Conference on Evolution

[buffalo]

Probably not. Any universe will have differences of opinion, and wherever there is a difference of opinion, someone will be a heretic to someone else.

Is there room for truth in these universes, or just opinions that are all equal?

 

[StAnastasia]

Is there room for truth in these universes, or just opinions that are all equal?

Yes.

 

[edwest2]

When modernism and relativism get together, all they have are opinions. This in contradiction to absolute truths and natural law. This is all looking a bit like the Hippie, Do your own thing.

It’s your thing, man.

Now, my thing may not be your thing, but that’s OK.

Who knows, maybe you and I could do our thing together?

Then, there is the updated version embodied in, I’m OK, You’re OK.

Certainly, there is absolute truth but it is sometimes rejected here under the label “opinion.”

To my brothers and sisters in Christ, preach the truth daily. Opinions do not matter when they are based on radical individualism and relativism.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Annie39]

No offense to Dr. Giertych, but according to his biography on creationwiki.com, his education and experience in the lab is limited entirely to the plant kingdom, and he hasn’t been doing actual experiments himself for over 30 years. Dr. Daniel Fairbanks, the author of Relics of Eden, is doing present-day work on human and chimpazee DNA and is much more qualified to speak on the subject of common descent among primates.

Do you know if Dr. Giertych would be willing to read Relics of Eden?

–Mike

Hi Mike,
I have no idea if Dr. Giertych has read that book or not. I do not plan to ask him. I find it interesting that one book has so profoundly captured your imagination. There is so much more available on this subject. Even I have read a wider variety on this subject. Once you learned the name of the scientist you engaged in the ad homonym type of argument. I recommend against this type of argument, it always show the weakness of a person’s argument.

The bottom line is, one cannot scientifically assert that evolution is true. One must take that on faith based on the interpretation of available evidence. I wonder…when the author of the book that you have put your faith in reaches 73 years of age will you disregard his research? Have you read any of Dr. Giertych’s research regarding this topic? Unless and until you can come up with scientifically determined concrete evidence of evolution, your belief is on the same par as a philosophy. A belief system. I can see that you base your belief on evidence, but not evidence that can be and is interpreted differently.

Thank you for your time. I very much appreciate civil discourse. You are a gentleman.

Annie

 

[StAnastasia]

Once you learned the name of the scientist you engaged in the ad homonym type of argument.
The bottom line is, one cannot scientifically assert that evolution is true. One must take that on faith based on the interpretation of available evidence.

(1) “Ad homonym”? What is that?

(2) Scientists accept the evolutionary explanation for biological diversity because it is the only one that fits the evidence. If there were another explanation, you can bet there would be young scientists jumping all over it to make their names in the professional world.

StAnastasia

 

[mpartyka]

I have no idea if Dr. Giertych has read that book or not. I do not plan to ask him.

Why not? You asked him his opinion about my brief summaries, but you won’t ask him to read a more thorough presentation of the data? All you’re basically telling me is that Dr. Giertych’s mind is closed to new information on the topic, which is not a condition that bodes well for any true scientist – it’s much more the stance of the “believer”.

I find it interesting that one book has so profoundly captured your imagination. There is so much more available on this subject. Even I have read a wider variety on this subject.

Here’s why I find the book so compelling:

1. It was written by a scientist who has himself worked extensively with human and chimpanzee DNA.
2. It was written in 2007, so it contains the most recent discoveries in the field.
3. It was written by a religious Mormon, so this isn’t a case of “scientist tries to debunk Bible and establish atheism.”

Also, don’t assume that because I cite heavily from one or two books on the subject that I’m not widely read. I’ve read creationist books, ID books, evolution books, and also many articles written from all three perspectives. The reason I tend to list these four particular books:

1. Endless Things Most Beautiful, by Sean Carroll
2. The Making of the Fittest, by Sean Carroll
3. Relics of Eden, by Daniel J. Fairbanks
4. Evolution: What the Fossils Say And Why It Matters, by Donald Prothero

is because they are recent, they are written by persons having firsthand experience with their subjects, and they present evidence that makes the case for evolution very convincing and compelling.

Once you learned the name of the scientist you engaged in the ad homonym type of argument. I recommend against this type of argument, it always show the weakness of a person’s argument.

It isn’t an ad hominem attack to compare the credentials of the book’s author with the credential of your dissenting source. With all due respect to Dr. Giertych, he’s simply not as qualified to address the subject of human/chimp comparative genetics as Dr. Fairbanks.

The bottom line is, one cannot scientifically assert that evolution is true. One must take that on faith based on the interpretation of available evidence.

And here I went into this thinking you had an open mind. How disappointing.

I wonder…when the author of the book that you have put your faith in reaches 73 years of age will you disregard his research? Have you read any of Dr. Giertych’s research regarding this topic?

The problem with Dr. Giertych’s credentials has nothing to do with his age. The problem is that Dr. Giertych’s research is all secondhand and pertains to a field in which he has zero – I repeat, ZERO – professional experience. The authors whom I have cited are have direct experience with the very latest evidence in the fields on which they have written.

Unless and until you can come up with scientifically determined concrete evidence of evolution, your belief is on the same par as a philosophy. A belief system. I can see that you base your belief on evidence, but not evidence that can be and is interpreted differently.

ALL evidence can be interpreted differently, even evidence that seems rock-solid in its support of a particular position. (See again my analogy of finding a shoeprint in the mud.) The question isn’t whether alternative interpretations exist but whether any of those interpretations are reasonable in the face of all the available evidence.

Example: I once was a Southern Baptist who very strongly believed in “once saved, always saved” (OSAS) and was able to competently (in my opinion) argue my position both from the Bible and philosophically. Then I began reading the writings of the Early Church Fathers (ECFs) at www.ccel.org/fathers, hoping to find references to support the OSAS position but keeping myself open to seeing what was actually there rather than trying to cast everything in a way that favored OSAS. I began seeing troubling statements by the ECFs here and there which undercut OSAS, but because they seemed to me to be isolated statements, I was able to rationalize them away. However, once I got four centuries down the line without seeing any real references in support of OSAS, I had to finally come to the conclusion that the OSAS position was not and had never been the traditional teaching of the Church. It was a staggering blow to my faith, but I had to accept it because the evidence had reached the point in my mind where it was insurmountable. It was no longer reasonable to continue to cling to my original presupposition.

In the same way, I believe that anyone who reads with an open mind the references on evolution that I have cited will come to realize, as I did, that the level of evidence in favor of evolution has reached such a level as to be properly called insurmountable, and in the face of this evidence it is no longer reasonable to cling to the presuppositions of biblical literalism and special creation.

–Mike

 

[Annie39]

Hi Mike:
I just have some random thoughts on your latest post.

You write: “Why not? You asked him his opinion about my brief summaries, but you won’t ask him to read a more thorough presentation of the data? All you’re basically telling me is that Dr. Giertych’s mind is closed to new information on the topic, which is not a condition that bodes well for any true scientist – it’s much more the stance of the “believer”.

I reply: On what, exactly do you base your rather ungentlemanly charge that the Dr.'s mind is closed? Is it because I decided not to ask him? That’s certainly a stretch, don’t you think? (did you dislike that I thought that you were a gentleman? Did you think that you should fix that little thing right now?)

You wrote: And here I went into this thinking you had an open mind. How disappointing.

I reply: I need some proof, not conjecture. Even educated conjecture.

You again: The problem with Dr. Giertych’s credentials has nothing to do with his age. The problem is that Dr. Giertych’s research is all secondhand and pertains to a field in which he has zero – I repeat, ZERO – professional experience. The authors whom I have cited are have direct experience with the very latest evidence in the fields on which they have written.

Me again: Dr. Giertych’s credentials are very impressive actually. I have a video where he was interviewed. On that video he mentions his credentials regarding this subject. Its too late for me to watch it again and write it down just to prove that he is qualified here. You should deal with what he writes, not with who he is. Are you a scientist with professional experience or is your information secondhand. Inquiring minds want to know.

Finally, the Pièce de résistance of your entire post: ALL evidence can be interpreted differently, even evidence that seems rock-solid in its support of a particular position. (See again my analogy of finding a shoeprint in the mud.) The question isn’t whether alternative interpretations exist but whether any of those interpretations are reasonable in the face of all the available evidence.

Example: I once was a Southern Baptist…

And my reply: I cannot tell you how very much I agree with you. I was a protestant once myself. I had a “shoeprint in the mud” experience too. I was led into the Catholic Church by reading those same Church Fathers. I read your profile. You write that you are “Christian”. By reading that shoe print I’m guessing that you are not Catholic. I am personally not acquainted with anyone who would write in a Catholic forum that he is “Christian” if he is Catholic. Of course you COULD be the first. Shoe prints are indeed open to interpretation. If you were correctly interpreting the shoe prints of the Fathers, you would be Catholic. I am very good at pointing out where the protestants are wrong. But I’m not a professional apologist. I have had “zero – I repeat, ZERO – professional experience” in Catholic Apologetics. I believe that women have no business in that field but I see no problem with discussing the topic privately, one on one. And, for emphases, I am very good at apologetics. And again, I have had absolutely NO professional experience in that field.

Annie

 

[mpartyka]

On what, exactly do you base your rather ungentlemanly charge that the Dr.'s mind is closed? Is it because I decided not to ask him? That’s certainly a stretch, don’t you think?

That was indeed my assumption. If his mind isn’t closed to new information, then why not ask him if he’s willing to read the book? He may enjoy the challenge of trying to explain the latest evidence in support of evolution.

I need some proof, not conjecture. Even educated conjecture.

Asking for the impossible (e.g., a millions-year-long study of a species to see how far it evolves) is hardly asking for proof. How would you respond to the nonbeliever who says, “I won’t believe that Jesus is risen from the dead unless you can find me a written account from someone who personally witnessed his dead body come to life in the tomb”?

Dr. Giertych’s credentials are very impressive actually.

I agree, if you’re speaking with regard to plants.

You should deal with what he writes, not with who he is.

I am eager to deal with what he writes in response to Relics of Eden, if he would be willing to read it. It’s not that long of a book. Around 250 pages, I think. I’ll even send him his own copy free of charge, all shipping paid.

Are you a scientist with professional experience or is your information secondhand. Inquiring minds want to know.

My information is secondhand, but my sources have firsthand experience with the experimental data. Your secondhand information comes from a source with no such experience – who hasn’t, in fact, been a practicing scientist for over three decades.

If you were correctly interpreting the shoe prints of the Fathers, you would be Catholic.

The main obstacle in the way of my becoming Catholic is the Marian dogma of the Immaculate Conception. If you check out my thread “Pope Leo the Great on the Immaculate Conception” in this forum, you’ll get an idea of my difficulty with the dogma.

–Mike

 

[Maciej]

Indeed my own experience and research was with plants, trees in fact. I am a forester. But I was also an academic teacher for 17 years teaching population genetics to biology students. My own reserach did not need evolution or lack of it for anything. I got into the evolution debate because I had to object, as a population geneticist, to the way in which evolution is taught in schools - also today. Race formation is not an example of a small step in evolution. It is an example in the opposite dorection, towards a reduction of genetic information and not towards its increase. If there is so much new and convincing evindence for evolution why does it not enter the school textbooks?
I have not read the book on Eden you are so excited about. This is not my field and currently I am more in politics than in biological studies. The fact that molecular differences follow morphological ones confirms taxonomy (Linné) not phylogeny (Darwin). Maciej

 

[StAnastasia]

The fact that molecular differences follow morphological ones confirms taxonomy (Linné) not phylogeny (Darwin). Maciej

This is an important claim. You should certainly speak on this at major conferences to inform the profession, as biologists think otherwise.

StAnastasia

 

[edwest2]

Why not? You asked him his opinion about my brief summaries, but you won’t ask him to read a more thorough presentation of the data? All you’re basically telling me is that Dr. Giertych’s mind is closed to new information on the topic, which is not a condition that bodes well for any true scientist – it’s much more the stance of the “believer”.

Here’s why I find the book so compelling:

1. It was written by a scientist who has himself worked extensively with human and chimpanzee DNA.
2. It was written in 2007, so it contains the most recent discoveries in the field.
3. It was written by a religious Mormon, so this isn’t a case of “scientist tries to debunk Bible and establish atheism.”

Also, don’t assume that because I cite heavily from one or two books on the subject that I’m not widely read. I’ve read creationist books, ID books, evolution books, and also many articles written from all three perspectives. The reason I tend to list these four particular books:

1. Endless Things Most Beautiful, by Sean Carroll
2. The Making of the Fittest, by Sean Carroll
3. Relics of Eden, by Daniel J. Fairbanks
4. Evolution: What the Fossils Say And Why It Matters, by Donald Prothero

is because they are recent, they are written by persons having firsthand experience with their subjects, and they present evidence that makes the case for evolution very convincing and compelling.

It isn’t an ad hominem attack to compare the credentials of the book’s author with the credential of your dissenting source. With all due respect to Dr. Giertych, he’s simply not as qualified to address the subject of human/chimp comparative genetics as Dr. Fairbanks.

And here I went into this thinking you had an open mind. How disappointing.

The problem with Dr. Giertych’s credentials has nothing to do with his age. The problem is that Dr. Giertych’s research is all secondhand and pertains to a field in which he has zero – I repeat, ZERO – professional experience. The authors whom I have cited are have direct experience with the very latest evidence in the fields on which they have written.

ALL evidence can be interpreted differently, even evidence that seems rock-solid in its support of a particular position. (See again my analogy of finding a shoeprint in the mud.) The question isn’t whether alternative interpretations exist but whether any of those interpretations are reasonable in the face of all the available evidence.

Example: I once was a Southern Baptist who very strongly believed in “once saved, always saved” (OSAS) and was able to competently (in my opinion) argue my position both from the Bible and philosophically. Then I began reading the writings of the Early Church Fathers (ECFs) at www.ccel.org/fathers, hoping to find references to support the OSAS position but keeping myself open to seeing what was actually there rather than trying to cast everything in a way that favored OSAS. I began seeing troubling statements by the ECFs here and there which undercut OSAS, but because they seemed to me to be isolated statements, I was able to rationalize them away. However, once I got four centuries down the line without seeing any real references in support of OSAS, I had to finally come to the conclusion that the OSAS position was not and had never been the traditional teaching of the Church. It was a staggering blow to my faith, but I had to accept it because the evidence had reached the point in my mind where it was insurmountable. It was no longer reasonable to continue to cling to my original presupposition.

In the same way, I believe that anyone who reads with an open mind the references on evolution that I have cited will come to realize, as I did, that the level of evidence in favor of evolution has reached such a level as to be properly called insurmountable, and in the face of this evidence it is no longer reasonable to cling to the presuppositions of biblical literalism and special creation.

–Mike

Do you think God can do miracles? Yes or No? Raise the dead?

Did you know there are fossilized trees that pass through many strata? They are called polystrate.

Did you know there are depictions of dinosaurs in pottery and metal? Relatively recent as well.

It would be nice to believe that science can be honest about this subject but I can’t. This from an atheist site:

“Then you’re effectively asking then to incorporate the inordinantly larger task of debunking religion. In our non-ideal (non-atheist, Ed) world, they have to pick their battles. It might offend me that they have to speak disingenuously to do so, but I’m going to have to live with that. The NCSE and NAS have a tough enough job promoting evolution in this religiously saturated country.”

I used to think it was about science but the evidence shows it’s not.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

Did you know there are fossilized trees that pass through many strata? They are called polystrate. Did you know there are depictions of dinosaurs in pottery and metal? Relatively recent as well.Peace,Ed

Sorry Ed – those have been debunked too many times. But what about this image? That proves more than the Carlisle dinosaur.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

StAnastasia

 

[ricmat]

Sorry Ed – those have been debunked too many times. But what about this image? That proves more than the Carlisle dinosaur.

http://skepdic.com/graphics/marytoast.jpg

StAnastasia

So…exactly what does the above image prove to you, StA?

 

[hecd2]

Race formation is not an example of a small step in evolution. It is an example in the opposite dorection, towards a reduction of genetic information and not towards its increase.

This is in line with your claims about genetic information that you made before you decided to disappear last time. I remind you that you never did respond to my reply to your unsubstantiated claims about information in the genome. Let me remind you again of what you left unanswered:

*"You claim that information is a nucleotide sequence which, when transcribed and translated, carries out a metabolic function. But this is hopelessly vague in many ways. Should we exclude proteins that have other than metabolic functions? How about proteins that affect development or body planning or anatomy or that produce extra-cellular proteins or that are involved in cell signalling or that are transcription factors? Should we exclude non protein coding sequences, such as RNA genes? What about other conserved sequences that are not transcribed such as promoter and other regulatory sequence? How about sequences that are functional in the integrity of the chromosomes such as centromeres and telomeres?

So we are not sure just what is, according to you, information in the genome. And you haven’t even begun to define how to measure and quantify it, how to determine whether any particular process increases or reduces the quantity of information. We don’t know whether you are measuring it by number of genes, or coding length, or number of alleles. We don’t know whether you are measuring it in an individual organism, or a breeding population or a species. So far your definition is hopelessly vague."*

The fact that molecular differences follow morphological ones confirms taxonomy (Linné) not phylogeny (Darwin).

You obviously haven’t been keeping up with biology in the last twenty years or you would know that molecular markers have been used to demonstrate many phylogenetic relationships which are obscure or misleading according to morphology, including some fundamental things like the wide phylogenetic separation between eubacteria and archaea, the endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria, and phylogenetic relationships in cetaceans, birds, and many, many others. Molecular analysis confirms that taxonomy follows phylogeny.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[StAnastasia]

So…exactly what does the above image prove to you, StA?

Toasted cheese images can bear images that sell well on E-bay. As for the veracity of the virginal apparition, I leave that to the judgment of the Church.

 

[Annie39]

Sorry Ed – those have been debunked too many times. But what about this image? That proves more than the Carlisle dinosaur.

http://skepdic.com/graphics/marytoast.jpg

StAnastasia

Finally some meat to chew on from St.A. Please give me the scientific evidence of debunking those trees. I’m serious I would like to see the SCIENTIFIC evidence.

 

[buffalo]

What is this?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Annie39]

Once again St.A. Ed had written “Did you know there are fossilized trees that pass through many strata? They are called polystrate.”

You said that that has been debunked too many time. I would very much like to learn about one or two of those debunkings please.

Annie

 

[StAnastasia]

What is this?
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/images/lansci1.gif

I dunno – it’s too small an image to make out. A bad shaving day?

 

[StAnastasia]

Once again St.A. Ed had written “Did you know there are fossilized trees that pass through many strata? They are called polystrate.” You said that that has been debunked too many time. I would very much like to learn about one or two of those debunkings please.Annie

Claim CC331:
Polystrate fossil trees show tree trunks passing through many layers and several meters of sediments. Obviously, the sediments must have been laid down suddenly, not at the gradual rates proposed by uniformitarian geology.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 107-108.
Berg, Randy S., 2005. The “fossil forests” of Nova Scotia: A review of the literature. earthage.org/polystrate/Fossil%20Trees%20of%20Nova%20Scotia.htm
Response:

1. Sudden deposition is not a problem for uniformitarian geology. Single floods can deposit sediments up to several feet thick. Furthermore, trees buried in such sediments do not die and decay immediately; the trunks can remain there for years or even decades.

Links:
MacRae, Andrew, 1994. “Polystrate” tree fossils. talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

Birkeland, Bill, 2004, 27 Jan. Fossil soils (paleosols) at Joggins. evcforum.net/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000116.html#7

Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html#G4a
Further Reading:
Frey, Robert W., 1982. Sedimentology photo. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 52(2): 614.