Hunter vs. Hunt on Turf-13

You might want to edit this, Nick: "PTer Art Hunter."

Thanks, got it.

A simple way to state the problem with Cornelius Hunter's argument is that he is arguing that a Designer could do anything, so a Designer cannot be refuted by any observation. He is happy to have thereby refuted all the people who point out bad design.

But he doesn't get it that what he has just done is to admit that the hypothesis of a Designer is not science, as it predicts every possible result. If you predict every possible outcome, the ones that are seen and the ones that are not, then you have not predicted anything!

Unless you have some information about the Designer's intentions, her powers, how frequently she acts, and where, and on which organisms and which phenotypes, you ain't got nothin', no scientific hypothesis at all.

The only good thing about Hunter's argument is that it sabotages the ID movements attempts to pretend that they are not religious. By claiming that arguments against design are theological arguments Hunter admits that he is only considering Gods as possible designers. And every time an IDer uses Hunter's argument they implicitly admit that they, too, follow ID for religious and not for scientific reasons.

Nick,

Have you invited Cornelius to comment on this thread?

Art has been poking the Ider's at UD about T-URF13 for some time. Choosing Hunter as their official champion for the response is like bringing a rubber chicken to a cockfight.

Dave Wisker said: Art has been poking the Ider's at UD about T-URF13 for some time. Choosing Hunter as their official champion for the response is like bringing a rubber chicken to a cockfight.

...young-earth creationist Cornelius Hunter...

— Nick Matzke

Steve P. said: Nick, Have you invited Cornelius to comment on this thread?

I heard Hunter at Cornell in 2006 where he appeared to be an OEC (although possibly a crypto-OEC/"appearance of age" type).
Have his years at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles changed his mind?

"...most recently ID leader Stephen Meyer in his Signature in the Cell claim can never, ever, ever happen, because the improbabilities are so huge, and because “intelligence” is the only possible explanation for new information."

This seems to me to be the best strategy to expose the foolishness of the Hunter argument. Let the ID proponents make the predictions. Since they are almost universally ignorant of every finding in modern biology, they will inevitable claim that something that has already been observed is impossible or that something that will soon be discovered is impossible. Of course, they will only make negative claims about the potential of evolution to do this or that, but if they claim that GODDIDIT then they will have to explain exactly why she did it this way and no other.

SINE insertions and animal mitochondrial gene order are my favorite examples of this. They make perfect sense from an evolutionary viewpoint and no sense whatsoever using any kind of GODDIDIT or "common design" approach.

When the evidence is pointed out to them, don't just let them get away with hand waving, demand an explanation. If they won't accept the evolutionary scenario, demand an alternative. Force them to find a better explanation for ALL of the observed evidence. At least that way, anyone who is intellectually honest will easily see that they got nothin.

Our good friend Steve P. is an excellent example. On another thread, he claimed that endosymbiosis was impossible. When asked to explain the genetic similarity between animal mitochondrial DNA and purple bacteria DNA he replied that he had no idea, but still insisted that endosymbiosis could not possibly happen! He then went on to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the terms competition and selection. Well, he already made a claim and now he is going to have to come up with an explanation for the evidence. We'll be waiting.

JohnK said: I heard Hunter at Cornell in 2006 where he appeared to be an OEC (although possibly a crypto-OEC/"appearance of age" type). Have his years at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles changed his mind?

When the evidence is pointed out to them, don’t just let them get away with hand waving, demand an explanation. If they won’t accept the evolutionary scenario, demand an alternative.

— DS

Frank wrote:

"...at least he gave some hint of an alternatve. Specifically he admitted agreeing with Behe that, whatever else happened, it happened “in vivo” (via common descent) and over the course of billions, not thousands, of years."

Well he is goiing to have to do better than that. Remember, he is the one who did not accept our pathetic level of detail, He is the one who demanded a step by step description.

Exactly how, when and why did God do this? Why did she make it look exactly like it would have if endosymbiosis was indeed responsible? Why all the evidence, some of it relating to arbitrary characteristics, that mitochondria are prokaryotic in nature? Was God not smart enough to create a mitochondria from scratch? This guy has a lot of splainin to do. Of course, I'm not optimistic, given the level of his understanding of basic biological concepts,

Well he is goiing to have to do better than that. Remember, he is the one who did not accept our pathetic level of detail, He is the one who demanded a step by step description.

— DS

Hunter deduces, completely out of thin air, that an elaborate T-urf13-designing mechanism must exist in the corn genome (presumably he thinks this design mechanism was intelligently designed into corn).

DS said: Let the ID proponents make the predictions. Since they are almost universally ignorant of every finding in modern biology, they will inevitable claim that something that has already been observed is impossible or that something that will soon be discovered is impossible.

DS said: Steve P. on another thread claimed that endosymbiosis was impossible.

Re. Corny ever showing up here to discuss his claims -- Corny's been a bit gunshy ever since getting his own thread once
at AtBC. It didn't work out well for him.

Too bad he doesn't like making appearances any more, because -- as others also note -- he's transparently inane and a good stooge to poke at. I also get the impression he's now a quasi-old-earther (kinda like Sanford) depending on mood, wind direction, etc.

Hunter deduces, completely out of thin air, that an elaborate T-urf13-designing mechanism must exist in the corn genome

Ah yes, the ol' frontloading hypothesis. I like to call it the Telic Thoughts ace-in-the-hole "thinking evangelical's" Conjecture. Telic Thoughts, Uncommon Descent, "thinking evangelicals", YEC, OEC... all creationist peas in a pod.

If goddidit is the explanation for this new protein, then he must be one sick bastard. T-URF13 is a receptor for a fungal toxin that decimated the maize crop in the US in the 1970's.

386sx said: Ah yes, the ol' frontloading hypothesis. I like to call it the Telic Thoughts ace-in-the-hole "thinking evangelical's" Conjecture. Telic Thoughts, Uncommon Descent, "thinking evangelicals", YEC, OEC... all creationist peas in a pod.

What is the ID explanation for any particular fossil horse species? Did the designer simply drop a couple of them (or a herd of them) into existence? Where they foals who never had a dam? Or adults who had never been foals? I'd love to hear an ID explanation.

Frank J said: As silly as the "frontloading hypothesis" is - even Behe abandoned it when a critic showed him how easy it would be to support - it is the only thing any DI person came up with in 20 years of trying. And even if there was something to it, it would be devastating news to YEC and OEC Biblical literalists.

Scientific endeavors to better understand cybernetic reality in nature are confronted with the uneasy suggestion of its transcendence over the physicality it controls.

Joe Felsenstein said: A simple way to state the problem with Cornelius Hunter's argument is that he is arguing that a Designer could do anything, so a Designer cannot be refuted by any observation. He is happy to have thereby refuted all the people who point out bad design. But he doesn't get it that what he has just done is to admit that the hypothesis of a Designer is not science, as it predicts every possible result. If you predict every possible outcome, the ones that are seen and the ones that are not, then you have not predicted anything! Unless you have some information about the Designer's intentions, her powers, how frequently she acts, and where, and on which organisms and which phenotypes, you ain't got nothin', no scientific hypothesis at all.

I am always skeptical when a fellow “Darwinist” says that any anti-evolution activist (at least those not associated with “classic” YEC outfits like ICR, AIG) “is” a YEC. All but the “classic” OECs like Hugh Ross promote YEC via the big tent strategy, but few if any try to support it. Your description of Hunter reminds me of Paul Nelson. Someone suggested that he might be an Omphalos creationist. I asked Nelson to confirm or deny that during one of his rare visits here, and he simply evaded the question.

Maybe it is time to have a runoff to determine who is right.

— Mike Elzinga

Philip Bruce Heywood’s “Superconduction plus the Earth, Moon, Sun gravitational system imparting intelligence to electrons.”

— Mike Elzinga

I strongly suspect that they attack the theory of evolution because they perceive it as the “weakest link” of skeptical, rational science - not because of actual weaknesses in the theory, but because the relationship of all life, and of all humans to each other and to close primate relatives, pushes emotional buttons for some people.

— harold

Robert Byers said:

Joe Felsenstein said: A simple way to state the problem with Cornelius Hunter's argument is that he is arguing that a Designer could do anything, so a Designer cannot be refuted by any observation. ...

The error here is that the object in origin subjects is not to do science but to discovers the origins of things. I don't believe science ever , or much, is used in origin subjects yet even if it was it would still just be a particular type of investigation process. Having a creator as a hypothesis is a excellent starting point for the universe. It is not that any outcome is possible but that the laws of nature are so complex any outcome we see can be accounted for.

Karen S. said: What is the ID explanation for any particular fossil horse species? Did the designer simply drop a couple of them (or a herd of them) into existence? Where they foals who never had a dam? Or adults who had never been foals? I'd love to hear an ID explanation.

I agree that the “coming from monkeys” is more offensive to the rank and file than the “randomness” of mutations and the “cruelty” of natural selection that the activists obsess over.

Yet they are not at all bothered by people like Behe who plainly concede common descent or people like Dembski who don’t rule it out. The ones who are offended are the YEC leaders, particularly the AIG folk. I could be wrong, but that makes me suspect that, in a world where “Darwinism” is defeated (which I can’t imagine outside of a totalitarian theocracy) the “don’t ask, don’t tell” big tent would prevail. IOW, it would be OK if you accept common descent as long as you say the politically correct thing - that God intervened at some point. And as long as you don’t challenge anyone who insists that “kinds” were created independently from nonliving matter, and/or disagree on when key events occurred.

Totally agreed with Frank J on this - keep pushing them for evidence. There are thousands of things IDers could be doing to support their case - sure, they push out the odd program now and again, but that's not good enough. Where's the Java applet where I can build myself a model organism and have its complex, specified information calculated for me? Where's the Irreducible Complexity tester, where a program pulls apart a structure a piece at a time and calculates the functional loss?

We write programs to demonstrate evolution all the time. Oddly enough, every program the ID side seems to write also revolves around evolution as well! Guys, your job isn't to disprove evolution. That's ours. Your job is to make a testable version of ID and disprove that.

Venus Mousetrap said: We write programs to demonstrate evolution all the time. Oddly enough, every program the ID side seems to write also revolves around evolution as well! Guys, your job isn't to disprove evolution. That's ours. Your job is to make a testable version of ID and disprove that.

Stanton said: Please remember that we're dealing with a movement that has spent over a million dollars every year for the past 20 to 30 years, and has yet to cough up a relevant scientific document.

Totally agreed with Frank J on this - keep pushing them for evidence.

— Venus Mousetrap

Oddly enough, every program the ID side seems to write also revolves around evolution as well! Guys, your job isn’t to disprove evolution. That's ours.

— Venus Mousetrap

Goddidit is a great, all purpose non-explanation.

So is Elvesdidit.

UFO Aliensdidit.

Zeusdidit.

Saurondidit.

Gremlinsdidit.

All supernatural explanations are equally valid and equally likely. I prefer fairiesdidit myself. Tinkerbell really needed the job.

Dan: You’re being modest. The Discovery Institute alone spent $4,334,124 in 2007. The Institute for Creation Research spent $7,057,626.

raven said:

Dan: You’re being modest. The Discovery Institute alone spent $4,334,124 in 2007. The Institute for Creation Research spent $7,057,626.

Good Cthulhu. That is $11 million right there. The big one is probably Ham's creation themepark. Making a wild estimate, the various creationist propaganda organizations probably spend between $20 and $50 million/year in the USA. It all seems to be spent on propaganda attacking science. The amount spent on research on ID or creationism seems to run around zero.

raven said: All supernatural explanations are equally valid and equally likely. I prefer fairiesdidit myself. Tinkerbell really needed the job.

harold said: We'll never know. However, I suspect that you are partly right about how such a theocracy would behave some of the time, but that at other times, there would be demands for purity and purges of heretics. I simply base this on the fact that many ideology-based authoritarian systems have been characterized by periodic purges of the impure.

Dan said:

Stanton said: Please remember that we're dealing with a movement that has spent over a million dollars every year for the past 20 to 30 years, and has yet to cough up a relevant scientific document.

You're being modest. The Discovery Institute alone spent $4,334,124 in 2007. (Compensation of President Bruce Chapman was $167,486.)

Frank J said:

Steve P. said: Nick, Have you invited Cornelius to comment on this thread?

All anti-evolution activists are cordially invited to every thread. But with rare exceptions they prefer to stay on sites where they can control the comments. I wonder why? ;-) Speaking of threads, on the "7th day Adventist" one you said that you were not dodging my question. I repeated it for you there yesterday morning, but I don't see a reply. You may answer it here if that thread is closed.

Steve P. said: FrankJ, What is there to dodge? Darwinism is king of the hill. Why would I want to engage YEC or OEC? Darwinism being at the top is the logical target, no?

Frank J said:

Steve P. said: Nick, Have you invited Cornelius to comment on this thread?

All anti-evolution activists are cordially invited to every thread. But with rare exceptions they prefer to stay on sites where they can control the comments. I wonder why? ;-) Speaking of threads, on the "7th day Adventist" one you said that you were not dodging my question. I repeated it for you there yesterday morning, but I don't see a reply. You may answer it here if that thread is closed.

Steve P. said: FrankJ, What is there to dodge? Darwinism is king of the hill. Why would I want to engage YEC or OEC? Darwinism being at the top is the logical target, no?

Frank J said:

Steve P. said: Nick, Have you invited Cornelius to comment on this thread?

All anti-evolution activists are cordially invited to every thread. But with rare exceptions they prefer to stay on sites where they can control the comments. I wonder why? ;-) Speaking of threads, on the "7th day Adventist" one you said that you were not dodging my question. I repeated it for you there yesterday morning, but I don't see a reply. You may answer it here if that thread is closed.

Steve P, thank you for publicly admitting that every single word out of your vile mouth is pure, unadulterated BULLSHIT that even YOU don’t really believe. Now kindly go fuck yourself. You’ve made it painfully clear that you will never have anything to contribute to an honest discussion, as the very concept of honesty is alien to you.

If you aren’t dishonest or not ignorant as you claimed in that other thread, then you would have already known that biologists do not use “Darwinism” to refer to the (Modern) Theory of Evolution. “Darwinism,” as the term is used by you and other evolution-deniers and anti-science proponents, is an attempt to mislabel Biology as some sort of rival cult.

FrankJ, What is there to dodge? Darwinism is king of the hill. Why would I want to engage YEC or OEC? Darwinism being at the top is the logical target, no?

— Steve P.

As I’ve said many times, the moment the theocrats win, blood will flow in the aisles and under the pews in the theological cleansing that will ensue.

— RBH

The usual word-games. I once had an eighth-grader who argued that "acceleration" meant "to go faster", and therefore my definition of the meaning of it as used in Newtonian mechanics (change in motion) was wrong. And therefore Newton was wrong, as any fule know.

However, she knew perfectly well why she was arguing that. It was to waste time and get my goat, because she wanted to draw attention to herself and to make malicious mischief. I wonder what motivation Steve thinks he has?

I wonder what motivation Steve thinks he has?

— Dave Luckett

Pardon the hasty "cdesign promonetsists" editing, but "they get they are" was "they get to be" and I wanted to change it to "they are."

Oy, make that "proponentsists."

RBH said: As I've said many times, the moment the theocrats win, blood will flow in the aisles and under the pews in the theological cleansing that will ensue.

Wrong Stanton, Darwin’s ideas do not = evolution. Yet, when you talk about biological development, you use the word evolution to mean what Darwin meant it to mean.

Do you know the original meaning of evolution? Look it up in the dictionary. It says “An unfolding; a rolling out”. Is that what you mean when you say evolution? I think not.

No, what you mean to say is evolution is a change in the allele frequency of a population over time.

And you also mean it to say that this change in the allele frequency applies to current as well as historical change. That is the modern synthesis take.

TMS has co-opted the word evolution to mean what it wants it to mean. So the word Darwinism is a way to point out this co-option of the original meaning of the word evolution.

Why doesn’t TMS use a unique word to differentiate itself from the original meaning of the word, which is in fact more in line with ID concepts of front-loaded expressed information, rather than unilaterally changing the original meaning of the word evolution?

I once had an eighth-grader who argued that “acceleration” meant “to go faster”, and therefore my definition of the meaning of it as used in Newtonian mechanics (change in motion) was wrong.

Darwinism is king of the hill. Why would I want to engage YEC or OEC?

Frank J said: So all that's left is that he's angry at real scientists because they get they are "king of the hill." How can they not be when the "pseudos" don't even try?

I suspect that the psychiatric diagnosis would be some type of narcissism disorder along with a sadistic streak that enjoys harassing and controlling others.

It appears that T-urf13 is a de novo gene, having been constructed mostly from two segments in or around a ribosomal RNA gene. It is intriguing that segments associated with an RNA gene would combine to form a protein-coding gene. It is another sign of the fascinating re-use and mixing and matching capabilities that seem to be built into the cell’s design.

Taunting is a big part of getting attention; as some “Christians” have known since at least the time of Duane Gish.

— Mike Elzinga

Steve P. said: So much mouth, phantom. do u feel betta now? Take a pill and chill.

Steve P, thank you for publicly admitting that every single word out of your vile mouth is pure, unadulterated BULLSHIT that even YOU don’t really believe. Now kindly go fuck yourself. You’ve made it painfully clear that you will never have anything to contribute to an honest discussion, as the very concept of honesty is alien to you.

Frank J said: But like FL he made it clear that he'll make excuses for anyone who bad-mouths "Darwinism." If only most nonscientists can see how pathetic that is.

Three points I’d like to make. First, Mr. Hunter seems to have hit the nail on the head, but missed the point entirely. The nail: yes indeed, re-use and mixing and matching capabilities are built into the cell’s “design”. The point: evolution “built” those capabilities into the cell. We would not be here today to talk about it if it hadn’t happened. One of the early things that was needed in order for a “complex” organism to exist and survive/adapt was a mechanism by which that organism could evolve. It needed to evolve evolvability. That evolvability is what we see today, and what “we” just take for granted.

Second, Mr. Hunter seems to have missed the point that this wasn’t exactly “random” evolution. In this particular case, it was highly directed artificial selection, which had an accidentally negative side effect. Even when this was pointed out to him in the very first comment, it doesn’t seem to have registered with him.

Third, I was always bothered by examples of DNA recombination like those shown in diagrams by Mr. Hunt. How could such widely separated pieces of DNA interact at all, let alone successfully? Then I recently read in some popular magazine about how DNA is actually processed in the cell. It isn’t just a linear strand of DNA as is typically pictured. To fit inside the cell at all (let alone the nucleus), it is wound and folded in on itself thousands of times. If I understood the article correctly, the folding is often well defined, or at least repeatable. This folding actually allows “distant” parts of the DNA to interact in a repeatable fashion. Once you think about it, it’s obvious that the DNA has to be folded up, but the implications of that weren’t “obvious.

Mike Elzinga said: It seems evident as you already noted that there is considerable anger behind the taunting of this current group of trolls.

stevaroni said: I know not why, but there does seem to suddenly be a pretty good crop of trolls this season. And at leas some of them seem more skilled at word-game evasion than the typical newbie troll...I wonder if they're working from the same script? (either that, or the genus trollius vulgaris might actually be evolving)

Paul Burnett said: Some of them are evolving their modus operandi - at least the ones who are enrolled in Billy Dembski's classes (http://www.designinference.com/teaching/teaching.htm) where the assignments include "...provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites..." I read somewhere (possibly at Uncommon Descent) that the poor dupes were comparing notes to improve their attacks on the evilutionists.

Mike Elzinga said: We have yet to see any of the pseudo-science of David L. Abel’s “transcendent cybernetic reality” brought up overtly. I hear it is the hot new “deep” philosophy over at UD. I wonder if this is because Dembski doesn’t approve.

harold said: I consider human breeding to be as "natural" as any other type of natural selection. Humans are natural. Many selective pressures are probably related to other animals in the environment. In this case, humans selected for the phenotype, and had no idea what was going on in the genome until later.

Scott said:

harold said: I consider human breeding to be as "natural" as any other type of natural selection. Humans are natural. Many selective pressures are probably related to other animals in the environment. In this case, humans selected for the phenotype, and had no idea what was going on in the genome until later.

I have no argument with that. From the point of view of the maize, it couldn't tell the difference. The only points about the "artificial" selection is that it most likely compressed the time frame in which a novel protein could have developed and been selected for relative to a "natural" process in the wild, and the selection was for a feature (male sterility, if I understand the blog entry correctly) that would likely never be selected for in the wild.

I imagine that the short time frame probably also contributed to the susceptibility to the fungus. Had it been truly "natural" selection, there would probably have been time for that particular protein to be selected against because of the fungal infestation.

Also, while I wouldn't make such an argument myself, it is amusing that Mr. Hunter failed to capitalize on the potential confusion of "natural" vs "artificial" selection to argue that the "novel" protein was not the result of "natural" selection, but rather of "intelligent" intervention, and could not therefore be used as evidence for the ability of "undirected" "Darwinism" to create novel features.

Dan said:

raven said:

Dan: You’re being modest. The Discovery Institute alone spent $4,334,124 in 2007. The Institute for Creation Research spent $7,057,626.

Good Cthulhu. That is $11 million right there. The big one is probably Ham's creation themepark. Making a wild estimate, the various creationist propaganda organizations probably spend between $20 and $50 million/year in the USA. It all seems to be spent on propaganda attacking science. The amount spent on research on ID or creationism seems to run around zero.

Why didn't I think of that? Answers in Genesis spent $16,956,626 ... of which nearly 1% ($162,188) went straight into Ken Ham's pocket. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5214 [By contrast, the US Federal Government spent $2,983 billion in 2008, and the President's salary was $400,000 or 0.000013%] So you see, we're already up to $28 million a year listing just three organizations.

And at leas some of them seem more skilled at word-game evasion than the typical newbie troll, which often makes the mistake of actually defining an alternate scenario instead of simply reflexively criticizing Darwin as a proxy to attack all of evolutionary science. I wonder if they’re working from the same script? (either that, or the genus trollius vulgaris might actually be evolving)

— stevaroni

Nothing is preventing them from pooling their resources, setting up a research facility and hire some good scientists to do some proper ID research. Except the risk of having to admit the failure of creationism.

— Rolf Aalberg

Nothing is preventing them from pooling their resources, setting up a research facility and hire some good scientists to do some proper ID research.

raven said: Earlier on this thread, we calculated that the creos are spending around $50 million/year just attacking evolution and science. That would provide for a lot of scientific research. Which they never bother to do. I suspect deep down at the level where their rational processes are buried, they know they are wrong.

That would provide for a lot of scientific research. Which they never bother to do.

— raven

Mike Elzinga said: Given what we know about (Creationists') scientific misconceptions, most of that money would go toward repairing the labs and buildings they destroyed because of their incompetent fumbling.

Stanton said:

Mike Elzinga said: Given what we know about (Creationists') scientific misconceptions, most of that money would go toward repairing the labs and buildings they destroyed because of their incompetent fumbling.

They would first need to spend money on building laboratories: one can not spend money on repairing things that have not been built yet.

Mike Elzinga said:

Stanton said:

Mike Elzinga said: Given what we know about (Creationists') scientific misconceptions, most of that money would go toward repairing the labs and buildings they destroyed because of their incompetent fumbling.

They would first need to spend money on building laboratories: one can not spend money on repairing things that have not been built yet.

I guess my attempts at humor come off a bit lame. Sorry.

Mike Elzinga said: Given what we know about their scientific misconceptions, most of that money would go toward repairing the labs and buildings they destroyed because of their incompetent fumbling.

stevaroni said:

Mike Elzinga said: Given what we know about their scientific misconceptions, most of that money would go toward repairing the labs and buildings they destroyed because of their incompetent fumbling.

Exploding irony meters can cause a lot of damage.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Robert Byers said:

Joe Felsenstein said: A simple way to state the problem with Cornelius Hunter's argument is that he is arguing that a Designer could do anything, so a Designer cannot be refuted by any observation. ...

The error here is that the object in origin subjects is not to do science but to discovers the origins of things. I don't believe science ever , or much, is used in origin subjects yet even if it was it would still just be a particular type of investigation process. Having a creator as a hypothesis is a excellent starting point for the universe. It is not that any outcome is possible but that the laws of nature are so complex any outcome we see can be accounted for.

Oh goody. So he is saying that there is no point in making scientific arguments then! Byers has a nice irrefutable argument that explains everything that is observed, but it also explains everything that isn't observed, and thus explains nothing. No point arguing with him (but we already knew that).

We are talking here about past and gone events. Since our foundation is a creator and a written account then we are being logical about options from unnatural means.

— Robert Byers

Robert Byers -

I think Frank J has a point.

Under Christian theology, basically, either - 1) everyone who does not accept strict YEC is damned (some sects), or 2) those who accept Jesus as their savior are saved, despite different interpretations of Genesis.

If it is the former, then everyone who accepts mainstream science is damned, but so is every ID/creationist who does not outright preach YEC. (And those who may "secretly" believe it but pretend not to are damned for bearing false witness.)

If it is the latter, then "OEC" is no problem, but neither is the theory of evolution.

Either way, there is no logical reason for sincere Christians to be especially concerned with the theory of evolution. Either everything that deviates from YEC, including any expression of "ID" that deviates from YEC, and all of science, must be condemned, or none of it needs to be condemned.

If it is the former, then everyone who accepts mainstream science is damned, but so is every ID/creationist who does not outright preach YEC.

— harold

Scott said:
"One of the early things that was needed in order for a “complex” organism to exist and survive/adapt was a mechanism by which that organism could evolve. It needed to evolve evolvability. That evolvability is what we see today, and what “we” just take for granted."

I am a little unclear on how one "evolves evolvability", could anyone explain that to me? I would appreciate it.

Scott said: “One of the early things that was needed in order for a “complex” organism to exist and survive/adapt was a mechanism by which that organism could evolve. It needed to evolve evolvability. That evolvability is what we see today, and what “we” just take for granted.”

Robert Byers said: Creationism always addresses her audience with living processes and no magic. Yet there is a option for sticky points.

harold said: Undereductated atheist -

Scott said: “One of the early things that was needed in order for a “complex” organism to exist and survive/adapt was a mechanism by which that organism could evolve. It needed to evolve evolvability. That evolvability is what we see today, and what “we” just take for granted.”

Two part answer here - 1) I think all that Scott was saying here was that if life did not evolve, early life would not have given rise to modern life. Evolution is not strictly "directional". So-called "complex" attributes can be selected against. Intestinal parasites have lost many traits that ancestor free-living species had. Prokaryotic genomes are strictly limited in size due to overall cellular architecture, and there is a limit on how large and complex a prokaryotic genome can become. Although species with larger brains exist now than in the past, there is no particular reason to suggest that multicellular organisms are necessarily more "complex" than they were in the dinosaur epochs, overall. Having said that, and noting that the origin of cellular life is not something that the theory of evolution deals with, it's essentially certain that unicellular life came first, and multicellularity evolved later. If we were to define the "complexity" of the biomass as something like the number of cells present in the adult form of the largest multicellular organism existent, or some such thing, we would probably see an S-shaped curve, with life starting and remaining "simple" for a long time, then a rapid increase in the maximum level of "complexity", followed by a flattening or reduced level of increase in "complexity". It's not clear whether modern life under current environmental conditions is overall evolving to have greater "complexity" - nor even clear how to measure such a thing - but certainly some life had to evolve in a direction of much greater size and complexity at various times in the past. So early organisms had to be able to evolve, or "complex" organisms like us would not be around to talk about it. 2) "Evolving evolvability" is a term that is sometimes used to refer to a different, highly specific situation. In some rapidly changing niches, certain very fertile organisms actually seem to have evolved less strict DNA repair mechanisms and a few other things that result in a slightly higher percentage of mutant alleles, on average, in a typical individual offspring. Apparently, the potential disadvantages of expressed mutations (changes that do anything from make the phenotype outright non-viable to make it subtly less adapted) may be outweighed by the advantage of producing phenotypically slightly more diverse offspring, in these particular unusual organism/environment situations.

uneducated atheist -

You are extremely welcome.

I find life and the evolution of life to be amazingly interesting.

harold said: 2) "Evolving evolvability" is a term that is sometimes used to refer to a different, highly specific situation. In some rapidly changing niches, certain very fertile organisms actually seem to have evolved less strict DNA repair mechanisms and a few other things that result in a slightly higher percentage of mutant alleles, on average, in a typical individual offspring.

Dave Lovell -

Interesting thought.

DNA repair mechanisms operate mainly at the level of single cells.

The parameters that determine the appropriate quantitative level of expression would basically be frequency of cell division, level of detectable mutation activity, and presumably to some extent, the DNA content of the cell.

An adult shrew brain cell presumably doesn't divide much at all, cells that maintain the whale gastrointestinal epithelia (or shrew GI epithelia) would divide a lot. Although quiescent DNA can and does mutate, mutations are much more common in the context of DNA replication.

Most of the regulation of these processes takes place at the level of the individual cell. To a large degree, that cell may not need to "know" if it is part of a shrew, whale, oak tree, or athlete's foot fungus colony.

Many DNA repair mechanisms are extremely ancient, conserved even between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

The Wikipedia article is pretty good. References 40 and 42 seem to especially deal with this aspect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dna_repair

David Lovell -

I forgot to note the whales and shrews are actually pretty close relatives (placental mammals), within the context of the biomass as a whole.

But what no one can do - and the activists are quite aware of it - is assemble all the multiple lines of independent evidence in context and show it to converge on a better explanation.

Robert Byers said: We are talking here about past and gone events.

To the idiot creationist challenge “Where you there?” I always reply. “Yes, I am here. And evolution is going on all around me.”

Karen S. said:

To the idiot creationist challenge “Where you there?” I always reply. “Yes, I am here. And evolution is going on all around me.”

Not only that, but the evidence is here.

I have been the object of one of Hunter's barbs (for my criticizing his vacuous discussion of biogeography in a Talk Reason/Panda's Thumb posting on Ann Coulter a few years back)so felt honored when he used exactly the same line of reasoning (God wouldn't do it that way reasoning can't be valid) against Jerry Coyne's recent book daring to mention the relevance of biogeography in evolutionary reasoning.

Anyway, I have no evidence so far that Hunter is anything other than a "I don't really bother about chronology" IDer rather than an explicit YEC guy. What I can attest to is that he fits all the hallmarks of the "tortucan mindset" (ability to not think about things that he doesn't want to think about) that I define in a lecture I gave last October for the Kennewick WA Freethought Society (a friend recorded it and posted it on YouTube for those curious about it ... just Google "Downard Tortucan Traps" and the link should pop up).

undereducated atheist said: I am a little unclear on how one "evolves evolvability", could anyone explain that to me? I would appreciate it.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Robert Byers said: Creationism always addresses her audience with living processes and no magic. Yet there is a option for sticky points.

Yup. All “sticky points”, i.e., points where data disagrees with your hypothesis, are dealt with by trotting out the “option”. As I said, not a scientific hypothesis, as it can never conflict with any data, not the data that are seen, nor all the other possible data that are not the ones seen. No point arguing about this infinitely-elastic theory.

Read AIG or ICR etc and it all makes the case on present natural concepts without God intervention. Just like our bodies work on their own but our bodies can have secreat abilities to adapt to this or that. like changing colour as was needed post flood in migration.

harold said: Robert Byers - I think Frank J has a point. Under Christian theology, basically, either - 1) everyone who does not accept strict YEC is damned (some sects), or 2) those who accept Jesus as their savior are saved, despite different interpretations of Genesis. If it is the former, then everyone who accepts mainstream science is damned, but so is every ID/creationist who does not outright preach YEC. (And those who may "secretly" believe it but pretend not to are damned for bearing false witness.) If it is the latter, then "OEC" is no problem, but neither is the theory of evolution. Either way, there is no logical reason for sincere Christians to be especially concerned with the theory of evolution. Either everything that deviates from YEC, including any expression of "ID" that deviates from YEC, and all of science, must be condemned, or none of it needs to be condemned.

Scott said: IANAB, but I understand that the evolution of evolvability would include things like the emergence of sexual reproduction to recombine DNA with each new generation. If I understand correctly, things like bacteria that reproduce solely by fission can't evolve novel features fast enough to take advantage of ecological opportunities. If I understand correctly, the emergence of lateral gene transfer is an evolvability mechanism by which bacteria can overcome the limitations of simple reproduction by fission. (Or maybe lateral gene transfer came first. I don't know.) For multi-cellular organisms, you want a flexible, evolvable reproductive system, but you also want a reproductive system that is constrained in some fashion, so that the species remains "robust" enough to survive "minor" environmental upsets. And that pretty much exhausts my knowledge on the subject. :-)

I’ve never read that anyone is damned because they are not YEC but are believers in Christ. Never.

— Robert Byers

There is a reason for Christians to accept YEC. it is what the bible says. Its gods word.

— Robert Byers

Robert Byers said: I've never read that anyone is damned because they are not YEC but are believers in Christ. Never.

And what about people like Behe who accepts common descent and said that reading the Bible as a science text is “silly”?

Robert wrote:

"In reality this never comes up. All creationist work I know of, save the creation week, deals with nature in its processes. We see options for different processess but no magic really. Read AIG or ICR etc and it all makes the case on present natural concepts without God intervention. Just like our bodies work on their own but our bodies can have secreat abilities to adapt to this or that. like changing colour as was needed post flood in migration."

So tell us oracle of truth, exactly what magical "secreat abilities" do our bodies have that allow them to change color? Are you talking about sun tanning? Are you talking about black and white? Please, explain to us exactly how this works and why you think that it is so mysterious.

Why is it better to be white in some envoironments? Why is it better to be black in some environments (presumably you think that it is)? Is this something that scientists do not understand and only creationists can explain because of their "perspective" of the biblical flood?

Please, show us your superior knowledge on this topic. You did claim that creationists had more convincing arguments, remember. Funny, you haven't actually made an argument yet.

Since you have so much knowledge and wisdom, care to make any comments about T-urf 13? You know, the topic of this thread.

Robert Byers, disgrace to Canada, said: I've never read that anyone is damned because they are not YEC but are believers in Christ. Never.

Robert Byers, disgrace to Canada, said: There is a reason for Christians to accept YEC. it is what the bible says. Its gods word. where else do we know anything of God and salvation? How can one pick and choose the claims of the bible.?

Robert Byers, disgrace to Canada, said: Its important to fight for the true faith in the world of human knowledge. Its important to lead mankind, as evangelical christians did by creating the modern world, in getting right how the natural world works. Creationism is true, progressive, and mandatory for thinking people involved in the natual world.

How can one pick and choose the claims of the bible.?

Karen S. said:

How can one pick and choose the claims of the bible.?

Unless you believe that the earth doesn't move, you also do your share of picking and choosing.

Karen S. said: But to answer your question, we first have to understand the genre of the particular part of the Bible we are dealing with.

IANAB, but I understand that the evolution of evolvability would include things like the emergence of sexual reproduction to recombine DNA with each new generation.

If I understand correctly, things like bacteria that reproduce solely by fission can’t evolve novel features fast enough to take advantage of ecological opportunities. If I understand correctly, the emergence of lateral gene transfer is an evolvability mechanism by which bacteria can overcome the limitations of simple reproduction by fission.

(Or maybe lateral gene transfer came first. I don’t know.)

For multi-cellular organisms, you want a flexible, evolvable reproductive system, but you also want a reproductive system that is constrained in some fashion, so that the species remains “robust” enough to survive “minor” environmental upsets.

I’ve never read that anyone is damned because they are not YEC but are believers in Christ. Never.

There is a reason for Christians to accept YEC. it is what the bible says. Its gods word. where else do we know anything of God and salvation? How can one pick and choose the claims of the bible.? Its important to fight for the true faith in the world of human knowledge. Its important to lead mankind, as evangelical christians did by creating the modern world, in getting right how the natural world works. Creationism is true, progressive, and mandatory for thinking people involved in the natual world.

Karen S. said:

How can one pick and choose the claims of the bible.?

Unless you believe that the earth doesn't move, you also do your share of picking and choosing. But to answer your question, we first have to understand the genre of the particular part of the Bible we are dealing with. To understand more, I recommend the book Evolutionary Creation by Denis Lamoureux. You might also view the 16-part video series on youtube by Gordon Glover called Beyond the Firmament

Not being a biologist or actual scientist of any sort, I truly appreciate the clear replies given in this thread to sincere questions about genetics, gene transfer, mutation, evolvability, etc. So please correct me if my conception here is wrong:

Is it correct to think of cancer as an unwanted hazard of the ability of DNA to evolve? My thought is that DNA and its replication machinery could be "designed" much more robustly, so as to make mutations much more rare, and repair more certain. But that would greatly slow the genome's ability to mutate and thereby evolve, trapping organisms in disappearing ecological niches, unable to evolve fast enough to meet new environmental conditions (indeed most multicellular species can't, so 99+% have gone extinct). But the evolvability (mutability, plasticity) of DNA carries the penalty not only of harmful mutations in the next generation, but also of cancer in the individual (DNA damage switching on uncontrolled cell division which at that stage should be switched off).

And could it be an evolved trait in humans that cancers are relatively rare until after the peak reproductive years? In other words, the damage control systems work well enough to allow a "healthy" level of mutation in the population, but hold cancer at bay (usually) until after individuals have had a chance to reproduce. Then perhaps the repair mechanisms begin to break down, wear out, whatever, since the individual's evolutionary role is complete: he has lasted long enough to successfully reproduce, and his evolutionary benefit to the species is thereafter diminished.

And something I wish PT could do: Could you set up a separate thread, section, or whatever, for usual lurkers (like me) who have sincere questions about details of evolutionary theory and practice that all of you pros could address? Not a thread for trolls who are sure they can demolish all of modern science with a killer question that "darwinists" can't answer, but one for folks who really want a little education. Just post a "no trolling" policy--there are other PT sections for argument.

Just Bob said: Not being a biologist or actual scientist of any sort, I truly appreciate the clear replies given in this thread to sincere questions about genetics, gene transfer, mutation, evolvability, etc. So please correct me if my conception here is wrong: Is it correct to think of cancer as an unwanted hazard of the ability of DNA to evolve?

Just Bob said: And could it be an evolved trait in humans that cancers are relatively rare until after the peak reproductive years?

And something I wish PT could do: Could you set up a separate thread, section, or whatever, for usual lurkers (like me) who have sincere questions about details of evolutionary theory and practice that all of you pros could address?

by creating the modern world, in getting right how the natural world works.

Is it correct to think of cancer as an unwanted hazard of the ability of DNA to evolve?

It would be better to think of cancer as the result of the loss or malfunction of cell division regulation

Frank J said:

I’ve never read that anyone is damned because they are not YEC but are believers in Christ. Never.

— Robert Byers

Maybe not necessarily "damned," but some creationists who have not completely bought into the "big tent" thing sure consider other "kinds" of creationists "outcasts."

There is a reason for Christians to accept YEC. it is what the bible says. Its gods word.

— Robert Byers

I'll ask again. Have you challenged OECs who insist that their interpretation is God's word? What about other "kinds" of YEC (geocentric if you're heliocentric, etc.)? And what about people like Behe who accepts common descent and said that reading the Bible as a science text is "silly"? While it's easy to cherry pick evidence to "validate" any of the mutually contradictory "literal" interpretations of Genesis, some people simply admit that the evidence doesn't add up to any of them, but they believe their favorite interpretation in spite of it. I have much more respect for those "Omphalos" creationists than I do for the "big tenters" who take pot shots at "Darwinism" while ignoring anti-evolution positions that contradict their own. So, which "kind" are you?

DS said: Robert wrote: "In reality this never comes up. All creationist work I know of, save the creation week, deals with nature in its processes. We see options for different processess but no magic really. Read AIG or ICR etc and it all makes the case on present natural concepts without God intervention. Just like our bodies work on their own but our bodies can have secreat abilities to adapt to this or that. like changing colour as was needed post flood in migration." So tell us oracle of truth, exactly what magical "secreat abilities" do our bodies have that allow them to change color? Are you talking about sun tanning? Are you talking about black and white? Please, explain to us exactly how this works and why you think that it is so mysterious. Why is it better to be white in some envoironments? Why is it better to be black in some environments (presumably you think that it is)? Is this something that scientists do not understand and only creationists can explain because of their "perspective" of the biblical flood? Please, show us your superior knowledge on this topic. You did claim that creationists had more convincing arguments, remember. Funny, you haven't actually made an argument yet. Since you have so much knowledge and wisdom, care to make any comments about T-urf 13? You know, the topic of this thread.

phantomreader42 said:

Robert Byers, disgrace to Canada, said: I've never read that anyone is damned because they are not YEC but are believers in Christ. Never.

And yet there are people who do in fact believe this. Do you have the courage or honesty to tell them to their faces that they are wrong? FL, for example, has said that it is impossible to be a christian without being a willfully ignorant creationist moron like him. He has publicly declared himself the arbiter of who is a True Christian™, and thus of who is saved and who is damned. Do you support that arrogance? You have appeared in the same thread as him repeatedly, and never once questioned this for a single instant. Why not? Does the truth mean anything at all to you, Robert? No, I'm sure it doesn't, never did, never will. You're a fraud, a phony, just like all your psychotic brethren. The very idea of honesty is utterly alien to you.

Robert Byers, disgrace to Canada, said: There is a reason for Christians to accept YEC. it is what the bible says. Its gods word. where else do we know anything of God and salvation? How can one pick and choose the claims of the bible.?

So, I take it you believe that insects have four legs, even though that "human knowledge" you so disdain clearly shows they have six? I take it you think slavery and genocide are perfectly okay, as the bible actively promotes them? I take it you'd happily offer up your daughters to a mob to be raped, as Lot did? Your precious book of myths regards him as a righteous man. Or are you waiting for them to get you drunk and screw around with you, as Lot's daughters did to him? REally, such wonderful family values. I take it you would be perfectly happy with your wife and family being murdered, as long as they were replaced with strangers, as happened to Job? Fuck biblical morality. It's a load of ancient myths cobbled together, stolen from various traditions, outdated and poorly translated.

Robert Byers, disgrace to Canada, said: Its important to fight for the true faith in the world of human knowledge. Its important to lead mankind, as evangelical christians did by creating the modern world, in getting right how the natural world works. Creationism is true, progressive, and mandatory for thinking people involved in the natual world.

Ah, I see you're now into outright, blatant lies. Isn't that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness? Funny how creationists always conveniently forget THAT commandment.

Robert wrote:

"I’m saying biblical boundaries and facts of colour change insist that it must of been instant upon colonizing some area. Firther it follows that if the skin colour is important, which it was back then, then it must of been in operation right away or intermediate skin shade would of been good enough. I suspect skin colour before the flood was very different because the earth seems to have had a different envirorment relative to the atmosphere. so it was more sensitive and easily triggered into its needs. Later it just stays in the same gear as there is no need for change."

This is all completely made up nonsense without a shred of evidence.

Robert, do you know the current distribution of indigenous human skin colors on the surface of the earth? Do you know that if someone migrates to a different lattitude that their skin color does not change instantly?

Do you know the selection pressures acting on human skin color? Do you know the problems that are caused by migrations of people to areas where their skin color is no longer adaptive? Do you know why white skin is not always the most adaptive skin color? Do you know why black skin is not always the most adaptive skin color? Do you know that this is something that is very well understood by scientists using sound evoutionary principles?

Do you know that this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the imaginary magic flood? Do you know the explanation that the Bible gives for differences in human skin color? Do you think that that explanation is correct?

Do you know anything at all about anything? Do you even know the genetic basis of human skin color? Do you think that displaying your ignorance is somehow beneficial to yourself or anyone else?

That's thirteen different questions for you Robert. If you respond, please try to answer at least one of them in a coherent manner this time.

harold said: Robert Byers - I see you got a lot of responses, so I'll keep it short. You are contradicting yourself.

I’ve never read that anyone is damned because they are not YEC but are believers in Christ. Never.

Excellent. So Frances Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, all modern popes, President James Carter, and all the others who say that there is no conflict between acceptance of the theory of evolution and Christianity are correct. So why do you waste your time arguing about evolution?

There is a reason for Christians to accept YEC. it is what the bible says. Its gods word. where else do we know anything of God and salvation? How can one pick and choose the claims of the bible.? Its important to fight for the true faith in the world of human knowledge. Its important to lead mankind, as evangelical christians did by creating the modern world, in getting right how the natural world works. Creationism is true, progressive, and mandatory for thinking people involved in the natual world.

Wait a second. This is the categorical opposite of what you just said above. Here, you don't say the word "damned", but it's impossible to read this any other way. Everyone is damned if they don't choose YOUR version of YEC. Which is it? Let me remind you of my original point. "Under Christian theology, basically, either - 1) everyone who does not accept strict YEC is damned (some sects), or 2) those who accept Jesus as their savior are saved, despite different interpretations of Genesis. If it is the former, then everyone who accepts mainstream science is damned, but so is every ID/creationist who does not outright preach YEC. (And those who may “secretly” believe it but pretend not to are damned for bearing false witness.) If it is the latter, then “OEC” is no problem, but neither is the theory of evolution. Either way, there is no logical reason for sincere Christians to be especially concerned with the theory of evolution. Either everything that deviates from YEC, including any expression of “ID” that deviates from YEC, and all of science, must be condemned, or none of it needs to be condemned."

Its very important to fight for Genesis because it makes the case for all of scripture. its true and its presumptions are important for thinking people on issues of this faith. One might say it is the thinking person who needs to see Genesis is accurate.

Hi Nick,

I'm usually embarrassed by Cornelius Hunter's arguments. Is there anyway we can trade him for one of your ID critics?

Meanwhile, I'm curious if you've looked at my recent thread at TT:

http://telicthoughts.com/wondering-about-t-urf13/

Bilbo said: Hi Nick, I'm usually embarrassed by Cornelius Hunter's arguments. Is there anyway we can trade him for one of your ID critics? Meanwhile, I'm curious if you've looked at my recent thread at TT: http://telicthoughts.com/wondering-about-t-urf13/

Robert Byers said: The bible is always right about right and wrong by the way.