Teaching evolution at a catholic school

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Yet you don’t believe …

Fred, let me give you some tips to help you stop straw manning people.

1. Read what you intend to post before posting.
2. If your first few words are, “What you are really saying …” or “You don’t believe …” or similar phrases (the key giveaway is your use of the word “you”) then stop yourself right there.
3. Do the poster you are referencing the common courtesy of citing the actual words he/she used.
4. Once you’ve properly cited the post in question you will very likely (given the straw men you’ve generated over the years in these forums) cancel what you intended to post thereby reducing your post count considerably.

When people hold to a position, they often link to evidence that supports their position. They’ll point to people we could consider to be experts that back up the position.

You and Buff constantly link to reports, to papers, to people who directly reject what you believe. You don’t believe in common descent. You don’t believe the planet is billions of years old. And all you do in an attempt to deflect from this is to say ‘quote me!’ But you never exhibit the courage of your convictions. You never back yourself. You never nail your colours to the mast. But we know what your views are. They’re obvious.

But for some reason you won’t admit to them. And anyone who reads these threads can see this. So if someone asks: ‘Do you accept what Behe says about common descent and the age of the planet?’, all we get is tumblin’ tumbleweed. Shall we try?

So, having linked to Behe as someone whose position is one we should trust, do you accept what he says about common descent and the age of the planet? Or do we get more deflection…

 

[o_mlly]

When people hold to a position, they often link to evidence that supports their position. They’ll point to people we could consider to be experts that back up the position.

You and Buff constantly link to reports, to papers, to people who directly reject what you believe. You don’t believe in common descent. You don’t believe the planet is billions of years old. And all you do in an attempt to deflect from this is to say ‘quote me!’ But you never exhibit the courage of your convictions. You never back yourself. You never nail your colours to the mast. But we know what your views are. They’re obvious.

But for some reason you won’t admit to them. And anyone who reads these threads can see this. So if someone asks: ‘Do you accept what Behe says about common descent and the age of the planet?’, all we get is tumblin’ tumbleweed. Shall we try?

So, having linked to Behe as someone whose position is one we should trust, do you accept what he says about common descent and the age of the planet? Or do we get more deflection…

Incorrigible. Just incorrigible.

15 times this post has the word “you” and not 1 quote citation. Fred, we’re just going to have to ignore you when you go into fantasy mode.

 

[Freddy]

I think a refusal to answer simple questions says all anyone needs to know about your views. They’ll need to be asked now and then as a means of confirmation. Maybe when you next link to anything other than a fundamentalist site.

I’ll check in now and then…

 

[o_mlly]

I think a refusal to answer simple questions says all anyone needs to know about your views.

I like chocolate ice cream over vanilla. Just as my preferences in flavors does not apply nor does your question have relevancy to the thread’s topic. Start a thread if the age of the earth obsesses you.

 

[rossum]

Incorrigible. Just incorrigible.

Here is Professor Behe:

“For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin’s mechanism – natural selection working on variation – might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life.”

– Darwin’s Black Box, page 5

Do you agree with Professor Behe on the age of the universe? Yes or no please.

Do you agree with Professor Behe on common descent? Yes or no please.

 

[buffalo]

If a system is no longer required in your environment then it is beneficial not to expend energy building that system.

We are finding common ground. Indeed, the organism discards the system by breaking or blunting genes.

Evo proponents have to show empirically in minute detail how the complexity of the cell came about. At each step there must be a proven fitness benefit.

What we observe is front loading and the genetic entropy.

 

[buffalo]

Yet you don’t believe in common descent

Uh, learn the difference between UCD and CD.

 

[buffalo]

So, having linked to Behe as someone whose position is one we should trust, do you accept what he says about common descent and the age of the planet? Or do we get more deflection…

Anyone for that matter can right about something and be wrong in accepting other things. This does not invalidate the part he got right.

 

[rossum]

At each step there must be a proven fitness benefit.

Your “must be” is incorrect. There may well be a fitness benefit, but such a benefit is not necessary. Neutral mutations may also be present, which involve neither a benefit nor a penalty. See Kimura (1968) for details of neutral theory.

 

[o_mlly]

Do you agree with Professor Behe on the age of the universe? Yes or no please.

I also have no reason to doubt what physicists claim as the age of the universe and it’s irrelevant to the issue of evolution. The age of the earth is less than that of the universe but that too is irrelevant.

I believe that science does not have sufficient evidence to claim that mutation and natural selection theory explains vegetative to animal or animal to man.

In this respect, I agree with Behe:

I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn’t explain the vast differences among species. Darwin Under the Microscope.

 

[buffalo]

I think a refusal to answer simple questions says all anyone needs to know about your views.

Unanswered, as usual… “Do You accept as fact soft tissue has been found in dino bones?”

 

[buffalo]

Neutral mutations may also be present,

This is the molecules to man claim?

 

[buffalo]

If something is not witnessed and cannot be replicated, it cannot move from hypothesis to theory. Calling something a fact does not make it so. Where is the trend line? Vast complexity that evo is struggling with. Evo will never move out of theory. Pretty much the final nail in the coffin.

 

[rossum]

This is the molecules to man claim?

No. It has nothing whatsoever to do with abiogenesis. Neutral theory only comes into play after life has started. It deals with how neutral mutations spread, or not, in a population. See Kimura (1968). That was published over 50 years ago. Even your creationist/ID sources should be aware of it by now.

You claimed that all mutations had to be beneficial. That was an incorrect claim; some mutations can be neutral.

 

[buffalo]

No. It has nothing whatsoever to do with abiogenesis. Neutral theory only comes into play after life has started. It deals with how neutral mutations spread, or not, in a population. See Kimura (1968). That was published over 50 years ago. Even your creationist/ID sources should be aware of it by now.

We are speaking of complexity arising. Are you admitting complexity was front loaded before evolution started?

 

[rossum]

We are speaking of complexity arising. Are you admitting complexity was front loaded before evolution started?

No, of course not. If it was “front loaded” then it was already present and could not have arisen. Please show us where the complexity you are talking about was present in the cloud of (mostly) hydrogen after the Big Bang and before the first stars began to form under gravity.

It is well established that evolutionary processes can increase the complexity of DNA. There is no need for complexity to be front loaded.

A neutral mutation can increase complexity. For example, a gene duplication makes two copies of the same gene. Then one copy undergoes a neutral mutation. Both copies are still functional, and there is now more functional DNA than there was before.

Duplication mutations have been observed. Neutral mutations have been observed. Your claim is incorrect. I suggest you find better sources that do not misinform you.

 

[buffalo]

No, of course not. If it was “front loaded” then it was already present and could not have arisen.

So then you are a molecules to man adherent with blind faith in the god of BUC.

Do You accept as fact soft tissue has been found in dino bones?

 

[Dovekin]

rossum:

No, of course not. If it was “front loaded” then it was already present and could not have arisen.

So then you are a molecules to man adherent with blind faith in the god of BUC.

Do You accept as fact soft tissue has been found in dino bones?

Who is BUC? I do not see any notes from him, I am just wondering how he got into the discussion.

Do you know people who do not think soft tissue has been found in dinosaur bones? What is the point of the question?

 

[Freddy]

buffalo:

rossum:

No, of course not. If it was “front loaded” then it was already present and could not have arisen.

So then you are a molecules to man adherent with blind faith in the god of BUC.

Do You accept as fact soft tissue has been found in dino bones?

Do you know people who do not think soft tissue has been found in dinosaur bones? What is the point of the question?

See the second quoted paragraph below for the point…

I think it was Schweitzer who was the first. And wouldn’t you know it, she says the bones were millions of years old.

'In 1991, Schweitzer was trying to study thin slices of bones from a 65-million-year-old T. rex.

Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” Dinosaur Shocker | Science | Smithsonian Magazine

We now eagerly await to see if anyone twists her words and manipulates her data. Stay tuned…

 

[Freddy]

rossum:

Do you agree with Professor Behe on the age of the universe? Yes or no please.

The age of the earth is less than that of the universe but that too is irrelevant.

Godd grief. What a nonsensical answer.

Firstly by saying that the age of the earth is irrelevant and then avoiding any admission as to what you believe it to be. As regards it’s relevance, this answers Buff’s point as well. As the process of evolution has required millions of years to move from bacteria to the full complement of life as we now see it, it is impossible for it to have happened if the planet is only a few thousand years old. To which Buff has (reluctantly) admitted and to which you won’t.

Suggesting (as he did) that you can accept some aspects of the process and reject others is monstrously wrong. The whole point of the fundamentalist argument is to show that life is only a few thousand years old. If the planet is billions of years old then it doesn’t matter what science you try to bring to the conversation, it doesn’t matter who you quote, it doesn’t matter what evidence you bring to the table, the very point you are trying to make is catastrophically wrong.

And as we have seen, linking to anything but fundamentalist web sites to try to make a point simply emphasises that. You link to Behe and he tells you that you are not just not in the ball park but you’re barely in the right continent. He’s saying that you couldn’t be more wrong.