National Academies book on evolution

[rossum]

Okay, I used the wrong term. It still doesn’t change anything.

It does change the argument you made in the post I was responding to. You said:

I’m sorry, Barbarian, but I just don’t see any evidence of evolution in your beetles. All I see is diversity within a species.

You have now agreed that the evolution of beetles is more than “diversity within a species” because beetles are the Order Coleoptera which includes hundreds of thousands of species. We are closer to Chimpanzees than some species of beetles are to each other.

Your use of the wrong term destroyed the argument you were making - the example of the beetles is a very good example of the evolution of species. Since one of the major areas of disagreement is macroevolution (whether or not one species can evolve into another), your mistake went to the heart of your argument and destroyed it.

Let’s talk about Darwinist biology. According to that, all life, whether it’s a whale or a horse or a man or a cow, all started out as a gob of snot in mud puddle that “evolved” from there, is that not correct?

No. First of all Darwin called his book “On the Origin of Species”, not “On the Origin of Life”. Darwin explained how the many different species we see today originated from one or a few (he was not sure) original species. He did not attemps to explain how life originated. To quote him:There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 6th Edition, Chapter Fifteen
Notice that “by the Creator” in there. Darwin did not deal with the origin of life, he left that to the Creator.

The study of the origin of life from non-living chemicals is called abiogenesis. This is much less well understood that evolution and has far more unanswered questions. We can be sure that your “snot” had nothing to do with it since snot is itself a product of a living organism and so cannot have been involved in the origin of life. Nor is it certain that a “mud puddle” was involved; it could have been a tidal pool, an undersea black smoker or some other place.

It is also worth pointing out that creationists have no explanation for the origin of life. I should warn you before you give the seemingly obvious answer to that question - the obvious answer is wrong. You will see why if you think about it carefully.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The truth is often disputed. We are just clarifying what the truth is, by the marketplace of ideas.

And whoever markets the best, has the truth?

The “marketplace of ideas” was coined by men who thought that people weren’t stupid. Hence, if they are exposed to all ideas, it was thought that they would be able to see for themselves what is right. It isn’t foolproof, but it’s much better than anything else man can do.

I had no idea that ultimate reality boils down to a contest between salesmen…

It boils down to a question of whose ideas fit best with reality. People here listen and think about the arguments, and then decide for themselves.

That’s the best way to do science. It’s the way science has made all that progress you like so much, like the computer you’re typing on.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I was wondering when the ‘secret’ Wedge Document would show up. As someone who works in media, this is as phoney (and obvious) as a $3 bill.

Perhaps you don’t know the history. It was an internal memo in the Discovery Institute (the guys who invented ID). Someone in the organization, either by mistake, or from spite, sent it to the media. The Discovery Institute now acknowledges that it is authentic, and has even now put it on their website to “explain.”

ID is science

The guys who invented it, say it’s a campaign to advance their ideas about God.

but it is in the process of being discredited.

The Wedge Document pretty much took care of that.

I don’t and won’t support any group that would use deception to promote an agenda, no matter what it is. The ends do not justify the means.

A lot of scientists have the same opinion. Some of them, understanding what the real agenda was, resigned from the Discovery Institute.

In the ‘marketplace’ of ideas, it is often those with the money who get the access to the ‘marketplace.’

Here, the webmaster is good enough to give us a place to talk about it, for free.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Scientists at Rice University and the Baylor College of Medicine have tried to identify the origins of altruism by studying “a slime-mold crowd of single-celled amoebas.” Funded by $5 million from the National Science Foundation …

Yep. And it’s a good thing to study. Altruism in animals is not what it is in moral agents like humans. And there are good reasons to learn about it.

You never know when it pays off. I know of an entemologist whose specialty was the sexual behavior of screwworm flies.

Turns out that he discovered something that allowed control of a very serious pest of domestic cattle. That’s not why he did it, of course, he was just curious about flies. But it paid off big time.

Science is often like that. A lot of things in your computer are possible because someone was just messing around out of curiosity.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I’ve heard that this book is the best refutation of Darwinism yet. It’s another one on my very long list of anti-evolutionary books (there are too many good ones to keep up with lately).

Not by Chance, Lee M. Spetner

Even most of the creationists hereabouts now realize that it’s not by chance. If Spetner doesn’t even get that, why would anyone want to read his book?

 

[ricmat]

Even most of the creationists hereabouts now realize that it’s not by chance. If Spetner doesn’t even get that, why would anyone want to read his book?

I can’t stay long, but I need to respond to this and another post.

1. Barbarian, it’s not the creationists that have a problem with chance. Of COURSE they know it’s not chance. God is not chance. Creationism and chance are mutually exclusive.

It’s basically “Science” that promotes the idea that it all happens by chance.

1. You continue to go in circles regarding the motives of ID supporters. I’ll say this again. Motives have nothing to do with science. If you want to criticize methods as being unscientific, or interpretation of results as being unscientific, go for it. However, motives by themselves do not otherwise invalidate good science.

Many scientists see science (or have used science) as a way of increasing their understanding of God. That doesn’t make their discoveries somehow incorrect.

And the general concepts of ID have been around a lot longer than the Discovery Institute. After all, one of Aquinas 5 arguments for the existence of God is the argument from design. The DI did not invent the idea that “there is design in nature” or that we “should look for design in nature.”

 

[Orogeny]

1. Science is all about controlled experiments. Else you get something like “de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants.” Whoopee. He found something that wasn’t there before…or was it? Did he have an airtight enclosure, nothing blowing in? Sterilized soil to be sure there weren’t any other seeds involved? etc. etc.

Well, you can be incredulous all you want, but if you are really interested in finding out the answers to those questions, you would go to the references and get the book in question.

I’ll help you. Just choose the format you want:
onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=7234

Since you only commented on one of the examples, I take it you don’t have the same incredulity for the other examples.

Maybe you would accept a creationist site’s description of a speciation event more that a pro-evolution website like talkorigins. If so, here you go:
answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/biters.asp

From your link:

Second, most biologists accept the idea that speciation takes a long time (relative to human life spans). Because of this we would not expect to see many speciation events actually occur. That’s exactly my point. So how long does it take? If you KNOW each mutation leading down a path from simple life to advanced life (any lineage will do), calculate how long the whole process takes. Make reasonable assumptions about gestation periods, populations needed to get a reasonable chance of the next “correct” mutation, etc. Then add up all the times. If it comes to substantially more than 5 billion years…well, your theory isn’t a very good one.

Why don’t you go ahead and give us your figures and the logic you used to obtain them and we’ll see if you are right.

What I think the answer is, is that you don’t know exactly (for ANY lineage) what mutations are needed to occur to go from S(imple) to C(omplex) life (any lineage).

That is a strange argument. If you didn’t know how electricity flows through a high power line, would that mean that the prediction that death will be the result of touching a high power line is an invalid statement?

The evidence for a common ancestor is very strong. The need to know EXACTLY what mutations are required to go from that ancestor to current lifeforms is not needed to see that.

Nor do you know how much time it really takes. That’s a poor theory that alleges to be certain of it’s outcome.

Well, it has taken between 2 and 4 billion years.

Peace

Tim

 

[drpmjhess]

You are just as biast against evolution as I once was. Darwin was a theologain. Lemaitre was a priest. They were the best in their fields in science because of their unwillingness to let bias determne their course of action.
ID is just the oposite. It starts with bias and ends with confusion.

Darwin was not a theologian, at least not in this universe.

 

[inthecloud]

To my knowledge Darwin was studying to be a Church of England priest, but he never was ordained. But he was not a professional scientist by training I think. Somebody correct me.
Lemaitre was both a priest (what order? Jesuit? Augustinian?) and a mathematics professor.

 

[drpmjhess]

All that matters is that, at some point, God added a soul to humans.

Magic!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Common descent. This was once that, was once something else and still further back, something else again.

It is nonsensical that man shares common descent with a tree dwelling, lemur like creature and hominids. It is far more sensible to say that each of these creatures were separate and distinct. I say this in light of the fact that the types of creatures, lemurs and ape like creatures, still exist today. No one has actually observed evolution in action and no, dog breeding and horse breeding, which do not take millions of years to accomplish, do not count.

Ed

Do you have some science to back up your conclusions of “nonsensical” or do you believe we should give credence to your personal conclusions as evidence against evolution?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

1. So they had one particular “item” under constant surveillance, and saw it produce an offspring of a different species?
2. It seems like if you really knew how evolution works, you’d be able to reproduce it in a lab.

#2? Seriously? Are all other theories you accept as correct reproducible in a lab? I’m just asking…I don’t know. I would assume no…but prove me wrong please.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I agree completely. Texbook evolution is highly improbable. All of these little genetic mistakes, some of them beneficial, some of them supposedly capable of being passed on, and then some of them being “naturally” selected.

Agree completely with what? you have a bad habit Ed of not linking your remarks to anything. Please cite proof that evolution is highly improbable. Yes, it is genetic mutation alright.

Let’s not forget accident, disease and a lack of breeding partners, and that beneficial mutation has a lot less of a chance. Of course, we do not find isolated pockets of 5 legged, six tailed creatures that happened to do quite well in their little ecological niche.

Again Ed. what are you referencing here. These remarks are simply disjointed and relate to no post. I don’t know what you are attempted to prove…Do you have any scientific evidence for this?

The story of evolution seems to more closely resemble science fiction, where imagination and human bias, ideological bias, create suitable sounding explanations.

Then why have you stated 19 1/2 times that guided evolutionary theory in some form is supported by the Church? Ed you cannot simply change your mind once a week without explanation. Why have you decided to move back to a full-blown NO EVOLUTION position?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Okay, I used the wrong term. It still doesn’t change anything.

Let’s talk about Darwinist biology. According to that, all life, whether it’s a whale or a horse or a man or a cow, all started out as a gob of snot in mud puddle that “evolved” from there, is that not correct?

I’m afraid all you have done is prove rather conclusively that you would benefit from evolution 101 before attempting to refute it.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Amazing, isn’t it? And I have read that explanation over and over again on Darwinist websites, and yet when it’s brought up here, all you ever hear is, “You know nothing about biology”, or “You need to read more, go the library, you’re ignorant of science”, or “You have no idea what Darwin actually wrote”.

They think I fell off a pickle boat the day before yesterday, but I didn’t. I can spot Doublespeak just as well as the next fellow.

Perhaps a rational person being told “over and over again” might, just might suggest that one might, just might consider that indeed there is something they need to learn more about? Just a thought…But if you believe that this is doublespeak, though how I cannot see, come forth with your peer reviewed evidence that disproves evolution in some major respect. I’m sure you must have it, otherwise you would not claim that evolution is wrong.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The pinnacle of human achievement. No matter how far we’ve come, we’re still just the gob of snot in the mud puddle, acting on our “primal urges”.

That should fit in quite well with current American society, where every behavior is determined by some form of pelvic activity…

Yes we get that you don’t like evolution for some reason, but do you have any evidence to refute it? Real evidence, tried and tested by scientists?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Scientists at Rice University and the Baylor College of Medicine have tried to identify the origins of altruism by studying “a slime-mold crowd of single-celled amoebas.” Funded by $5 million from the National Science Foundation …

So you equate the Discovery Foundation, composed of mostly not scientists who funds promoting ID as hidden creationism as the same as an NSF grant for scientific research at Rice and Baylor? that is very strange and not at all complementary on its face.

 

[ricmat]

Since you only commented on one of the examples, I take it you don’t have the same incredulity for the other examples.

You assume incorrectly. I have no obligation to read everything you suggest.

Why don’t you go ahead and give us your figures and the logic you used to obtain them and we’ll see if you are right.

Hey, it’s your theory. Prove to me that it’s feasible from a timeline perspective. Even a SWAG.

That is a strange argument. If you didn’t know how electricity flows through a high power line, would that mean that the prediction that death will be the result of touching a high power line is an invalid statement?

Of course it is not invalid. The prediction can be proven in a lab. And reproduced time and time again under controlled conditions. Show me evolution in the lab.

The evidence for a common ancestor is very strong. The need to know EXACTLY what mutations are required to go from that ancestor to current lifeforms is not needed to see that. Well, it has taken between 2 and 4 billion years.

I’m not debating a common ancestor. I’m not debating ANY part of the theory of evolution except “how much time it takes.”

So if you don’t know EXACTLY what mutations are required, make some assumptions about the number of mutations needed, population sizes, times needed to reach reproductive age, etc. As it is, you’re not even coming up with a SWAG. You are just declaring “the answer is between 2 and 4 billion years.” Based on what?

 

[ricmat]

#2? Seriously? Are all other theories you accept as correct reproducible in a lab? I’m just asking…I don’t know. I would assume no…but prove me wrong please.

Off the top of my head, I can’t list all the theories that I accept.

There were some other threads going a while back (dark matter, dark energy) where I made the same general arguments. The DM, DE people see something happening 100 billion light years away in the universe, and for (only) the theory of gravity to account for the motions, they elicit an unproven, unobserved, unknown to exist thing called dark matter (to make their other theories work correctly). So no, I don’t believe that dark matter or dark energy exist. Nobody has ever seen close up in nature, much less in a lab.

 

[drpmjhess]

So no, I don’t believe that dark matter or dark energy exist. Nobody has ever seen close up in nature, much less in a lab.

So much for God, Christology, soteriology, pneumatology. They’ve never been observed in a lab.