Creationist Ham appearing at Cork + UCD

robindch

Ecksor -

> Has he expressed creationist views?

Yes, he has; In fact, all of his views are absolutely standard creationist fare, including the one which I quoted in my reply.

> Either way, I think his points can be usefully
> discussed without discussion of religion.

Creationism is an idea which explains the origin of species by recourse to arguments common to most religious memes (as I outlined previously), and fits in particularly well in the fundamentalist christian memes currenty doing the rounds in north America. As such, an understanding of the religious core of such ideas is fundamental to any attempt to understand creationism, and does also explain, partly, why skeptics have had such a lousy success rate in convincing creationists of the clanging errors in their logic -- creationists are simply not interested in examining ideas which question their 'christian' belief system and in my experience, consistently, simply, and flatly, deny whatever they want to in order to prop their belief system up.

- robin.

robindch

J C -

> The yardstick for a valid Scientific Theory remains - i.e. precisely
> defined and lending itself to testing by observation / experimentation.
> Science needs to implement this standard in relation to “The Theory
> of Evolution"

As others have pointed out, evolution has been, from the start, a fully-paid up scientific theory, backed by huge amounts of evidence. As you are still insisting the opposite, can I refer you to the following three articles:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

which cover in fairly good detail, where you are going wrong in your statement above. Since there are several thousand words contained within these articles, they're too long to copy'n'paste in here.

- robin.

ecksor

Ok, so by "creationist views" you mean that he has expressed some criticisms of the theory of evolution that some creationists have also expressed? To me, talk of creationism looks like off-topic ranting in that context and out of character since I normally find your posts quite worthwhile.

Creationism is an idea which explains[..]

I don't think he's claiming to explain the origins of species. Creationism may be his ulterior motive but I see no solid evidence of that, so I don't see why it necessarily has to be referred to in the replies. Why not attack the arguments he poses rather than leaving your posts open to falling under the typical "card carrying skeptic" stereotype of bashing certain groups mindlessly?

The discussion that Wicknight is engaging in (and your last post does engage in this, to be fair) seems far more interesting (and actually relevant).

Anyway, I was just wondering if I was missing something from his posts or your line of reasoning, so I'll go back to lurking now.

Myksyk

I accept that speculation is a significant component of the important “brainstorming” stage of the scientific process. It can provide the “seed” ideas that may subsequently be framed into scientific hypothesises for testing to validate them as a Scientific Theory (or not as the case may be). Speculation can provide a very useful service to science

Agreed.

– but it is strictly outside of the deposit of scientific knowledge contained in validated scientific theories – and the two should never be confused.

No, the original idea remains firmly intact in a validated scientific theory. In fact, it becomes accepted as a SCIENTIFIC theory and not just a theory in the common sense of the word.

The theory of Natural Selection is a valid scientific theory as I have already pointed out – and continues to remain valid. The "Theory of Evolution" is still stuck at the speculation stage - where one person's view is as good as the next - and that is why there are as many "Theories of Evolution" as there are people who believe in it!!

This really does confuse me. The theory of natural selection is THE theory of evolution. It is a proposal of HOW evolution happens, i.e. its main mechanism. Many theories of evolution existed before this but Darwin's brilliant idea was in positing a mechanism for evolution. I'm glad you agree it is a valid scientific theory, because it is the only theory of evolution taken seriously.

I am not confused - but I think I know someone who ...iiiis.

Perhaps. I'm always seeking enlightenment!

Refutation (by testing / experimentation) is only a relatively simple matter if the theory being refuted is a valid Scientific Theory in the first place

I don't agree. By definition, it is probably easier to find evidence against a bad idea than a good one.

Fossilised Human artefacts HAVE been found in rocks – but their presence in the rocks has been INTERPRETED as indicating that the rocks were very young. The dating of rocks by using so-called Index Fossils and then dating the fossils themselves by the supposed "age" of the rocks that they are found in, is circular logic !!.

Rocks can and are aged independently of anything found in them.

Intermediate stages (if such ever existed) would always confer net disadvantage – because an eye, for example, is only useful when it is a functioning eye - otherwise it is a liability. Your belief that an “intermediate eye” would have partial sight or even partial light sensing ability is not founded on reality.

You seem to be saying that unless an eye is a modern (human) eye, it is not an eye at all? There are thousands of species with less complex eyes than humans which are fully functional. This is the point. Functionality is a completely relative term. Less complex forms of a complex form can be fully functional in relation the needs of the organism. Would you agree that there are tens of thousands of species with eyes far less complex than humans but still fully 'functional'. In fact do you know that there are organisms which use simple light sensitive cells to move toward or away from environmental stimuli ... in what way are these 'eyes' not functional for those organisms?

Complex structures don’t work AT ALL unless all components are present and capable of functionality

This myth has been exploded by mainstrean science and exposed in popular writings by people like Kenneth Miller and Niles Eldridge.

No - because the previous functioning eye of a sighted individual is obviously functioning.

This is where we revisit the realtivity of the word 'functioning'. A simple light sensitive cell which aids an organism in moving toward light is an eye, plain and simple. It may be less complex than other eyes but it is a functioning eye.

its results will be UNPREDICTABLE and therefore by definition RANDOM.

Unpredictable and random are not in any way the same thing.

The Scientific Theory of Natural Selection provides an excellent explanation for observed adaptation in populations exposed to changed environments, full stop.

Glad you think so. This is a form of evolution.

The theory doesn’t explain how this genetic variation arose in the first place – Evolution attempts to do so, but doesn’t succeed.

Again, Darwins theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is THE theory of evolution. I'm unsure why you are assuming they are different.

As a professional scientist, my primary role is to test the validity of current Scientific Theories – not necessarily to propose new ones.

I'm not asking you to propose new ones. Unless you are in an intellectual limbo you must have a theory you support. I'm just interested to know what it is. If "evolution by natural selection" is so flawed, what is the alternative which you support?

john kavanagh

fantastic thread!

Zombrex

Myksyk wrote:

This really does confuse me. The theory of natural selection is THE theory of evolution. It is a proposal of HOW evolution happens, i.e. its main mechanism. Many theories of evolution existed before this but Darwin's brilliant idea was in positing a mechanism for evolution. I'm glad you agree it is a valid scientific theory, because it is the only theory of evolution taken seriously.

Ah now it is clear. He seems to be getting the theory of evolution confused with the process of natural selection.

Natural Selection is a process put forward to explain how evolution takes place, on both a macro and micro level. There is still a lot of debate about the details of natural selection, how exactly it works, and how, combined with mutation, it can develop complex organisims such as the eye. That is not to say it is not a sound theory, there is a lot of evidence to back up Natural Selection.

But above that evolution is even more established and proven. Evolution happens, it is the how exactly it happens which is still being debated. Natural Selection is the most reasonable and supported theory. Other theories include divine control, but there is little evidence for this :rolleyes:

Hobbes

Coming late to the thread (and haven't read everything). But here is my 2c.

Evolution is a theory. Theory does not mean "Fact". That said if evolution is proven wrong scientists adjust thier theories accordantly. It is the basis of science to question everything.

Creationism on the other hand is based on the contents of a book written generations ago and rewritten and changed as agenas of the church seemed fit. Creationism (of what I read) doesn't bother question their own facts but rather try to dismiss others. It also tends to have nothing to back it up except faith. To some that is all well and good but it is hardly science.

Another gets me is that it is possible that Evolution and the almighty God can exist together. Whos to say it is not gods plan? Of course there is no way to back this up.

Myksyk

Another gets me is that it is possible that Evolution and the almighty God can exist together. Whos to say it is not gods plan? Of course there is no way to back this up.

Kenneth Miller's book 'Finding Darwin's God' attempts to bridge evolution and Christianity. It is very well written and although it didn't convince me in places I thought it was a very good read and an intellectually honest attempt to deal with all the facts and evidence.

Zombrex

Hobbes wrote:

Another gets me is that it is possible that Evolution and the almighty God can exist together. Whos to say it is not gods plan? Of course there is no way to back this up.

I think the problem is too many people, especially in the US, put to much faith in a literal interpretation of the Bible. They believe in God because they believe in the Bible, where it should be the other way around. TBH this seems ironically like a lack of faith. They need a reason to believe in God, and the Bible is presented as the reason. Therefore anything that contradicts the Bible is felt as an attack on their belief foundation.

I am an athesist, and while I hope (believe is too strong a word) that human self-awareness is something that goes beyond realims of our science and understanding, I do not believe in any form of "God". But if I did I would base this belief on a faith that is not relient on the writings of a book.

If the Bible is proved to be a complete fake tomorrow, I would like to think if I did believe in God I still would believe in God, but I think it would cause a lot of people who are creationist to have a crisis of faith

Peoples belief in God should not be so wrapped up in the literal writings of the Bible. Half the bible doesn't even make sense and contradicts the other half. There is no reason why science cannot be the exploration of how God build the universe. May scientists see science as a way to understand God. The two do not have to be incompatable if religious people just have a bit more faith

robindch

Hi Ecksor -

To me, talk of creationism looks like off-topic ranting

'fraid not -- look at the thread subject

> I don't think he's claiming to explain the origins of species.

Yes, you're quite right in saying this. So far, JC has mentioned the well-known problem of biogenesis, though he hasn't addressed any of the responses from biologists and instead resorts to what Dawkins (and here, Myksyk and myself elsewhere) referred to as argument from incredulity. Neither has he, as requested by Myksyk, provided any alternate explanations as to how life may have arisen, though from the creationist content of his postings, I think it's reasonable to assume that he believes that life on earth was created by a form of life called 'god', genesis unknown.

> Creationism may be his ulterior motive but I see no solid evidence
> of that

I think you should read his postings again and compare the content and tone to any of the christian fundamentalist creationist websites -- http://www.answersingenesis.org, for example, though there are thousands more. Specifically, the claims that evolution is dead, that it's not a science, that if any particular part of it is shown to be false, that the whole edifice collapses, etc, etc.

> Why not attack the arguments he poses

For two reasons: (a) because Myksyk and various other occasional posters are doing that already perfectly well, and, (b) what's at least as important in my view, that nobody has addressed *why* it is that arguing with creationists is almost always an entirely pointless activity -- look at the number of Myksyk's questions which remain unanswered. I'm just trying to expand on the information available to this thread's readers.

> bashing certain groups mindlessly

Bashing them - yes, but hardly less than he's slagging off scientists + biologists in calling them a disingenuous lot. And mindlessly? I disagree!

- robin.

robindch

Hi Wicknight -

> I think the problem is too many people, especially in the US,
> put to much faith in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

It's not so much a literal interpretation in the general sense, but a *specific* literal interpretation of *specific* parts of the bible. No creationist I'm aware of has ever explained to me how to reconcile the two contradictory accounts contained within the biblical genesis story (see this link for a brief commentary on this; there are longer ones elsewhere). Likewise, the appearance of many details of the genesis + Noachian stories in much earlier Sumerian creation texts is almost always glossed over and ignored, since it destroys the uniqueness of the stories within a biblical context.

> If the Bible is proved to be a complete fake tomorrow

Close to impossible -- how could you prove that the book is a fake? And what could 'fake' mean in this context anyway?

> Half the bible doesn't even make sense and contradicts the other half.

See http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com for an excellent deconstruction of much of the text of bible.

> There is no reason why science cannot be the exploration
> of how God build the universe.

This is a curiously Islamic viewpoint, since the Qu'ran explicitly instructs its adherents to go out and to learn about the world, which the early Islamists did so well that they completely eclipsed western Europe in science + learning. Unfortunately, with the coming of the Renaissance and the Reformation and the consequent realization that the bible was not the ultimate source of truth concerning all the world, European science began to bound ahead and leave Islam (having undergone neither a renaissance nor a reformation) and its Islamic science dead in the water, where, to a very great extent, it still remains.

> May scientists see science as a way to understand God. The
> two do not have to be incompatable if religious people just
> have a bit more faith

'understanding god' is such a woolly concept, and is open to so many entirely different, and incompatible, viewpoints, that you can certainly argue as you have done, but I don't think that it's likely to produce much in the way of results. Likewise, rather than wanting more faith from the religious (who already produce the stuff in great quantity) you'd asked for a small drop of reason to add to their lives, I'd be the first to stand up and applaud!

- robin.

ecksor

robindch wrote:

Hi Ecksor -

To me, talk of creationism looks like off-topic ranting

'fraid not -- look at the thread subject

Touché. However, the responses still read as incongruous, even if he does turn out to be a creationist. If I were in his shoes, I would avoid the question and point out that you're demonstrating the baggage that he referred to in his first couple of posts.

> I don't think he's claiming to explain the origins of species.

Yes, you're quite right in saying this. So far, JC has mentioned the well-known problem of biogenesis, though he hasn't addressed any of the responses from biologists and instead resorts to what Dawkins (and here, Myksyk and myself elsewhere) referred to as argument from incredulity. Neither has he, as requested by Myksyk, provided any alternate explanations as to how life may have arisen,

One can't try to pick holes in a theory until one has a better explanation?

though from the creationist content of his postings, I think it's reasonable to assume that he believes that life on earth was created by a form of life called 'god', genesis unknown.

I don't find it reasonable to assume that. Perhaps it is reasonable to suspect that.

> Creationism may be his ulterior motive but I see no solid evidence
> of that

I think you should read his postings again and compare the content and tone to any of the christian fundamentalist creationist websites -- http://www.answersingenesis.org, for example, though there are thousands more. Specifically, the claims that evolution is dead, that it's not a science, that if any particular part of it is shown to be false, that the whole edifice collapses, etc, etc.

I see your point, but I still don't see solid evidence. If this was the strength of the evidence for evolution I wouldn't believe in that either!

> bashing certain groups mindlessly

Bashing them - yes, but hardly less than he's slagging off scientists + biologists in calling them a disingenuous lot. And mindlessly? I disagree!

You chopped off a rather important part of my sentence there I think. What you do and what arguments you leave yourself open to are different things.

davros

ecksor wrote:

I don't find it reasonable to assume that. Perhaps it is reasonable to suspect that.

It's a very fair point you're making and indeed JC has not declared himself in the Creationist camp. But he did allow that impression right from the start when he suggested we go to Ken Ham's talk with open minds.

That sounds very reasonable and it's not irrefutable evidence of a particular belief. And yet, and yet... we know that Ken Ham is going to argue for the literal truth of Genesis. We've all considered this and made our minds up long ago one way or the other. It's not a difficult choice. I'd give damn good odds that those who can still go to listen to Ken Ham with an "open mind" are fully paid-up Creationists. It's certainly a good working hypothesis.

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

It's not so much a literal interpretation in the general sense, but a *specific* literal interpretation of *specific* parts of the bible.

Very true. I knew a deeply religious American in college who thought the whole fuss about the Genenis thing was hilarious because if you actually properly study the Bible, like he has spent years doing, and more specificially the Jewish Old Testement, the story of the 6 day creation is actually an old Jewish poem and was never meant to be taken literally. I am not sure on the exact details, TBH I never discussed it much with him, but he said even the use of the words "days" is not a literal mean, and was orignally used to only mean "a passing of time" not 24 hours.

I also remember reading somewhere that the actual 10 Commandments are nothing like the "Thou shall not kill etc" commandments. They are just a set of laws Moses read out. The only time "Ten Commandments" is mentioned in the proper translation of the Bible is to do with a rather bizzare list of things including don't boil a sheeps heart inside its stomach

And then you have the whole thing about the word "virgin" with reference to Mary being actually a mis-translation.

There is a very good reason why the early church did not want anyone to actually read the Bible

robindch wrote:

Close to impossible -- how could you prove that the book is a fake? And what could 'fake' mean in this context anyway?

I was more just using that as an example of a crisis of faith to highlight the fact that some religious people seem to believe more in the Bible than in God.

robindch wrote:

This is a curiously Islamic viewpoint, since the Qu'ran explicitly instructs its adherents to go out and to learn about the world, which the early Islamists did so well that they completely eclipsed western Europe in science + learning.

Interesting. I always think it is rather ironic (maybe not the correct word) the way the church swings between being at the forefront of science (genetics was discovered by a Monk) to completely damning science and holding back discovery for years.

robindch wrote:

'understanding god' is such a woolly concept, and is open to so many entirely different, and incompatible, viewpoints, that you can certainly argue as you have done, but I don't think that it's likely to produce much in the way of results. Likewise, rather than wanting more faith from the religious (who already produce the stuff in great quantity) you'd asked for a small drop of reason to add to their lives, I'd be the first to stand up and applaud!

Well some believe that the search for true is the search for God's plan. If your faith is based on something more than the writings of accient middle eastern prophets, then someone of faith should have nothing to fear from the search for true of the universe, which leads to a greater understand of the universe, which if one is a person of faith, leads to a greater understanding of God's creation. It is, ironically, weakness of faith that prevents some in the church from accepting science

pH

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

No, I'm afraid I don't realise that. Maybe you can explain how the following tenets of catholicism are compatible with evolution.

The Soul (Humans Only)
Creation of Man in God's image
Original Sin

robindch

Hi -

Ecksor - One can't try to pick holes in a theory until one has a better explanation?

Absolutely -- that's the core of the scientific method, not to mention the core of the almost-synonymous, skeptic philosophy. However, JC's initial hole-picking was in the direction of the problem of biogenesis, in which he produced a very short, very mysterious statistical calculation, which did not list its base assumptions, and which permitted him to conclude that one of the most well-supported theories in the whole of science is complete nonsense. Consequently, I find myself, not unsurprisingly, thinking that such a calculation is worthless. If he's prepared to tell us how he reached the start of his calculation, he should be able to convince us die-hard skeptic types without any trouble at all. I'm awaiting such an explanation with interest. JC? Over to you!

From the other direction, it's sufficient not only to pick holes in an existing theory, one must additionally propose testable and disprovable hypotheses which explain the observed facts more coherently. Again, JC hasn't done that, though I'm sure he'll enlighten us as soon as possible!

Wicknight - if you actually properly study the Bible

This is probably more appropriate to a new thread -- please feel free to start one on biblical criticism, and we can continue this discussion there, as there's plenty of meat in that one

I'll try to get around to replying to one or other of JC's earlier postings tomorrow; have been meaning to do it all day, but I've been dying of the flu

- robin.

J C

Wicknight

Quote:
Firstly we are not sure how light works, and there have been a number of experiments that give different out comes. There is still a debate going on about whether light is a wave or a praticle, because experiments can show it is both. If we cannot agree on the most fundamental nature of light how can you say our theories are any more vaild than evolution
To explain my point - The scientific theories on BOTH the wave and particulate nature of light are precise and testable – and they are therefore valid. Science admits that it doesn’t know everything about light and the frontiers of validated scientific knowledge about light are also very clear. Such clarity also greatly assists progress in research into the aspects of light that are still unknown.
I don’t have to BELIEVE in the particulate or wave aspects of light - I can VERIFY them through observation and experimentation. We don’t have to agree on the nature of light – science is not a “beauty contest” – it is a body of knowledge based on objective empirical evidence explained by testable precisely defined theories.
Quote:
Secondly, there is a wealth of evidence that show evolution is a sound scientific theory. Everything from the fossil record, where you can chart the graduial development from species to species, to micro-evolution that you can actually watch happen in front of you, to what we know about DNA, cell reproduction and mutation.
There is no evidence within the fossil record of “gradual development from species to species”. All species appear in the fossil record “fully fledged” with so-called “missing links” AKA “intermediate forms” never observed. In fact Darwin himself acknowledged that the lack of transitions in the fossil record was an obvious and serious objection AGAINST his theory. That objection still remains today.
For “Muck to Man” evolution to occur MASSIVE INCREASES in NEW genetic INFORMATION is required. Evolution does not postulate any plausible mechanism to supply the necessary new genetic information. There is not enough matter or time in the known Universe to guarantee the random production of the specific amino acid sequence for a simple protein – and Evolution claims that life arose spontaneously and developed into man through random processes – I think not!!

What is observed in “micro evolution” or Natural Selection is the adaptation of a population to a changed environment through “genetic drift” among that population towards phenotypes that are more suited to the new environment. However, the adaptation always uses inherent genetic diversity ALREADY WITHIN the population and in extremis a highly adapted population can end up in an inbred genetic cul-de-sac unable to adapt to any other environmental change due to it’s loss of genetic diversity during the initial adaptation process. The Theory of Natural Selection is a valid scientific theory as it is precisely defined and is testable by repeatable observation and/or experimentation. Having said that, Natural Selection itself certainly doesn’t produce variation – and tends to produce STABILITY in a STABLE environment by selecting AGAINST novel types of creatures.

Quote:
No one has ever seen an atom. By definiton we cannot directly "see" an atom. We know it is there by watching the effects of its presence. Likewise no one has ever directly observed the presence of some of the plants in other solar systems. We know they are there by observing their effects on their surrounding, and applyign sound theory as to what would be causing those effects. Likewise with evolution, no one has directly observed macro-evolution, because by definition that is impossible. What we have observed is the effects of macro-evolution, on the fossil record, and by studying the adaptability of species in certain enviornments
Atomic theory is precisely defined and it can be verified by direct observation – the “effect” that a particle has IS a direct observation - ditto for a planet. Most scientific experiments actually measure the effects of various phenomena and are a central component of The Scientific Method.
Evolution on the other hand isn’t precisely defined and NEITHER macro evolution NOR it putative effects have ever been observed. Objective observation of the fossil record shows it to actually be a record of rapid (sometimes instantaneous) death and catastrophic burial – and NOT a record of the gradual development of life over time. The Geological Theories on the ageing of sedimentary rocks (and the fossils contained therein) using what were thought to be annual micro sedimentation layers – led to the belief that the sedimentary rocks and fossils at the bottom of the Grand Canyon were hundreds of millions of years older than the ones at the top. These theories will have to be re-tested and probably abandoned because of the Mount St Helens experience – where sedimentary rock layers of up to 30 metres deep and containing hundreds of thousands of micro layers were OBSERVED to be laid down in a matter of HOURS after this catastrophic eruption.

Quote:
By applying your rather incorrect application of "science" it is not scientifically correct to say Vikings ever existed, because no one has ever observed a Viking. We know they did exist by observing the effects they made on their surroundings, the artificats they left behind.
No problem with the existence of the Vikings - as I have said a directly observable “effect” is a direct observation – and the Vikings left us with plenty of “effects”.
Quote:
We apply everything we know about biology, fossils, micro-evolution (that can be observed), chemistry and nature. All of these different fields support the idea of evolution. Nothing disputes it. The theory makes sense, is supported by evidence and can be modelled. What more do you want. That is better than most scientific theories.
Oh no it’s not. It simply doesn’t fit our observed REALITY!!
We have never observed any mechanism spontaneously generating life – it should still be there somewhere if Evolution is true. However, it can easily be shown to be a MATHEMATICAL impossibility – so maybe it’s no surprise that it hasn’t been observed!!

We have observed millions of different species which are distinctly different and whose cells are packed with organised information of amazing density and unimaginable complexity – there should be millions of intermediate forms everywhere among both living and fossil creatures, if Evolution is true. Not even ONE continuum has ever observed.

We have observed biochemical systems at atomic levels of resolution that outclass the largest and most sophisticated manufacturing abilities of mankind. Random Evolution doesn’t even “get to the starting gates” on this one. For example, if every ELECTRON in the KNOWN UNIVERSE, produced a random 100 amino acid sequence one thousand million times every second for 5,000 million years only 10 to the power of 107 permutations would be produced which is only sufficient to guarantee the production of specific useful proteins with chain lengths of 83 amino acids or less – and that is only the chance of getting the SEQUENCE right – never the problem of actually producing the protein.

We have observed levels of interlinked complexity and functionality within living systems that are orders of magnitude greater than out most powerful computer systems. Random Evolution is also “at the starting gates” on this one – try using a hammer to improve your computer and see what happens!! – PLEASE, PLEASE, DON’T it was only a joke!!!

We have observed great perfection and genetic diversity in all species – Evolution would predict very significant levels of “work in progress” with practically every creature looking like a “Dog’s Dinner” as it moved “onwards and upwards” in a haphazard random fashion.

We have observed evidence that the only mechanism postulated by Evolution to produce genetic variation – genetic mutation – is invariably damaging to the genome and results in lethal and semi lethal conditions, conferring disadvantage most of the time. This is hardly a plausible mechanism to provide for the massive INCREASE in information evident at all points between “muck and man”.
We have observed that all living systems use pre-existing SOPHISTICATED complex biochemical systems and bio-molecules to produce SIMPLE bio-molecules – and the production of DNA itself requires the pre-existence of DNA / RNA and a massively complex array of other biochemical “machinery”. A “chicken and egg” situation that Evolution cannot even start to explain.
.
We have never observed any "higher species" to actually INCREASE genetic information over time – Not good news for an Evolutionary Theory that postulates an increase in genetic information over time.

Quote:
Evolution Theory is nothing like faith at all. If something came along that disproved evolution tomorrow (the human inside a dinasour) scientist would drop evolution tomorrow. Evolution is a scientific theory based on evidence and observation of the natural world.
Would it really? “Something” has come along many, many times and yet Evolution hasn’t been dropped!!

J C

Ecksor

Quote:
(Some) People appear to be countering J C on the basis of his creationist views. Has he expressed creationist views? I can't see them. Perhaps I'm misreading them. Perhaps he is a creationist but my suspicion from reading his posts is that he is not. Either way, I think his points can be usefully discussed without discussion of religion.

Maybe I'm mistaken (and if so then no doubt you will point it out) but I seem to be seeing some irony in somebody coming to the skeptics forum, encouraging people to question something and finding that instead they jump to further conclusions based on shaky assumptions.
“Got it in one” Ecksor!!

Quote:
Ok, so by "creationist views" you mean that he has expressed some criticisms of the theory of evolution that some creationists have also expressed? To me, talk of creationism looks like off-topic ranting in that context and out of character since I normally find your posts quite worthwhile.
I don't think he's claiming to explain the origins of species. Creationism may be his ulterior motive but I see no solid evidence of that, so I don't see why it necessarily has to be referred to in the replies. Why not attack the arguments he poses rather than leaving your posts open to falling under the typical "card carrying skeptic" stereotype of bashing certain groups mindlessly?

Listen to Ecksor Robin (s)he is making sense – but do keep the argument up!!!!

Myksyk

Quote:
The original (speculative) idea remains firmly intact in a validated scientific theory. In fact, it becomes accepted as a SCIENTIFIC theory and not just a theory in the common sense of the word.
Agreed – but if the Theory ISN’T validated (as with Evolution) – all speculation about it remains just speculation – and should remain STRICTLY outside of the deposit of scientific knowledge contained in validated scientific theories.

Quote
This really does confuse me. The theory of natural selection is THE theory of evolution. It is a proposal of HOW evolution happens, i.e. its main mechanism. Many theories of evolution existed before this but Darwin's brilliant idea was in positing a mechanism for evolution. I'm glad you agree it is a valid scientific theory, because it is the only theory of evolution taken seriously.
The scientifically valid Theory of Natural Selection is most certainly not the scientifically invalid “Many Theories of Evolution”. Forgive my repetition - but The Theory of Natural Selection provides an excellent explanation for observed selection and adaptation in populations exposed to changed environments, full stop. However, this adaptation has always been observed to utilise inherent genetic diversity ALREADY WITHIN the population. The theory therefore doesn’t explain how this genetic variation arose in the first place – “Muck to Man” Evolution attempts to do so, but doesn’t succeed.
Less than 15% of Americans take the Theory of Evolution seriously – and I have a strange feeling there will also be a similar “seismic shift” in public opinion over here.

Quote:
By definition, it is probably easier to find evidence against a bad idea than a good one.
It certainly is, and the evidence against Evolution is overwhelming – but there is no precisely defined scientific theory to disprove – and so it remains happily in it’s very own scientific “Twilight Zone” !!.

Quote:
You seem to be saying that unless an eye is a modern (human) eye, it is not an eye at all? There are thousands of species with less complex eyes than humans which are fully functional. This is the point. Functionality is a completely relative term. Less complex forms of a complex form can be fully functional in relation the needs of the organism. Would you agree that there are tens of thousands of species with eyes far less complex than humans but still fully 'functional'. In fact do you know that there are organisms which use simple light sensitive cells to move toward or away from environmental stimuli ... in what way are these 'eyes' not functional for those organisms?
So-called “Simple light sensitive cells” are actually very complex gizmos indeed - and all of my previous comments in relation to complex systems equally apply to them as well. Talking about a “simple cell” is just like talking about a “simple super computer” only that the “simple cell” is many orders of magnitude more complex!!!

Quote:
The myth (that Complex structures don’t work AT ALL unless all components are present and capable of functionality) has been exploded by mainstrean science and exposed in popular writings by people like Kenneth Miller and Niles Eldridge.
I don’t think that I will get Mssrs Miller and Eldridge to service my car – for some peculiar reason, I prefer to have ALL components present and FUNCTIONAL – I find that it usually helps it start!!!

Quote:
Darwins theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is THE theory of evolution.
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is technically Darwin’s Speculations about Evolution. The scope of the scientific Theory of Natural Selection is confined to observed adaptation by SELECTION in CURRENT populations exposed to changed environments, full stop.

Quote:
Unless you are in an intellectual limbo you must have a theory you support.
As a professional scientist isn’t it amazing that I don’t have to support or not support the current scientifically DEFINED theories on light, electromagnetism, gravity, etc – I just accept them like ALL of my fellow colleagues (of every skeptical persuasion and none) because I can easily validate them from my own direct observations/experiments or the peer reviewed observations/experiments of other scientists.
Why do we have so many different “Supporters Clubs” (even among evolutionists- never mind creationists etc) for this strangely diverse Beast called Evolution? Think about it!!
I prefer to keep my own sceptical detached scientific distance until a SCIENTIFIC resolution to this mess is achieved – and that should be what all professional scientists who wish to retain their credibility should also do!!.

Wicknight
Quote:
Ah now it is clear. He seems to be getting the theory of evolution confused with the process of natural selection.

Natural Selection is a process put forward to explain how evolution takes place, on both a macro and micro level. There is still a lot of debate about the details of natural selection, how exactly it works, and how, combined with mutation, it can develop complex organisims such as the eye. That is not to say it is not a sound theory, there is a lot of evidence to back up Natural Selection.

But above that evolution is even more established and proven. Evolution happens, it is the how exactly it happens which is still being debated.

If this is the current sorry state of the Theory of Evolution - I rest my case!!!

I only hope that no Physicists or Chemists or even Creationists are looking in on this!!!!!

On second thoughts I hope that they are – maybe if a few Physicists or even Creationists joined the Biology Faculties they might sort this one out!!!

Houston we have a PROBLEM!!

Over and Out!!

Turley

robindch wrote:

The immortal HL Mencken reported upon the Scopes trial of 1925, and his reports live on, in their entirety, at this site, and are worth reading, as much for a longer and better description of what I've summarised above, as for their sparkling prose style.

The mortal H.L. Mencken is not someone I would recommend as the source of truth. In his own words he confessed that much of the news he reported was invented while sitting on bar stools in Baltimore because it wore out too much shoe leather gathering the facts. See "A Choice of Days" a collection of essays published by Random House in 1981, Chapter 13, The Synthesis of the News, pages 207-222.

Mencken is another example that experts can be wrong and even Mencken admited that he fabricated his news stories.

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

I am an athesist, and while I hope (believe is too strong a word) that human self-awareness is something that goes beyond realims of our science and understanding, I do not believe in any form of "God". But if I did I would base this belief on a faith that is not relient on the writings of a book.

If the Bible is proved to be a complete fake tomorrow, I would like to think if I did believe in God I still would believe in God, but I think it would cause a lot of people who are creationist to have a crisis of faith

I don't think belief in God is so much connected to the Bible. And belief in creation is not the same as Christianity. Ancient people had faith in God or gods before they had the Bible or Christianity. The Japanese Shinto religion, independent of the Book of Genesis, had a mythology with dieties and creation.

robindch

> The mortal H.L. Mencken is not someone I would recommend as
> the source of truth. In his own words he confessed that much
> of the news he reported was invented while sitting on bar
> stools in Baltimore because it wore out too much shoe leather
> gathering the facts.

As I'm sure you know as well as I do, Mencken was a supreme ironicist, much in the manner of Gibbon or Johnson, and continually provoked people, very often for the simple pleasure of seeing them jump...

> See "A Choice of Days" a collection of essays published
> by Random House in 1981

...and as I don't have this particular book, I can't comment upon it, nor upon what looks to me like a typical, and typically amusing, Mencken joke. However, if you do have the book and can spare the time and effort to photocopy these pages and post them to me, I'll be happy to post my opinion upon whether or not he was playing a straight ball, or a curved one.

> experts can be wrong

You've posted a similar sentiment in, I believe, every previous thread to which you've contributed and, as before, I don't think that anybody's going to deny that experts can be wrong. Though, as ever, you'll find that experts, on account of their knowledge concerning their own field, will be on target more often than non-experts. I'm sure that you go to a doctor for a medical diagnosis, rather than MacDonalds?

And in any case, when I was referring the thread readership to Mencken, I was doing so in order that they could read more about what I was saying in the referring posting's previous paragraph about ignorance forever threatening knowledge within the minds of people. And I'm sure that you, Turley, and I, can agree upon that?

- robin.

bus77

davros wrote:

It's a very fair point you're making and indeed JC has not declared himself in the Creationist camp. But he did allow that impression right from the start when he suggested we go to Ken Ham's talk with open minds.

But buy displaying such clear dislike and active condemnation for such individuals, seemingly revolving around the evololution issue. Could that not be considered the stance of 'Darwinists'?

Wicknight wrote:

There is a very good reason why the early church did not want anyone to actually read the Bible

I'm not countering your original point in context, but a very important perspective on the Bible is that It was'nt written just for the general public. It was written more for the community leader/priest/king. It is/was supposed to be backed up by a heavy dose of theology and social education.

ecksor

robindch wrote:

Ecksor - One can't try to pick holes in a theory until one has a better explanation?

Absolutely -- that's the core of the scientific method, not to mention the core of the almost-synonymous, skeptic philosophy.

Um, proposing a theory is part of the scientific method, but what exactly is to say that the person who poses a theory and the person who disproves or knocks a theory have to be the same person? At any rate, I'm certainly glad that George Berkeley didn't wait until he had a better explanation before pointing out that the basis of Newton's calculus was not satisfactory.

From the other direction, it's sufficient not only to pick holes in an existing theory, one must additionally propose testable and disprovable hypotheses which explain the observed facts more coherently.

You can't honestly mean that. If I found some solid evidence tomorrow that the theory of evolution was blatently wrong would I have to wait until I figured out a better theory before coming along and showing everyone what I found? I think you meant to say something else.

Turley

robindch wrote:

I'm sure that you go to a doctor for a medical diagnosis, rather than MacDonalds?

That is true. And I would not go to any journalist if I wanted the truth.

I'll email you the Mencken text after I scan it.

J C

Aah, now I know why all you sceptics out there have never “come to grips” with Evolution – you spend most of your time squabbling over Theology – maybe you all should be in the Vatican!!!!
OR
Maybe you all should go see Ken Ham.

He may help “sort out" your thinking on BOTH the Bible AND Evolution – a “One Stop Shop” for Irish Skeptics so to speak!!

Desperate situations demand desperate remedies – it’s The Astra Hall, UCD, Belfield, Dublin 4 – Friday 4th March at 6.00 pm and Saturday 5th at 11.00am – BE THERE or be square!!!.

Don’t take this recommendation as PROOF of my position on the "Origins Question" – Robin was the first one to muse over the merits of going to Ken Ham. He wasn’t sure – now I’m certain!!!

Zombrex

J C wrote:

There is no evidence within the fossil record of “gradual development from species to species”.

That is simply not true, but is a common creationist myth. If it is what you are basing your dismissal of Evolution on this idea I suggest you go to www.talkorigins.org and read up on the myths put forward by creationists in an attempt to say there is no evidence for evolution.

Talk Origins wrote:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
"...to say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions..."

It is true that in Darwins time there was a very imcomplete fossil record, but that is no longer the case.

J C wrote:

There is not enough matter or time in the known Universe to guarantee the random production of the specific amino acid sequence for a simple protein –

JC for someone who says they are not claiming to be a creationist you seem to be listing off the creationist myths in order :rolleyes:

Talk Origin wrote:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Seriously you need to read through the myth section of Talks Origin, if you haven't already.

J C wrote:

However, the adaptation always uses inherent genetic diversity ALREADY WITHIN the population and in extremis a highly adapted population can end up in an inbred genetic cul-de-sac unable to adapt to any other environmental change due to it’s loss of genetic diversity during the initial adaptation process.

Very little genetic diversity has to be in a species for natural selection to take place. If you had an organism that were genetic clones of each other you would still have NS happening because as the organisms reproduce mutation takes place. Over a million years of reproduction, with mutation creating change, and NS selecting the best change to suit the environment, you would have vast variation of organism spread over a number of different enviroments, even if they all started off exactly the same.

J C wrote:

Having said that, Natural Selection itself certainly doesn’t produce variation – and tends to produce STABILITY in a STABLE environment by selecting AGAINST novel types of creatures.

Now that is complete lack of understand of the environments that NS take place. NS selects creatures that adapt better to their enviornment, so yes it creates stability in that enviornment. But is the differences in environment that produce variation between species. You might have a similar bird that is vastly different from a bird an island hope away, because they have both adapted to the environment they find themselves in. So to say NS does not produce variation is simply false.

J C wrote:

Objective observation of the fossil record shows it to actually be a record of rapid (sometimes instantaneous) death and catastrophic burial – and NOT a record of the gradual development of life over time.

While there does exists evidence in the fossil record that a number of catastrophic events took place in earths history, it is even more evidence for evolution, as we can see what happened afterwards. These events completely change the enviroment allowing other species to develop where they wouldn't have before. Catastrophic events are just another part of natural selection. We as mamals have the sudden death of the dinosoars to thank for our eventual evolutionary rise to masters of the plant

J C wrote:

These theories will have to be re-tested and probably abandoned because of the Mount St Helens experience –

And ... are you saying the entire fossil record is false? Because you are now really beginning to sound like a creationist, and not a "professional scientist". Maybe the flood messed up the fossil record

J C wrote:

However, it can easily be shown to be a MATHEMATICAL impossibility –

It is not mathematically impossible, in fact it is chemcially probable. But even if it was very very rare, it only has to happen on one planet to create life. And considering their are probably close to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe, with at least 10% having planets, and given the space of 4 billion years since the universe cooled enough, saying it is rare and could not happen is silly.

J C wrote:

Not even ONE continuum has ever observed.

Not true, as I said in above.

J C wrote:

We have observed levels of interlinked complexity and functionality within living systems that are orders of magnitude greater than out most powerful computer systems.

You are simply taking the complexity of life at the moment and saying that it is impossible that this just randomly happened. But it didn't start out as complex as it is now. A human cell didn't just appear and go, ummm this is nice. It is the classic creationist argument of the "mouse trap". Creationists argue that a mouse trap cannot work without all the parts joining together, and as such a mouse trap can only be created as a singlar thing. They say the same with a cell or protein. But it is assumption logic. Read Talk Origins, it explains it better and in more detail than I ever could.

"Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators."

J C wrote:

Practically every creature looking like a “Dog’s Dinner” as it moved “onwards and upwards” in a haphazard random fashion.

Again, not true. The genetic mutations that produce new species are numerious and tiny. A baby is not suddenly born with a third eye ball.

J C wrote:

We have observed evidence that the only mechanism postulated by Evolution to produce genetic variation – genetic mutation – is invariably damaging to the genome and results in lethal and semi lethal conditions,

Not all mutation is helpful or produces traits that are benefical to the species. This is where NS also comes in, weeding out those with weak genetic information.

J C wrote:

A “chicken and egg” situation that Evolution cannot even start to explain.

Only if you take the state life on earth is at now as the starting position. You have to ignore 3 billion years of evolution before us. Complex organisms didn't just spring to life. It is estimated that it took 1 to 2 billion years for anything approaching a single cell to develop.

J C wrote:

We have never observed any "higher species" to actually INCREASE genetic information over time – Not good news for an Evolutionary Theory that postulates an increase in genetic information over time.

Not quite sure where you are getting that from.

J C wrote:

Would it really? “Something” has come along many, many times and yet Evolution hasn’t been dropped!!

Nothing has ever been put forward that is either a better theory with more evidence (or any evidence at all), or disproves evolution.

robindch

Hi JC -

You've posted a huge amount of text, some of it accurate, most of it wildly inaccurate, or outright wrong, so I'm going to have to pick just a few of the more egregious failures of reason and fact upon your part, and dissect them briefly:

> The scientific theories on BOTH the wave and particulate
> nature of light are precise and testable [...] I don’t have
> to BELIEVE in the particulate or wave aspects of light - I
> can VERIFY them through observation and experimentation.

To our eyes, light is a 'constant' phenomenon and to explain what we 'see', we don't ned to resort to wave/particle duality. Looking deeper, with instruments of one kind or another, we find that such duality is necessary to explain the phenomena observed, though since we don't 'see' them ourselves, such speculation is exactly that -- speculation. Consequently, any notion upon out part that such duality is, in some sense 'real', is based upon a belief, so your assertions above are entirely, and very precisely, wrong.

> There is no evidence within the fossil record of “gradual
> development from species to species”.

Completely wrong, and as a trained biologist, I'm surprised to see you persist in propagating these two endlessly-repeated creationist lies. This link and this one point out some of the errors in your fact and logic -- I look forward to reading your evidence-based rebuttal to these two documents.

> All species appear in the fossil record “fully fledged” with
> so-called “missing links” AKA “intermediate forms” never
> observed.

Again, total nonsense. In addition to the above transitional forms, there are many, many documented cases of vestigial features various forms of life. This link lists some of them, though there are plenty more.

> Evolution would predict very significant levels of
> "work in progress" with practically every creature
> looking like a "Dog's Dinner" as it moved "onwards and
> upwards" in a haphazard random fashion.

Natural selection, discarded years ago in favour of the more accurate and specific 'differential reproductive success' is, as has been mentioned before, entirely nonrandom, and, surprisingly, you even implied this in your posting at 23:37 last night. And though you've concluded this, you've been unable to develop this conclusion to understand that existing forms of life are consequently well-adapted to their biological niches and need not look anything like a "dog's dinner", whatever that might mean in a biological context.

> I believe in the common sense of the ordinary people

A worthy sympathy indeed, but I feel I must refer you to some of CSICOP's all-too-brief musings on the matter of the wisdom of the common rabble, in addition to the Mencken pieces which I mentioned earlier.

Anyhow, again, I would appreciate the opportunity to read your evidence-based rebuttal to the talkorigins.org articles above and why you believe that the evidence they provide is worthless.

- robin.

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

so I'm going to have to pick just a few of the more egregious failures of reason and fact upon your part, and dissect them briefly:

I should have thought of doing it that way .. would have saved me an hour of writing and editing

well said anyway ..

Myksyk

JC wrote:

All species appear in the fossil record “fully fledged” with so-called “missing links” AKA “intermediate forms” never observed.

Evolution would predict very significant levels of
"work in progress" with practically every creature looking like a "Dog's Dinner" as it moved "onwards and upwards" in a haphazard random fashion.

Of course they're fully fledged!!!!!! This simply betrays a really really significant misunderstanding of evolution and what is considered a 'missing link' or 'intermediate form'. To JC this are some sort of 'dogs dinner' or Frankensteinian non-starters. Perhaps he fails to take into consideration the lengths of time involved or the exceedingly gradual nature of most evolution. An intermediate form is in fact a species of animal which is related to another as evidenced by its morphology, taxonomy, chronology, genetics etc. The intermediate form does not know it is an intermediate form and is absolutely fully functional.

For example, in Darwinian thinking, most if not all current life forms could be considered intermediate forms as evolution continues. If a current life form slowly evolves through natural selection, sexual selection and genetic drift over the next few million years it will mean that every single genetic and/or morphological change (which is selected for and survives in the population)along that long path will have been intermediate form of that organism. Most of these changes will be unnoticeable as they are gradually selected for over long periods of time. It is only when significant amounts of change have been built up that we can differentiate any two forms along that continuum but no intermediate stage between those two forms would be a 'dogs dinner'.

Refer Robindch's excellent links which speak to this point.

Zombrex

Myksyk wrote:

Of course they're fully fledged!!!!!! This simply betrays a really really significant misunderstanding of evolution and what is considered a 'missing link' or 'intermediate form'.

Hadn't even really noticed he meant that and you are right it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what evolution is.

Right now, we are the "intermediate" form of the human species, in that we are the middle between what we were 20,000 years ago, and what we will be 20,000 from now. Every single speices is by default the intermediate form of the species that will evolve from it.

There are no "dogs dinner" species running around with half a leg growing out of their heads and half a third eyeball. It doesn't work like that. Evolution is made up of tiny but continuous changes, that vast majority of which are ignored and do not survive the test of time.