25 July 2005
Hey Joseph, if that's the best you can do, then you deserve to be tossed out of here.
In case you haven't noticed, there's quite a difference between accusing someone specifically of being a crack-head and a child molester and a general rant against a group of people and dropping some F-bombs. (And since when did you become concerned about a few epithets anyway?)
I'm not a big fan of Lenny's rants, but it's you that is crossing the line.
Looks like Nick has some more cleaning up to do.
steve · 25 July 2005
steve · 25 July 2005
steve · 25 July 2005
That link Harold provided is excellent if you aren't convinced by my comment.
steve · 25 July 2005
BTW everyone, I'm happy to see more links to TalkOrigins around here lately. I'm a big fan of linking to preexisting refutations, for several obvious reasons.
Raven · 25 July 2005
steve · 25 July 2005
In case anyone wonders what the name of the logical form of my argument in comment 39404 was, it's called a Biscuit Conditional.
Gav · 25 July 2005
Evopeach - I enjoyed Shapiro's book too when was published, but it's not really about evolution. The title is a bit of a giveaway.
If you're in any doubt about Steve's comment that "organisms in general do not exist in anything remotely like a locally closed system, and SLOT doesn't apply" then think how long you might survive in a sealed container [but don't try the experiment!]
Jim Wynne · 25 July 2005
Moses · 25 July 2005
Ed Darrell · 25 July 2005
Ed Darrell · 25 July 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 July 2005
steve · 25 July 2005
I do love the Biscuit Conditional form, if you know what I mean.
steve · 25 July 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 July 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 July 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 July 2005
the pro from dover · 25 July 2005
here is a polite creatonist question. What about turtles? Are they parareptiles, pariasaurs, anapsid reptiles or diapsid reptiles gone to seed? It would seem that they would be easily fossilizable and that there should be pretty clear pathways to their most unique skeletal findings(shoulders and hips within their rib cages). How does the skull (which looks like it is anapsid) match the DNA findings (which seem to closely ally them to crocodiles). Theoretically they shouldnt be genetically closer than the surviving lepidosaurs (last common ancestor and all that). From what I understand the last non chelonian anapsid disappeared from the fossil record long before the end of the Permian only to have turtles appear fully formed in the Jurassic. Inquiring minds want to know!
Stuart Weinstein · 25 July 2005
Evopeach scribed: "I have been reading on this subject for 30 years from both sides of the debate and I am amazed by the egocentricity on both sides."
oh.. we've had enough that "sceintists are egocentrics" on talk.origins. Hopefully you're not mistaking knowledge and experience for egocentrism.
"My interests currently:
How can a theory survive for so long when there is no underpinning for its basis that abiogenesis happened, here's how and here's how everything developed from there at least up to say a working reliable replicator."
Easy. Evolution doesn't explain how life gets started; it explains how life has diversified through geologic time. Abiogenesis and TOE are logically separated.
For example, I see a tree on fire, and I wish to study the process by which the fire consumes the tree. Does it matter for my purposes whether the fire was started by lightning? a careless camper? Sun rays focused by rain drop in just the right place?
For the purposes of evolution how the first replicator came to be is a side issue. Whether the Earth seeded by alien terra-formers or the first replicator arose by natural means is irrelevant to common descent and the diversification of life since then. And that is what the TOE explains.
"Could someone define your current understanding of closed, open, isolated and constrained systems in the slot argument?"
An isolated enclosure is a system in which there is no heat or mass transfer through its boundaries. In such systems, SLOT says that eventually an equilibrium state will prevail in which there is no energy available for work.
Once the system is open, that particular corollary of SLOT no longer applies. SLOT always applies, but the implications SLOT has for open and closed systems are different.
I" reread Shaprio's "Origins" again for the third time and its still a classic exazmination of the various theories by the most prominent people and even now there are no solutions to the abiogenesis question after the interimn period."
I haven't read Shapiro's book. On the other we spent billions searching for AIDs vaccine and still don't have one. I'd wager we spend more on AIDs research in two months than have been spent on abiogeneis oriented research programs since it became a topic research.
That there are no ironclad solutions is not surprising, IMHO.
"Abiogenesis; An Examination of the Current Theories" is another very interesting book.
I often wonder what percent of real scientists work ot thoughts in doing real science in many fields ever even devot one nanosecond to evolutionary origins, mechanisms, macro-evolution .... maybe 1 %."
And that is relevant cuz? And anyway you're hopelessly wrong. MAthematicians and engineers certainly spent enough time thinking about it. They thought about it so much, that they have developed algorithms modeled on evolutionary mechanisms to solve real engineering problems intractable by more traditional methods.
What you don't know may not hurt you, but it could cuz you to go bankrupt.
ellery · 25 July 2005
It always amazes me how we all live on the same planet. We have Bible-believers, Qu'ran believers, and we have rationalists, many people accepting science, whatever their actual education.
Just walking down the street I see many evidences for evolution and the wonderful ways that nature has worked. I see this as beautiful.
My neighbor walks down the same street and sees evidence that bolsters her notion of a god-created reality, and thinks the 10-commandments and Noah's flood actually came from a god. She sees evolution as ugly and threatening.
This is one of the great mysteries of the Universe. Faith-oriented convictions and thought-based convictions.
ts · 25 July 2005
ts · 25 July 2005
Bob · 25 July 2005
Umm, Steve, the 2LOT is generally true, not just in isolated systems. This is a common error. As it happens, the law takes a particularly simple form in isolated systems: in such systems, the overall entropy change cannot be negative. In open systems the law also applies but takes a different form. The math isn't simple. I offer an analogy with the first law: in isolated systems, the first law states that the energy remains constant. Noting that delta E = 0 for an isolated system doesn't negate that energy is conserved in open systems.
ts · 25 July 2005
On top of that, the creationist 2LOT argument, if it made any sense at all, would go against growth, not evolution. It seems to claim that the 2LOT is inconsistent with a seed growing into a tree. But it has nothing to say about evolution, unless one confuses thermodynamic entropy with some nebulous notion of "disorder" in the sense of a messy room (and even then it's a wild stretch). Sadly, that totally bogus analogy is widely used and accepted. See, e.g.,
Disorder -- A Cracked Crutch For Supporting Entropy Discussions
from the Journal of Chemical Education
http://www.entropysite.com/cracked_crutch.html
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 July 2005
steve · 25 July 2005
Yeah, I know what the math looks like, I've done it. There are several meaningful versions of the SLOT, depending on what kind of system you're using, from "Energy stops moving when you get to the most likely macrostate" to S=k ln (omega). The way the creationists misuse it is more along the absolutist lines of "The entropy of a thing can never decrease", which only makes sense if the "thing" is isolated. So I think it makes sense to just point out that organisms are not isolated, and be done with it. We can discuss dS and Q/T and such on our own, but the creationists aren't making arguments about such sophisticated systems, so we can ignore those things for the purpose of dealing with their argument. I alluded to these "subtleties" in my original post.
KR · 25 July 2005
Whether 'hominid' finds are transitional fossils are the least of your concerns, Jason, considering that evolutionists have failed miserably to find the mechanism that actually produces evolution. I'm looking forward to seeing how badly you distort Dr. Gitt's information theory. My guess is that you will get confused by the presuppositional nature of laws and label information theory as using circular reasoning.
Intelligent Design Theorist Timmy · 25 July 2005
Hell yes KR. All those scientists at Harvard, Caltech, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Tokyo U, etc, etc, thousands of them across the world, dozens of Nobel Laureates, are all deeply confused and ignorant about evolution. And part of an international conspiracy to cover that up. One day their resistance will crumble, and they will come begging the ID Creationist ranks for real scientists. The creation Megaconference featured several dozen Galileos. I await the day when Ken Ham is a full professor of biology at Harvard, and Dr. Kent Hovind is giving seminars at MIT.
steve · 25 July 2005
ts · 25 July 2005
Whizbang · 25 July 2005
Dear Rev. Dr. Lenny Flank
Re de Tortugas
Dey vait in de deeps until de vater it be cover de top ob de mountain und den dey svim dere really fast und den dey eat all de jellyfishes und den dey die und den dey be deposited on de top ob de mountain. Dot be vy dey on top ob de Jellyfishes!!
It's a hypotheses!! :-)
ts · 25 July 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 July 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 July 2005
steve · 26 July 2005
God, Lenny, ID explains that problem perfectly.
God tied little balloons to them, so they floated in the air, above the clouds.
I mean, really. Give them something hard.
anyway, here's something else for the bathroom wall. If a new one is ever generated, I'll post this there:
Someone recently lamented the lack of a current-day carl sagan, a scientist who connected with the public. I'll play advocatus diaboli here, and say that it's better now than when Sagan was around. Today there are more scientists in touch with the public, than during Sagan's zenith. Scientists which frequently appear in the paper or on tv are Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, Steven Levitt, Richard Dawkins, Jared Diamond, Roger Penrose, and popular scientific things written by nonscientists such as James Surowiecki, Malcolm Gladwell, Carl Zimmer, and William Langweische.
steve · 26 July 2005
There's so much scientific stuff out there in the zeitgeist, that even the pseudoscientists have their Carl Sagan: Ronald Bailey, global warming denier and Reason magazine's science correspondent.
steve · 26 July 2005
That reminds me, there's some really good science and technology essays out there which go unnoticed. Some of the best which are available online are
This Is Not The Place by Hampton Sides
Mother Earth, Motherboard
and
In the Kingdom of Mao Bell by Neal Stephenson
Columbia's Last Flight by William Langweische
I seldom save local copies of things available online, but those 4 are so good, I have them. In English 425 (Advanced Technical Writing) I probably wrote four or five essays examining the Langweische article, it's so superb.
If anyone knows good similar essays of that flavor, please let me know. Geek Nonfiction, I suppose you'd categorize it. There's not much better than really well-done technical nonfiction. I never would have believed that a 42,000-word essay about the laying of a fiber optic cable would be so compelling, until I read it.
steve · 26 July 2005
by the way, lest someone think that I'm just libertarian-bashing by constantly pointing out Ronald Bailey is a global warming denier, it's actually out of love. I'm still registered Libertarian here in Wake county, but i have a love-hate relationship with them. I have some libertarian sympathies, but there is definitely a large kook presence in the movement.
Creationist troll · 26 July 2005
Ed Darrell · 26 July 2005
Heinz Kiosk · 26 July 2005
It irks me to see the OP $100's out of pocket for (a) doing his duty (b) providing us all with some great entertainment. For my part reading Jason's reports has been worth $10 in entertainment value alone, and, Jason, I'll gladly send that if you set up a paypal account to receive the money. (I am away for a few days now, but I'll check for your reply when I get back)
ajp · 26 July 2005
SEF, what have you done to me! I checked out rapture ready and the ambivalence is now killing me: it's like Leo Kottke said of jungle-disease books: they're like pornography...ya get sicker as you go, but you can't stop!!!
SEF · 26 July 2005
Tell yourself you can give it up any time, ajp. Just like the ID/creationists tell themselves they can do some science any time and tell their followers that they've already done it.
Seriously though, since I don't find RR as compelling as you seem to, I don't get your problem. I peered into their fetid box once, was disgusted by their ordure and departed pretty quickly, leaving them to it. I only recommend it as an excellent lesson for those people who say ID/creationists can't really be that stupid. In there, many of the things they say and do (or say they've done) are foolish, insane or even criminal. Yet there lots of them are, feeding off each other's delusions and allegedly deliriously happy to wallow in their stupidity and ignorance.
Nic George · 26 July 2005
Posted by Creationist troll on July 26, 2005 01:49 AM (e) (s)
Eight people have a maximum possible of 16 alleles per locus between them. yet today we see human genetic loci with several HUNDRED different alleles. Please use your superior creation, uh, "science" to explain to me where these extra alleles came from.
It seems that there are only three possibilities:
1. 200 Adams, and 200 Eves.
2. There is some intelligently designed mechanism which creates new alleles.
3. Mutation.
Do we have any evidence for any of these?
Hmmmm, let me see....
1. Not much.
2. Not much.
3. Ooooh wait, yes!
Here's a few links I found after about THIRTY SECONDS searching!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html
ndt · 26 July 2005
Flint · 26 July 2005
Descent & Dissent · 26 July 2005
harold · 26 July 2005
KR -
"Whether 'hominid' finds are transitional fossils are the least of your concerns, Jason, considering that evolutionists have failed miserably to find the mechanism that actually produces evolution"
This is a very odd statement. Actually, it is a combination of two incorrect statements. It suggests that you need to do some more work if you wish to understand evolution.
The major mechanism of evolution is the interaction of the surrounding environment with variable phenotypes (usually referred to as "natural selection"). Phenotypes are variable because of the many sources of genetic variation, especially, but not exclusively, the imperfect nature of nucleic acid replication. Mutation (a term with a very broad definition) is a major source of this, but so is the recombination of alleles during sexual reproduction, which may or may not be considered "mutation", depending on who's talking or what the break points are, but certainly happens.
Genetic variability alone would produce evolution of a sort (and sometimes does), but it is when it is combined with natural selection that we see the fantastic adaptation and specialization that characterize life on earth.
Natural selection acts on the phenotype, but it ultimately does so by impacting on the reproductive "success" of individuals - the genomic nucleic acid sequences associated with a phenotype which is able to produce relatively more offspring will be "selected for". Darwin, despite lacking technical knowledge of genetics, is usually credited with being the first articulator of this idea, hence he is strongly associated with the theory of evolution. Everything we now know about genetics and molecular biology makes it clear that it is impossible for evolution NOT to happen.
Everything I have said in these two paragraphs is compatible with what other pro-science posters have said above, I have merely spelled it out a bit more for you.
If you now understand, at a very basic level, the mechanism of evolution, please say so. If you continue to have problems with it, please say so and explain what the misunderstanding is. If you simply ignore this post, I will cynically conclude that you have no interest in honest discussion of the issue. I apologize for my cynicism. Please anwer Lenny's posts first, though. He asked you first, after all.
Also, hominid fossils ARE evidence of evolution, and would be EVEN IF we did not know a mechanism. In fact, many thinkers postulated that evolution took place, long before a mechanism was identified. A famous incorrect theory of evolution is rather unfairly associated with the great French biologist Lamarck. Just as there was evidence that smoking cigarettes led to an increased risk of lung cancer, even before any potential mechanisms were identified, hominid fossils would be evidence of evolution, even if we did not understand the major mechanisms of evolution (which in fact we do).
If you now understand that hominid fossils are evidence of evolution please say so. If you continue to have problems with this, please say so and explain what the misunderstanding is. If you simply ignore this post, I will cynically conclude that you have no interest in honest discussion of the issue. I apologize for my cynicism. Oh, and please anwer Lenny's posts first. He asked you first, after all.
Bob Maurus · 26 July 2005
Harold,
Would you mind if I posted your response on another board or two? It's plain and simple, and directly addresses the penchant of a large group of creationists to simply and steadfastly ignore information and evidence in favor of their own simple-minded , oft-repeated and oft-answered claims and questions.
Bob
Katarina · 26 July 2005
Katarina · 26 July 2005
OOOPS, I meant to say '"microevolution" from "macroevolution."' Please excuse me.
harold · 26 July 2005
Bob Maurus -
Be my guest.
I used to believe in the idea of a "clearinghouse" to combat creationism, with people watching every web site and local news publication (etc) for flawed creationist arguments, and a pool of refutations of common nonsense and accurate but understandable explanations of what science actually says, to draw from in creating rebuttals. To a large degree, that now exists, in the form of talkorigins.org and Panda's Thumb. But it could still be better. It's a never-ending task, and few of us have the time to devote to it. Perhaps some day I can create an 'Institute' :-)...
Katarina -
Anyone who says "microevolution" is basically admitting that they can't deny the most obvious examples of evolution. Obviously, the question then is, which of the inevitable incremental biochemical change in the genome is the one which is "forbidden", and why? And how does the genome of an organism "know" which prior genomes all of its ancestors held; how does it know how "far it has already come", as it would have to to know that it can't "go any further"? It makes no sense. Which may be why creationists seem to have largely dropped that argument. It's also worth noting that these questions could be applied to a few evolutionary biologists.
Also, it's true that molecular biology and genetics aren't brought up enough in discussions of evolution. It's clear why - it's a technical topic that requires some background. But it's still incredibly important.
Raven -
I noticed that you put up a post about the relevance of evolution to molecular research on the vascular system (which also has reverse value for understanding the evolution of development).
Vascular system research is obviously incredibly important in human and veterinary medicine, among other things, with importance for vascular diseases (a vast category that includes stroke and "heart attack"), cancer research, trauma surgery, etc.
In addition to agreeing with you that the research, and biology in general, is just neat on its own, this is a great illustration of why we need to have solid science education.
Bob Maurus · 26 July 2005
Thanks Harold,
New Genetic Information thread at
http://groups.msn.com/evc/messages.msnw
Bob
Russell · 26 July 2005
qetzal · 26 July 2005
roger tang · 26 July 2005
I note that KR is, as predicted, dodging real, substantive responses. Saying "talk.origins" is a cut-and-paste response is not a particularly good answer if the cut-and-paste response is a GOOD response.
Steviepinhead · 26 July 2005
"Our" (and Pharynguls's) own PZ Myers does a superb job of articulating, dramatizing, and "signifying" the findings and work of biologists.
Sean Carroll has authored a couple of works on Evo-Devo at the popular level that are very well done.
I'm agreeing with the previous poster who suggested that we are living through a "Cambrian Explosion" of popularizers. What may now need to happen is for one or more of these to work his or her way up to Sagan's overarching meta-level of discussion--or for PBS to reach down and "anoint" one of them!
On a slightly different topic, I'm wondering what the creationist/divine design reaction will be to the popular "debut" of the microscopic early bilaterian in this month's Scientific American (purely from memory, dubbed something along the lines of "vernanimacula"--small springtime critter!)? Uh, gosh, it turns out that the Cambrian critters didn't "poof" out of thin air after all, but indeed have a lengthy developmental pre-history... Only these precursons were very small, soft-bodied, and required especially fine sediments for their preservation (and exceptionally refined and painstaking techniques for their discovery). Odd that those evolutionary biologists--going back all the way to "You Know Who," never predicted that.
Oops. They did... Now what seems to be the "problem" with the Cambrian Explosion again?
steve · 26 July 2005
"Dembski is the fig newton of Information Theory"
That's BS. When's the last time a fig newton sought to mislead you? The comparison is invalid.
BTW, we know the DI people read this weblog. We can therefore assume that they've seen Lenny's, Russell's, and my, simple questions about ID, and have no answers, just as FL has no answers. I would love to see Sancho Cordova try to deal with my 3 simple CSI questions, though.
Bob Maurus · 26 July 2005
Steviepinhead,
Vernanimalcula guizhouena
http://english.people.com.cn/200406/06/eng20040606_145457.html
Bob
steve · 26 July 2005
steve · 26 July 2005
The likelyhood that POS (Puff of Smoke) Theory is going to unseat evolution...it reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon, wherein Dogbert says, "You know, if you put a little hat on a snowball, it can last a long time in hell."
ts · 26 July 2005
ts · 26 July 2005
steve · 26 July 2005
Well, it's true that contrary to the teachings of the Creation MegaConference, I don't let belief in the bible guide my interpretation of the evidence.
Steviepinhead · 26 July 2005
A tip of the pointy hat to Bob Maurus for correcting my memory (the neurons run thin up in that point) and providing a link to one of the earlier announcements of the microscopic bilaterian.
I've been aware of the discussions in the literature for some time--but that's because I bother to READ the scientific literature (without remotely claiming to be a scientist).
We know the average creationist/divine design-ist does NOT do that kind of reading, however, hence my query about the reaction now that the news has become unavoidable.
Paul Flocken · 26 July 2005
In Re: Vernanimalcula guizhouena and
http://english.people.com.cn/200406/06/eng20040606_145457.html
Isn't real science just the coolest? Isn't it amazing what real scientists can discover?
Paul
bcpmoon · 26 July 2005
ts · 26 July 2005
Steviepinhead · 26 July 2005
Heh, ts, the strange remarks in the People's Daily article remind me of those wacky translations that one runs across in foreign hotel rooms.
Here are a couple more links on this fascinating little bilaterian, including the discoverers' original article in Science and an entry from PZ (which implies an earlier PZ post that I haven't been able to track):
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000C4E87-7070-10BF-B07083414B7F0000
http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/10275.html
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/a_few_more_tidbits_about_vernanimalcula/
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5681/218?ijkey=45eebbe2f477d2bf03b921f82aa6b0e17d4a3c70&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Les Lane · 26 July 2005
The definitions one learns from talking to creationists:
Microevolution = what you have good evidence for
Macroevolution = what you don't have good evidence for
ts · 26 July 2005
White Stone · 26 July 2005
Harold, Did you not describe what has been taught for years as natural selection and survival of the fittest and call it evolution?
ts · 26 July 2005
Ken Shackleton · 26 July 2005
ts · 26 July 2005
Ken Shackleton · 26 July 2005
RE:comment 39570
Agreed
Steviepinhead · 26 July 2005
C.J.O'Brien · 26 July 2005
RE: #39539 steve,
While it's true that it's demeaning to the fig newton, who has done nothing to deserve such ignominity, it's just so damn funny.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 July 2005
White Stone · 26 July 2005
Dear Steviepinhead, Please look back to comment number #39473. I believe that you are too quick to respond to questions that were not directed to you. You are attributing quotes incorrectly. Just go ahead and have your pizza. Harold seems to handle questions that are directed his way quite well without your assistance.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 July 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 July 2005
Steviepinhead · 26 July 2005
WS, you are right. I incorrectly attributed the first quote to you, when KR babbled it instead.
So it was KR, not you, who insinuated that scientists have not been able to identify the mechanisms that produce evolution.
Harold--a far more temperate individual than I--calmly explained a couple of the mechanisms to KR.
You then came along in #39567 and proceeded to suggest that Harold had mixed up the mechanisms with the process they give rise to. He didn't.
My profound apologies for confounding one babbler with another.
White Stone · 26 July 2005
You are forgiven. :-)
steve · 26 July 2005
Okay, I'll try this one more time. The SLOT takes different forms for different systems. The form of it the creationists use does not apply to an open system. Yet they try to use it on an organism or a piece of DNA. These are not closed systems. So the simple form of SLOT they use, "Entropy never decreases", does not apply. This is the last I'm going to say on the matter. Please don't waste any time explaining to me where SLOT applies.
ajp · 26 July 2005
Substitute "creationists" for "man" in this ditty from Bertrand Russell and ya there:
"The believers is Cosmic Purpose make of our supposed intelligence but their writings make one doubt it. If I were granted omnipotence, and millions of years to experiment in, I should not think man much to boast of as the final result of all my efforts."
Jaime Headden · 26 July 2005
Quoting Pro from Dover:
"here is a polite creatonist question. What about turtles? Are they parareptiles, pariasaurs, anapsid reptiles or diapsid reptiles gone to seed? It would seem that they would be easily fossilizable and that there should be pretty clear pathways to their most unique skeletal findings(shoulders and hips within their rib cages). How does the skull (which looks like it is anapsid) match the DNA findings (which seem to closely ally them to crocodiles). Theoretically they shouldnt be genetically closer than the surviving lepidosaurs (last common ancestor and all that). From what I understand the last non chelonian anapsid disappeared from the fossil record long before the end of the Permian only to have turtles appear fully formed in the Jurassic. Inquiring minds want to know!"
This is right up my [herpetological] alleyway.
Current research on anatomy and molecular studies of their mtDNA and DNA are not conclusive. They show that some reserved mtDNA markers and large sets of DNA genes places them closer to mammals than other reptiles, or as the most basal living group of reptiles (yea, more basal than tuataras, prithee), or closer to lizards and snakes (Lepidosauria) than to other reptiles, or to archosaurs (birds and crocs which, based on morphology as well as genes, are each others' closest living relatives). Any further arrangements are based solely on morphology, including the now outdated "Anapsida" which, based on skulls of many particulars is being dismantled due to convergence of closure of a lower temporal fenestra (the "anapsid condition") among many different amniotic animals. Thus using anapsids to theorize turtle origins has its major mishaps. Current work on the bigwigs in Turtle Evolution seem split on parareptiles from morphology alone, basal reps from genes and morphology, or closer to some group of reptile or another. The mammal hypothesis has been largely ignored to date.
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Amniota goes into much detail. Both Michel Laurin and Jacques Gauthier are willing to field questions, though they don't get this from me.
On testability of theory and forming a Theory of ID:
Incidentally, the use of a hypothesis language would be helpful, in describing means for Id'ers to form a scientific hypothesis or theory, which is fundamentally required to be testable. "God exists" is not a scientific hypothesis since it doesn't allow itself to be tested, though "the sweet pea in my hand is green" is a testable statement since it allows itself to be verified by asking questions. The Bible, so prone to being changed on a whim (see Council of Nicea), is certainly not a verifiable source on its own, as it requires archaeological and scientific testing to verify its contents (commanding the sun to stop in the sky, parting of the Red Sea / Sea of Reeds, snakes from staves, burning bushes and gushing wayer from rocks, etc.). I think Ken Ham may not understand what an allegory or just so story is, or even simple satiric or rhetorical structure; if so, he should read more into Kipling and Jesus' parables for some examples.
the pro from dover · 26 July 2005
Sometimes Lenny can be very quick to attack when in fact there is considerable doubt. I appreciate Jamie's candidness about the uncertainty involved. I can safely say that I am not familiar with any AIG tract but what I am familiar with is the National Geographic. Within the last six months or so there was a lead aricle about Tyrannosaurs. Part of this aricle was a cladogram about projected evolutionary relationships between therapods and avians. Beneath that diagram was a second cladogram from amniotes to dinosaurs. In this cladogram turtles were depicted clearly as "non reptiles" or at least non-diapsids. The term "sauropsid" was never used. It was this diagram that led me to ask the question given earlier posts in PT among others regarding turtles as diapsid reptiles closely allied to crocodiles. I have never looked at the National Geographic as a tract of the AIG. In fact the National geographic is seen by many as a prime source of scientific factual information.
Jaime Headden · 26 July 2005
quoting Pro from Dover:
"Within the last six months or so there was a lead aricle about Tyrannosaurs. Part of this aricle was a cladogram about projected evolutionary relationships between therapods and avians. Beneath that diagram was a second cladogram from amniotes to dinosaurs. In this cladogram turtles were depicted clearly as "non reptiles" or at least non-diapsids. The term "sauropsid" was never used. It was this diagram that led me to ask the question given earlier posts in PT among others regarding turtles as diapsid reptiles closely allied to crocodiles. I have never looked at the National Geographic as a tract of the AIG. In fact the National geographic is seen by many as a prime source of scientific factual information."
Unfortunately, despite the nature of facts about transformation in the genome and selective elements thereof in interacting organisms (aka, mutation and natural selection), phylogeny is hypothesis. There are some very good likelihoods in this, but it is largely just hypothesis. This is not always the best thing to cite in refutation of any creationist argument because it doesn't argue for an absolute, so is usually wish-washed out of the argument in favor of something more absolute. Which is good. Science improves through testing, and the more correspondence all tests have towards a single conclusion, the better. All genetic phylogenies place birds within reptiles, and the term "Reptilia," classically used to refer to cold-blooded animals which crawl (which doesn't even apply to crocs half the time they're walking), has been displaced by some for a more recent term, Sauropsida, which is used to directly oppose Synapsida in all of amniotes. That is, if you are a member of the group of animals called Amniota, then you are either a member of Sauropsida, or of Synapsida; you cannot be an amniote but not either a sauropsid or synapsid, plain and simple. People of late have stepped away from the Golden Ladder which Lamarck popularized in which animals were arranged in their supposed perfection towards a man-like state (so called "evolution" in its original form, where an organism advances to an ideal state, which is known -- and which is Man). Instead, the perspective has shifted from progressive development as in classic phylograms -- or phyllograms -- towards the best hypothesis of relationship based on the totality of included data, called a data matrix. This includes shared genome markers and gross morphological characters. For example, the foramen magnum opening in the venter of the calvarium due to a horizontal planar orientation of the occipital plate in primates occurs among so few animals today that its prevalence among a group of primates to the exclusion of other primates along with supporting data on the shape of a mastoid process, size of the foramen magnum, and increase of the calvarium to the skull, indicates a greater likelihood of relationship among these animals than among their relatives. This is immediately testable by adding data to the matrix. Maximum likelihood with all included data indicates there is a set of shared ancestry stages that occurs among all animals. This is largely elucidated through the process of a mathematical science called "cladistics".
The names we apply to these sets of groups are only labels for refering to these relationships, they are meaningless otherwise, but useful for simplifying communication. Articles in Nat Geo are written, just as posts here, by people presenting a perspective of data, not intending to be biblical truth. Truth, as the scientists would say, is best left to philosophers. Scientists rather concern themselves with processes and mechanisms in relating pieces of observations; it is likelihood of a truth, rather than the truth itself, that concerns science, and the best means by which we can understand this with the minimum of bias or a priori arguments we can muster. Thus exactitude is important, the result must stand whatever it's conclusion, as objectively as possible [one may note not all scientists hold to this, but this is the taught ideal, in any case]. The more data the better. All that subjective jazz. (In which case, I prefer classical to jazz.)
Henry J · 26 July 2005
Re #39482,
Lenny,
Re "Second, the turtle skull only appears to be anapsid. It�s actually diapsid,"
Hmm. Then the Amniota page on "Tree of Life" needs to be clarified. It tentatively puts Testudines ( Turtles, tortoises and terrapins) under Anapsida, but with a question mark so the author wasn't sure.
Henry
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 July 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 July 2005
Katarina · 27 July 2005
It seems this exchange with a polite creationist has turned out to be very productive, after all. When people learn from each other, it is very pleasing.
ts · 27 July 2005
What have any of us learned from the creationist? And what has the creationist learned? We've learned from the evolutionary biologists, as usual. We don't need creationists to ask the questions.
Katarina · 27 July 2005
ts · 27 July 2005
Ken Shackleton · 27 July 2005
Katarina · 27 July 2005
ts · 27 July 2005
Alan · 27 July 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 July 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 July 2005
the pro from dover · 27 July 2005
i apologise if i have created any confusion. it may be a polite creationist question but i really didnt claim to be a creationist. But thats not really important!! regardless; to continue with the idea that the basal reptile skull structure was initially felt to be anapsid and similar to that of lobe finned fishes and amphibians. The most famous of these organisms was mesosaurus, not because of its skull but because the fossils of this flimsy fish eating crocodile shaped organism were found in early permian strata on both the west coast of africa and the east coast of so. america. It was a finding that strongly suggested continental drift long before alfred wegener. It doesnt seem likely that anapsid skulls are all secondarily derved from diapsids. This is opposed to euryapsid skulls that almost certainly are. In the exhibit on the top floor of the american museum of natural history turtles are clearly aligned with pariasaurs
as they are in the National Geographic article. This asks the question of genetic matching with common ancestors. Perhaps i am mistaken (as Jaime suggests) but if I am im not the only one. Is it not reasonable to expect if two organisms share a common ancestor at a more recent time than either did with a third then shouldnt their genomes show more DNA matches regardless of the appearance or ecological function of the organisms? Can i take a stab at the mystery of mysteries what is the scientific theory of intelligent design? (a flourish of trumpets is not necessary) Intelligent design refutes materialistic random appearing processes in nature because the mechanisms of action are not scientifically approachable. That which appears to be "random" or "uncertainty" or "chaos" is actually a supernatural agent working in a manner that cannot be elucidated using conventional scientific inquiry. In order for it to be studied the definition of science has to be changed. If im not mistaken there is movement afoot to do this already. This should be scary.
ts · 27 July 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 July 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 July 2005
Can i take a stab at the mystery of mysteries what is the scientific theory of intelligent design? (a flourish of trumpets is not necessary) Intelligent design refutes materialistic random appearing processes in nature because the mechanisms of action are not scientifically approachable. That which appears to be "random" or "uncertainty" or "chaos" is actually a supernatural agent working in a manner that cannot be elucidated using conventional scientific inquiry.
I.e.,, ID "theory" is nothing but fundamentalist religious apologetics, and all those IDers who claim otherwise are simply lying to us.
Got it.
Thanks for making that so apparent.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 July 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 July 2005
Katarina · 28 July 2005
Besides the other points that ts and Lenny have adequately replied to, pro from dover does have one tiny point.
It is true that we do not have 100% predictability of random events. We cannot, for example, tell where or when a mutation will strike the genome. We can predict that given exposure to radiation, the mutation rate will increase. Or we can knock out a gene at a specific site, in an experiment. But pro from dover has a point that there is a realm we cannot approach, that of predicting the random events at the heart of the process.
Even natural selection is driven by random events. It depends on climate changes, population diversity, inter- and intra- species competition, and innumerable other factors which are all subject to [mostly] unpredictable events, which interplay to create so many factors, that it is difficult to tell the outcome.
So there is no reason to think that there is no God acting in this hidden capacity continually. However, that is not what ID says. ID goes further, to [attempt to] challange the theory of evolution, which has no claims as to the existance or non-existance of God, though many of its supporters seem to think it does have some bearing on the question. It is true that evolution supporters have used the science to buttress their lack of belief in a divine entity. Why is it so difficult to concede that point?
Lenny, you are right, pro from dover has not answered the questions, but at least he is listening. And has not been condescending, as some of us have been in our replies.
This thread is getting way too long, so I for one, will move my comments, if I have any further ones, to a newer post that is more relevant to this discussion.
the pro from dover · 28 July 2005
Thank you Katrina; at last a tiny begruging nanopoint conceded. I now have a pawn against the full army on the other side. I think i've got this now: basal anapsid reptiles (which presumably gave rise to synapsid and sauropsid lineages) died out leaving no descendants. turtles, full diapsid reptiles closely allied to crocodiles, secondarily developed a seemingly (but not osteogenically identical) anapsid skull structure subsequently. This is comparable to the development secondarily of the euryapsid skull also from diapsids. The exhibit in the AMNH where turtles are placed in a lineage with pariasaurs and publications such as Nat Geo who lable them as parareptiles are mistaken. The true use (if any) for the term "parareptile" should be limited to basal anapsids such as mesosaurus. Am i in the ballpark here? Then my only confusion is What then is a pariasaur?
lenny on the other hand thinks he's Darwin's bulldog of the 21st century. All I can say is I knew T H Huxley. T H Huxley was a friend of mine, and you sir are no T H Huxley. Im not sure bulldog-wise you're even Handsome Dan. Speaking of Dan, I havent noticed a post on PT about the death of John Ostrum one of Americas foremost paleontologists who championed the dinosaur-bird link as did Huxley (he was ridiculed for this) If Lenny were alive in the 1860's he may well have called T H a fool. Lenny, there is a place for evolutionary education on PT beyond ad hominem attacks. I venture that im not the only one who didnt know the early amniote history, and im certain im not the only one who was puzzled by the Nat geo. cladogram. On another thread since no official spokesperson is willing to define the scientific theory of intelligent design maybe we can do that for them. Katrina, can you help?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 July 2005
Brad Pitt blog · 28 July 2005
hz2 hz2 hz2 hz2 blog
ts · 29 July 2005
ts · 29 July 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 29 July 2005
ask the man he spoke with · 2 August 2005
'Willingly ignorant' scoffers of the Mega Conference
by Philip Bell, AiG--UK/Europe
2 August 2005
In the wake of the enormously successful creation conference at Liberty University, Lynchburg, USA (17--22 July), various web chat rooms have been buzzing. A number of sceptics attended the event and reported their opinions to their fraternity, mostly in the form of blogs. In one such blog, the writer had written at length about the talk that I gave on the first main conference day, 'Apemen, "missing links" and the Bible'.1 Following my talk, he was the last in a line of people who waited to question me--a young man, polite but rather full of himself and his own opinions. We had a cordial discussion and I realised that he was probably an evolutionist, although he kept his real motives under wraps.
On reading his blog material about myself and other creationists, it quickly became clear that this polite exterior had been a sham--on one of his blogs, following a talk by Dr. Werner Gitt, he describes how he really felt when answering a lady who dared to question his knowledge of biology:
'I resisted the temptation to damage her physically in some way. I likewise resisted the temptation to unleash upon her a barrage of profanity so disgusting it would have made her ears melt right off her head. All I did was approach her casually, and in my most winning and charming manner (which is very winning and very charming, if I do say so myself) say, "Really, how so?"'2
That's hardly a confession that most people would be proud of! So, far from some sort of impartial appraisal of the creationist speakers, his intention from the outset was clearly to paint them in as bad a light as he possibly could.
As I discovered on reading his report of my talk and our conversation, he was certainly not above distorting or misreporting the facts to make his points! First off, I was rather amused that he described me as having an Australian accent--seemingly he hadn't even bothered to check what country I was from. But there were other points in his blog which seemed to show a wilful misrepresentation of the facts.
He commented:
'Bell closed his talk with a truly bizarre statement. He summarized the fossil evidence as follows: There are thousands of hominid fossils, a statement he backed up by citing the Catalog of Fossil Hominids from the British Museum of Natural History. Then he said there are hundreds of human fossils. And there are numerous extinct ape fossils. But nothing in between!'
In our discussion, I had reiterated to him what I had explicitly stated on one of my slides, that the human fossils to which I referred included the several hundred known Neandertal and Homo erectus fossils (themselves 'hominids'). Of the thousands of catalogued fossils, most of them are not considered helpful to the evolutionary story (hence the oft-repeated evolutionist canards like 'all the fossils will fit into the boot (trunk) of a car' or 'onto a snooker table', etc.). All the non-Homo fossils that I covered in my talk are extinct apes, as even most evolutionists have conceded--albeit that they argue among themselves as to which of these was on the illustrious line leading to humans. Most of the Homo fossils (with the notable exception of Homo habilis) are agreed by the majority of creationists to be extinct humans. His blog comments here, as elsewhere, were designed to imply that I and other creationist speakers didn't even understand the basics of our talk topics. For instance, he wrote:
'So I tried again and asked, "But the issue is what did the British museum have in mind when they used the term hominid in their catalog? You offered hominid fossils as something separate from ape and human fossils. So what are they?" We were off to the races again.'
Yet at no point did I offer hominid as separate from ape or human, for the very definition includes humans, today's apes and all those alleged 'ape-men' transitions.
Still on the conversation with me, this blogger says:
'I pointed out that perhaps [Ken] Ham should have called the book [The Lie: Evolution] The Falsehood: Evolution but that a lie implies deliberate deceit. He answered that Satan was the deceiver. I said "So you're telling me that if I read this book carefully I won't find any implication that scientists are being deliberately dishonest?" He avoided the question.'
I did not avoid any question that this person asked me but I did make it clear to him that not all evolutionists and teachers are knowingly telling lies (far from it) as many simply believe, by default, this prevalent ideology that so saturates our culture via the education system and the media. However, I pointed out that they are, nevertheless, still guilty of perpetrating things that are false and therefore misleading many people--and that's a serious matter.
On this point, he wrote:
'Another thing that came up was the distinction between what professional evolutionary biologists do and what certain popularizers say. He replied, gesturing at the remnants of the audience who were still milling around, that all most of these folks ever hear about evolution is what's in the popular literature. I had to stifle a laugh again, because his tone and facial expression achieved a level of condescension that would be termed the height of snobbery if someone on my side of this managed to achieve it. Anyway, he said that popularizers are giving an incorrect impression of the evidence for evolution and that was what he was trying to correct in his talk.'
I was not in the least condescending as I well knew that the audiences at the Mega Conference included a large number of well-educated and informed creationists--exactly the opposite of what he was implying! But, the truth is that creationists do have to counter the stuff that is taught at both the technical level (which few laypeople read) and the popular level. My talk was in the 'basic track' of the conference and so was pitched to the intelligent layperson accordingly. Had he read the program like everyone else attending the conference, he would have known this; or perhaps he knowingly omitted this rather significant fact from his review. He went on:
'I replied that it is certainly true that occasionally a Gould or a Dawkins might be a little less precise than they ought to be in some paragraph or other. But the fact is a conference like this one isn't devoted to making science popularization more precise. It is devoted to convincing people that evolution is total nonsense, and that people would be foolish to believe it. If that is the goal, then you should really have more than a popular level understanding of the subject.'
He certainly did not say the last two sentences to me and has added these to his blog to embellish himself as the bold refuter of creationist nonsense. Had he bothered to find out, he would have discovered that my knowledge of the subject matter went way beyond what I had covered in my presentation--as I have no doubt is true of all the speakers at the conference. But his statement reveals that his real motive--as with so many like him--is to paint creation-believing scientists as those who are prepared to use any means--fair or foul--to turn people against evolution. The implication is that we can only make our case by dealing with our subject matter superficially, and that detailed understanding would somehow reveal how watertight evolutionary theory is!
Ironically, he later contradicts himself:
'Bell was not amused, and responded that the professionals don't seem to worry too much about the misconceptions the popularizers are perpetuating. I replied that they have more important things to worry about, and they figure that such inaccuracies as there are in the popularizations pale in comaprison [sic] to the nonsense that comes out of AiG.'
I did remark as his first sentence indicates, but he never said that AiG produced nonsense--he kept his real feelings hidden, as I said, and has merely added this to make it sound like he was being totally 'up front' and bold in his discussion with me.
Finally, it was 'enlightening' for me to read him say:
'We went on for quite a while, discussing the Cambrain [sic] explosion and the growth of genetic information and the like. In every case his answers suggested to me that he just didn't know what he was talking about.'
At this point in our conversation, I recall that he spoke with such 'authority' and superciliousness about matters that I had been studying for over twenty years since leaving school, that I pointedly asked him about his own background, to which he replied that he was a mathematician.3 Like so many, this opinionated young man has quite convinced himself that he must know more than anybody who is stupid enough to be a creationist, no matter what their scientific credentials or experience!
Well did the apostle Peter (2 Peter 3:5, 6) write of such scoffers: For this they willfully forget
[willingly are ignorant of; KJV]: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.
' The tragedy is that these issues are not esoteric matters with little relevance to the real world, for humanistic and evolutionary philosophies blind many to the true gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bible is clear that all people will be required to account for their lives at the final consummation of all things (2 Peter 3:7): 'But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
' In light of the future resurrection of all people--to eternal life or eternal punishment--the apostle Paul said (Acts 24:16), 'This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men.
'
References and notes
, 28 July, 2005. Return to text.
, 28 July, 2005. Return to text.
He is actually an assistant professor of mathematics at James Madison University, Virginia. Return to text.
SteveF · 2 August 2005
Well, that was rather incoherent. I particularly like the following appeal to authority, r.e. the Cambrian explosion:
"At this point in our conversation, I recall that he spoke with such 'authority' and superciliousness about matters that I had been studying for over twenty years since leaving school, that I pointedly asked him about his own background, to which he replied that he was a mathematician.3 Like so many, this opinionated young man has quite convinced himself that he must know more than anybody who is stupid enough to be a creationist, no matter what their scientific credentials or experience!"
Now check out Mr Bell's background:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=19
A little bit of cancer research and 'study' for 20 years after school makes an expert on the Cambrian explosion? Hmm. A quick bit of searching suggests that he was probably a lab assistant and managed to get his name on a few papers here and there (such as):
NEOPTOLEMOS JP, CLAYTON H, NICHOLSON M, OLLERENSHAW J, JOHNSON B, MASON J, MANSON K, JAMES R, BELL P. (1988) THE INFLUENCE OF DIETARY-FAT ON THE FATTY-ACID PROFILE OF RED BLOOD-CELLS (RBC) AND ADIPOSE-TISSUE IN PATIENTS WITH COLORECTAL-CANCER (CRC. BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 58 (4): 538-538.