Creationist Ham appearing at Cork + UCD

Turley · 06-03-2005 2:20pm

Myksyk wrote:

By the way, creationists alternative to the incredible intellectual endeavour of biological science over the last two centuries is that 'God did it ... and he did it EXACTLY like the stories tell it in the Bible'. And WE are the fantasists?

That is not true.
All through history people have believed in a God/Creator before they even knew of the Bible. The Japanese people are one example. And Catholics believe in God the Creator but their Creed does not include the Genesis story of creation.

You are fantasizing again. (watch out for that pink goat)

J C · 06-03-2005 3:52pm

I wish to summarise our “progress” to date on this thread. In order to help retain clarity of thinking, on all of our parts, I will used numbered positive or negative statements that you can all react to / comment upon.

1. I am a “man of science” AND a “man of faith”.
2. It is important to identify the boundary where scientifically validated knowledge ends on any topic, and therefore, where my faith (and indeed, the faiths of everyone else) begin.
3. The best and most objective method of determining “the line” where science ends (and therefore where faith begins) is The Scientific Method.
4. The Scientific Method allows us determines “the line” where the current state of scientific knowledge ends by examining all valid scientific hypotheses on a particular topic. If it continues to be a valid scientific hypothesis it is on the scientific “side of the line” – and if it doesn’t it is on the faith “side of the line”.
5. One of the implicit reasons for the Irish Skeptics forum is to use science to determine this “line” on every scientific issue that arises.
6. The Scientific Method determines the scientific validity of hypotheses which:
· Are PRECISELY DEFINED – so that everyone knows what they are testing / talking about.
· Are repeatably testable by observation and/or experimentation.
7. “Hypotheses” that are not precisely defined or which cannot be empirically tested are not on the scientific “side of the line” – and therefore are on the faith “side of the line”.
8. A “speculation” such as “I believe that all gravity originates in my big toe”, even though it is PRECISELY DEFINED, it is not empirically testable – and is therefore on the faith “side of the line”.
9. A “speculation” such as “I believe that light exhibits wave characteristics” is PRECISELY DEFINED, and empirically testable and supported – and is therefore on the science “side of the line”.
10. One of the objectives of this thread is to make a determination on whether the “Theories of Evolution” are scientifically valid and therefore implicitly whether they are on the science or faith “side of the line” so to speak.
11. There are many different current “theories of evolution” and they involve speculation on the spontaneous generation of life and it’s gradual development over billions of years by random means. These “theories” are therefore not precisely defined, nor are they largely testable by repeated observation and/or experimentation. This would, prima face, place them on the faith “side of the line”.
12. To remove all doubt, I proposed a valid scientific hypothesis as follows : “That it is a mathematical impossibility to randomly produce the observed critical amino acid sequences for a specific useful functioning protein and therefore gradual random evolution of life is an impossibility”.
13. It is a valid scientific hypothesis because it is PRECISELY defined and it is testable by repeatable observation and experimentation.
14. Its precise definition is obvious. Critical amino acid sequences and the number of electrons in the Universe are phenomena that can be repeatedly observed.
15. My mathematical calculations are correct and shown in my post of 1/3/05 @22.45 on page 5.
16. My hypothesis indicates that, all “theories of evolution” are invalid SCIENTIFICALLY and are therefore firmly on the “faith” side of the line so to speak.
17. Everyone on the thread agree with the “grindingly obvious” nature of first half of my hypothesis “That it is a mathematical impossibility to randomly produce the observed critical amino acid sequences for a specific useful functioning protein” (as it exists today).
18. There is one outstanding objection from members of this thread to the conclusion of my hypothesis that “the gradual random evolution of life is therefore an impossibility”.

The objection involves four questions, which I shall address as follows:

1. Do you accept that the theory of evolution as currently understood involves the non-random accumulation of small genetic changes over vast stretches of time and that each miniscule change is entirely possible and its selection is entirely probable?.
In a word, NO. Statisticians recognise that events with probabilities in excess of 10 to the power of minus 100 are statistical impossibilities. A mathematical probability which is a statistical impossibility remains a mathematical and statistical impossibility – even if you break it down into many individual steps. Sir Fred Hoyle, a former evolutionist and British Astronomer Royal, calculated that the odds of randomly producing all of the protein sequences for an amoeba were 10 to the power of minus 40,000.
Small random changes in an amino acid sequence can’t “lock in” permanently, as implied in your question and they therefore CANNOT accumulate “upwards and onwards”. Like a herd of ‘mice at a crossroads’, the amino acid sequences would go every which way (including loose!) with each “roll of the dice” in each succeeding generation. Your putative ‘evolving organism’ is statistically just as likely to be taking two “critical amino acid sequence” steps backwards for every one step forwards, as it is to be going the other way around. This leads to overall statistical stability and therefore no progress on average towards the achievement of the critical amino acid sequences that are required to provide the very limited number of for USEFUL FUNCTIONING proteins that we observe in nature. The other problem is that ALL critical amino acid sequences except the CORRECT one will confer NO advantage – so that you cannot “work up” to the correct critical amino acid sequence through “genetic drift” – no more than you can “work up” to the correct sequence to unlock a 40,000 digit combination to a safe. If you didn’t KNOW the combination you would just have to try every possible permutation – and with “a little help” from every electron in the known UNIVERSE – you still wouldn’t be able do it in a QUADRILLION years.
This number is BIGGER than the number of nano-seconds required to move the entire Universe one electron at a time from one side of the Universe to the other using a SNAIL!!!!!
Another way to look at it, is that the likelihood of your so called “non-random Evolution” producing an Amoeba, is the same as a tornado in a junkyard producing a FULLY FUNCTIONAL Jumbo Jet - which happens to be a very small number, for a change ……….and that number is a big fat 0. Even if a QUADRILLION tornadoes “had taken a run at it” – the lack of a “lock-in” mechanism for any dubious “improvements” that might be made each time – still wouldn’t produce a FUNCTIONING TYRE for the said Jumbo – nor a functioning Mitochondrion for the said Amoeba.
I can offer a faith-based opinion on this myself – but that would be going somewhat off-topic.

2. Since you accept that natural selection is a valid scientific theory, do you accept that the process it specifically explains (evolution) is also valid?
Natural selection DOESN’T explain Evolution. The theory does provide an excellent explanation for observed adaptation in populations exposed to changed environments, full stop. Living organisms are observed to have two main methods of adjusting to environmental change “hard wired” into their genomes. For example to cope with colder conditions there are short term individual physiological reactions eg shivering and longer term population “genetic drift” under Natural Selection eg increased prevalence of hairy phenotypes. The adaptation always uses inherent genetic diversity ALREADY WITHIN the population. How this massive amount of complex genetic information (even in so-called “simple” organisms) came to be there, in the first place still remains a SCIENTIFIC mystery. I can also offer a faith-based opinion on this – but that again would be going somewhat off-topic.

All Evolution Hypotheses that I am familiar with, lack any plausible mechanism for creating genetic diversity. The only potential mechanism currently observed – genetic mutation – is invariably damaging to the genome and results in lethal and semi lethal conditions, conferring disadvantage most of the time and observed loss of genetic information ALL of the time. This is NOT a plausible mechanism to provide the massive INCREASE in genetic information evident at all points between “muck and man”. The reproduction process does “jumble the genes” – but there is no evidence that it significantly increases the genetic information within the genome of any species. Observed “copying errors” during reproduction, would actually indicate the reverse.

J C · 06-03-2005 3:53pm

3. Do you understand that the question of the origin of life is a separate one from the evolution of species?
Perhaps in a very strict sense, yes. However, for any comprehensive scientific explanation of life from inanimate Muck to animate Man, answering the origins question is important. I have noted that you have conceded in your post of 25/2/05 @16.19 on page 2 that “no-one has yet explained the origin of life though there are some interesting theories”. This puts ALL speculation on the origin of life firmly on the “faith” side of the line so to speak.
Once again, I can offer a faith-based opinion – but that would still be going somewhat off-topic.

4. Do you accept that pointing to gaps in knowledge in no way refutes what IS known and how it is consistent with the theory of evolution?
What IS known certainly ISN’T consistent with the theory of evolution, as I have pointed out in Item 5 of a previous post of 28/2/05 @ 23:37 the predictions of EVOLUTION simply doesn’t fit with our observed REALITY of many very fundamental biological phenomena !!
You are correct in your assertion that pointing to gaps in knowledge obviously doesn’t refute what IS known – but it can provide evidence that certain conclusions may be invalid. For example, if I KNOW that SOME buses in Dublin are green and CONCLUDE that ALL buses in Dublin are green without examining EVERY bus in Dublin – then the GAPS in my KNOWLEDGE of ALL buses in Dublin would invalidate any SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION on my part that ALL buses in Dublin are green. The Sceptics Forum could validly challenge such an unfounded conclusion by, pointing to the obvious GAPS in my knowledge.
I could hold my BELIEF that all Dublin buses are green – but this particular belief would be on very “shaky ground” if a BLUE 46A arrived at my bus stop some day – possibly even pushing me into “denial” territory!!! I might then start arguing, that “BLUE” is actually “GREEN” with the “YELLOW” removed!!

But lo! what do I see before me - Sir Fred Hoyle in a gleaming RED bus – I could of course continue to BELIEVE that ALL buses were green!!!!

However, my belief would be seriously "out of synch" with the stubborn RED colour of Sir Fred Hoyle's bus!!!

robindch · 06-03-2005 4:12pm

> "British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a
> humanist as any, has turned his back on atheism,
> saying it is impossible for evolution to account for the
> fact that one single cell can carry more data than all
> the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. [...]
> But he has embraced the concept of intelligent design
> — a stunning desertion of a former intellectual ambassador
> of secular humanism to the belief in some form of
> intelligence behind the design of the universe."

A stunning desertion, were it true. See

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=98

...for a brief discussion of some of Flew's rather mealy-mouthed assertions in this field.

- robin.

Danno · 06-03-2005 5:58pm

Hats off to you JC, posts #183 and #184 are brilliant, clear, precise, straight to the point, easy-to-read and understand.

I guess that there is little more to add to this thread, (no doubt though that some snivelling whirms will make their way in to the closing chapters of this thread

) I will miss your excellent posts.

BTW Where has the Christianity Forum gone???

Zombrex · 06-03-2005 7:01pm

J C wrote:

In a word, NO. Statisticians recognise that events with probabilities in excess of 10 to the power of minus 100 are statistical impossibilities. A mathematical probability which is a statistical impossibility remains a mathematical and statistical impossibility – even if you break it down into many individual steps. Sir Fred Hoyle, a former evolutionist and British Astronomer Royal, calculated that the odds of randomly producing all of the protein sequences for an amoeba were 10 to the power of minus 40,000.

JC you have been repeatably shown that your probability theory (or more specifically the Creationist probability theory found in the 1985 "Life--How Did It Get Here?" article in the Watchtower Bible) is a seriously flawed piece of scientific reasoning. For someone who attacks evolution as containing flawed logic it is amazing that you continue to referr to this probability theory as your basis for your belief that Abiogenesis is impossible.

This page explains in detail, and quite simply, everything that is wrong with the probability theory. If you continue to use this as a basis for your arguments I will simply continue to referr you to this webpage until you read it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

robindch · 06-03-2005 8:00pm

> This page explains in detail, and quite simply, everything that is
> wrong with the probability theory. If you continue to use this as
> a basis for your arguments I will simply continue to referr you
> to this webpage until you read it.
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

This approach of requesting rebuttals from JC isn't going to do much good, I'm afraid -- I posted this link getting on for two weeks ago, half way down page two of this thread, and am still waiting for a reply more useful than yet another repetition of his inerrant (dang, where have I heard that word before?) 'calculation'.

- robin.

robindch · 06-03-2005 8:47pm

Hi -

I dropped up yesterday to see the great Doctor himself and his travelling roadshow and I have to say that if this is the best example of how much fire and passion a religiously fundamentalist multi-million-dollar organization can call upon, then I really don't think that we need worry very much about Ham, or his colleagues, or his notions.

The two risible talks which I sat through were entitled 'How to Evangelise Today's Culture', and 'Dinosaurs and the Bible'. The first talk largely centered around his notion that the problem with much of society today is that people ask questions, a problem which he sees as being 'greek'. He reckons that we should be more like Jews, and not ask questions (I'm not making this up). He also kindly included a ten minute presentation of his new Creation Theme park, which, to judge by his constant appeals for both funds and visitors, seems to be running into financial trouble and the date of opening, receding at speed, is now scheduled, he tells us, for sometime in 2007 (BTW, he claimed that it's the first of its kind in the world -- as with everything else he said, this was complete nonsense. Regular thread visitors will remember Kent Hovind of http://www.drdino.com fame who has a similar park around 600 miles away in Florida, and the Institute for Creation Research has another such facility, in, AFAIR, California; I'm sure there are more).

The second talk told us how dinosaurs (of which there are only 50 species apparently) existed up to 4,000 or so years ago, that fire-breathing dragons existed, that evolution is resonsible for all the evil in the world (abortion, homosexuals, etc), that the Noachian flood carved the Grand Canyon, and that atheists will go to hell. There was much, much more in a smilar vein, but frankly, there's only so much rubbish you can write down in a notebook before you get bored and I did get bored.

In short, it was a surprisingly passionlesss performance by somebody who gave a talk that he seemed to have given many, many times before and just couldn't get himself excited by it. Neither were his tired, formulaic and lumbering attempts at humor greeted by much more than polite laughter by the faithful. The fact that the hall was less than one-third full didn't help Ham's delivery either -- in a hall for 600, I counted around 180/190 people (though the organizers claimed that there were 240/250 there).

I did get speaking to one or two interesting people there, though, and I will write about these at greater length elsewhere, together with a more expansive version of the above.

- robin.

robindch · 07-03-2005 1:05am

> The only potential mechanism currently observed – genetic
> mutation – is invariably damaging to the genome and results
> in lethal and semi lethal conditions, conferring disadvantage
> most of the time and observed loss of genetic information
> ALL of the time.

As ever, total nonsense -- you should try to make an effort to include some scientific fact, together with your scientific language. Anyhow, as with all your other claims, the talkorigins website contains rebuttals to each of your clearly-unresearched comments. These particular rebuttals are at:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

> There are many different current “theories of evolution” and they
> involve speculation [...] These “theories” are therefore not precisely
> defined,

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA212.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

> by random means.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/

> nor are they largely testable by repeated observation
> and/or experimentation.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

I could go on, but I think readers get the point.

- robin.

Turley · 07-03-2005 2:08am

robindch wrote:

I dropped up yesterday to see the great Doctor himself and his travelling roadshow and I have to say that if this is the best example of how much fire and passion a religiously fundamentalist multi-million-dollar organization can call upon, then I really don't think that we need worry very much about Ham, or his colleagues, or his notions.

...The fact that the hall was less than one-third full didn't help Ham's delivery either -- in a hall for 600, I counted around 180/190 people (though the organizers claimed that there were 240/250 there).

I am still curious who funds Ham to build his multi-million dollar museum if he is not selling tickets. Many of the fundamentalists in the U.S. support the state of Israel. Jerry Falwell received the 'prestigious' Jabotinsky Award for service to Israel. Fundamentalist Pat Robertson received "the State of Israel Friendship Award from the Zionist Organization of America for his consistent support for Greater Israel." http://www.answers.com/topic/pat-robertson

Ken Ham is pictured with Jerry Falwell here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0510kh_doc.asp

IMO Falwell turns people away from Christianity and belief in a Creator. Falwell gets plenty of press in the U.S. He has his supporters but many are repulsed by him.

Turley · 07-03-2005 2:27am

robindch wrote:

> nor are they largely testable by repeated observation
> and/or experimentation.

You "refuted" the statement by JC above by posting several URLs. I clicked the one of them:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

and at that link it stated, "The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly."

I am not a scientist, but your link seems to support what JC is saying, that the evidence for evolution is not observable or testable directly.

Your link above is preceeded by, "As ever, total nonsense -- you should try to make an effort to include some scientific fact..." and followed by "I could go on, but I think readers get the point." The point I get is that you are blowing smoke. Evidence of evolution is observable or it is not. Calling someone's argument "nonsense" does not make it nonsense.

Zombrex · 07-03-2005 10:03am

Turley wrote:

I am not a scientist, but your link seems to support what JC is saying, that the evidence for evolution is not observable or testable directly.

Macro-evolultion is not directly observable because, by definition, it takes thousands of years. But the effects of macro-evolution are observable. By studying the results of evolution we can see how is takes place and what the result are.

There are a large number of scientific areas where evidence is not directly observable. This is not a reason to ignore them. As I said to JC before, the Vikings (or infact all of history older than 100 years) are not directly observable, yet by studying the effect they had on their surrounding we can see how they lived in great detail.

Turley wrote:

Your link above is preceeded by, "As ever, total nonsense -- you should try to make an effort to include some scientific fact..." and followed by "I could go on, but I think readers get the point." The point I get is that you are blowing smoke. Evidence of evolution is observable or it is not. Calling someone's argument "nonsense" does not make it nonsense.

It does when it is nosense ... JCs arguments about genetic mutation (that all genetic mutation leads to a terminal sick creature that should be weeded out by NS) display a complete lack of understanding of biology and chemistry, and the ideas of evolution.

Zombrex · 07-03-2005 10:06am

Turley wrote:

I am not a scientist, but your link seems to support what JC is saying, that the evidence for evolution is not observable or testable directly.

No one has a problem with JC saying macro-evolution is not directly observable, because that is true. The problem people have is JCs then stating that because of this evolution is not a vaild scientic theory.

robindch · 07-03-2005 11:14am

> I am still curious who funds Ham to build his multi-million dollar
> museum if he is not selling tickets.

As far as I can make out, the funding comes from (a) subscriptions to the project, details at:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/membership/plans.aspx

...together with (b) people giving time and materials freely (see website) and (c) the proceeds from Ham's considerable online + travelling sales operation in the area of creationist apologetic material. Around half the stage on saturday was given over to books, CDs and DVDs which one was enjoined, one way or another, and every five or ten minutes, to buy. And the faithful certainly did buy them in great number -- almost every person I saw made off with one or two books, often more than that. WRT web-based sales, there's a picture somewhere or other on the AIG website of the interior of the enormous warehouse which services its principal market in the USA.

Although mickey-mouse in its approach to science, AIG appears to be a master of economics and I don't see any problems with the assertion that this museum is largely, and quite possibly exclusively, funded by AIG itself.

> Evidence of evolution is observable or it is not.

It is observable -- see the links I posted. An easy example is the evolution of resistance to antibiotics in viruses + bacteria, which I think even JC might have problems denying.

> Calling someone's argument "nonsense" does not make it nonsense.

Of course not -- I'm just stating my observation that it *is* nonsense. Different thing.

BTW, talkorigins.org does have an excellent link page at:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

...which lists most of the usual creationist claims, together with rebuttals, and it's worth a read just to get a feel for the luxuriant variety of ideas, extending from the reasonable to the utterly bizarre, which are on offer from our creationist friends.

- robin.

Myksyk · 07-03-2005 11:58am

J C wrote:

There are many different current “theories of evolution” and they involve speculation on the spontaneous generation of life and it’s gradual development over billions of years by random means.

More obfuscation and misrepresentation. One summary would have sufficed:

J C makes up his own ridiculous theories of evolution and debates them rather than deal with evolutionary theory. No amount of correction will suffice because his intrinsically flawed arguments utterly depend on an intrinsically flawed view of evolution. No wonder he thinks he 'wins'.

Myksyk · 07-03-2005 12:03pm

Turley wrote:

You are right.
Some people believe in God. I do.
Other people choose dismiss God and believe in invisible pink goats.

One man's invisible pink goat is another man's God.

robindch · 07-03-2005 12:29pm

> One man's invisible pink goat is another man's God.

What *I'd* like to know is why nobody's pulled me up on the fire-breathing bit, or the goat bit. Turley was the only one who query'd how I'd known it was pink, if it was invisible, which is an excellent start; but the rest of it, folks?!

And anyway, my pink goat is more of a guardian daemon, sorry, angel, rather than a god. My god's the nine-foot crocodile living in my specially-extended broom cupboard. Invisible, all-powerful, and living outside of space and time, I need hardly add.

- robin.

Myksyk · 07-03-2005 2:08pm

J C wrote:

Statisticians recognise that events with probabilities in excess of 10 to the power of minus 100 are statistical impossibilities.

Lucky for us then that small genetic changes have such a HIGH probability that they are essentially guaranteed.

A mathematical probability which is a statistical impossibility remains a mathematical and statistical impossibility – even if you break it down into many individual steps.

A stunningly, hilariously illogical and patently false statement. You're saying that if it is impossible to do something one way then it is impossible to do it any way???? LMAO!!

To use your own analogy, It's like saying that if it is a mathematical impossibility to get all the parts of an aeroplane, throw them in the air and expect them to end up as a fully-formed plane .... then it is impossible to build an aeroplane step by step. Come into the real world JC.

sliabh · 07-03-2005 2:25pm

robindch wrote:

And anyway, my pink goat is more of a guardian daemon, sorry, angel, rather than a god. My god's the nine-foot crocodile living in my specially-extended broom cupboard. Invisible, all-powerful, and living outside of space and time, I need hardly add.

Careful now or the followers of those that believe the crocodile should only ever be measured in metric units (according to an interpretation of a passage in their millenia old big book of belief) will condemn you as a heretic and begin a holy war against you!

Obni · 07-03-2005 8:51pm

robindch wrote:

Invisible, all-powerful, and living outside of space and time, I need hardly add.

Is that his way of getting out of paying rent for the cupboard?

sliabh wrote:

Careful now or the followers of those that believe the crocodile should only ever be measured in metric units.

I believe robindch meant nine-footed, a characteristic of crocodile gods.

I also attended the 'dinosaurs and the bible' talk on Saturday, so you can decrease the Ham supporters count by one. I didn't know exactly what to expect on Saturday, but the room was hardly 'buzzing' was it? I've been to several 'charismatic' and other christian group meetings, and have even attended the evening ceremony at the grotto in Lourdes (an astonishing human spectacle), all of which have stuck in my memory: I've been in dentist waiting rooms with more atmosphere and enthusiasm than the lecture hall in UCD last Sat.
Maybe the majority of the crowd were Norwich fans, and were listening to the football commentary on the sly?

sliabh · 07-03-2005 11:43pm

Obni wrote:

I also attended the 'dinosaurs and the bible' talk on Saturday, so you can decrease the Ham supporters count by one.

I am reminded of the spoof story I saw once that said the majority of internet users were undercover FBI agents posing as teenage girls in chatrooms.

Anyone else willing to admit to being an undercover skeptic?

robindch · 08-03-2005 12:03am

> Anyone else willing to admit to being an undercover skeptic?

Erm, well the unfortunate gentleman whom I sat down beside asked me at the start what I was there for, so, not wanting to blow my brilliantly contrived cover, I said (in so many words) that I was a religious nutcase and search of some cheerleading. Rather embarassingly, he turned out to be a Science student from UCD up to have a look to see what all the fuss was about.

Anyhow, putting my finger in the air, I'd imagine that about 80% were True Believers -- since that was about how many people who laughed at Ham's hoplessly lame jokes. Couldn't help myself once and almost blew my cover by starting to laugh about three seconds after everybody else had stopped (it was a close thing; I think I could have been lynched for stepping out of line like that).

Anyway, I occupied some of my time by wondering about the contents of the food bag -- chicken sandwich (fair 'nough), chocolate bar (ok), container of warm water (yuk), no sign of any primeval soup on offer (obviously enough) but the whole things topped off with a large, standard issue, Garden of Eden, Original-Sin style, red apple? What on earth was he thinking of? I'm sure there was a message in there somewhere, but I'm b*ggered if I can figure out what.

- robin.

J C · 08-03-2005 1:39am

Hi All

Firstly, can I clarify a few things:-
I have genuinely tried to answer all questions posed to me – if I missed some vital question in the “heat of the debate” – please forgive me – and send me the question again. Stop saying that I am obfuscating – I have tried to be as clear as possible – about an admittedly quite technical and very complex issue.

Quote
JC you have been repeatably shown that your probability theory (or more specifically the Creationist probability theory found in the 1985 "Life--How Did It Get Here?" article in the Watchtower Bible) is a seriously flawed piece of scientific reasoning. For someone who attacks evolution as containing flawed logic it is amazing that you continue to referr to this probability theory as your basis for your belief that Abiogenesis is impossible.

My "probaility theory" is not by any means the sole reason for my belief that Abiogenesis is impossible. Apart from Sir Fred Hoyle and his "brain melting" big 'RED Bus' there are all of the objections referred to later in this posting and many more other ones.
I genuinely know nothing about the Watchtower Bible that you are talking about. I am speaking purely as a professional scientist about the scientific “shortcomings“ of the “Theory of Evolution”. If I make any faith-based statements myself I promise that I will identify them as such.

Quote
This (web)page explains in detail, and quite simply, everything that is wrong with the probability theory. If you continue to use this as a basis for your arguments I will simply continue to referr you to this webpage until you read it.

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics,
and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

I have visited your recommended site three times – to prove it I give you the headline name of the site above (in italics). Each time that I visited the site I found explainations which confirmed the quite astronomical odds against the random production of bio-polymers. Even more importantly – from a scientific point of view – I saw NO references to any verification by observation or experimentation of any of the speculative mechanisms postulated on the site.
There are two fundamental problems with the idea that “Natural Selection” will somehow impose the necessary selection on the variation, supposedly generated by mutation, thereby producing an “upwards and onwards” evolutionary scenario.
The first is that there is no plausible means of conserving any “progress” made. If two correct amino acids on the proverbial 100 chain critical sequence were “hit” accidentially by organism A at say positions 5 and 6 – they are almost certain to be replaced at positions 5 and 6 by one of the other 19 common amino acids in the random “roll of the genetic dice” in a “child” of organism A – with perhaps position 25 being the only correctly located amino acid this time or even none at all. The introduction of any putative “conservation mechanism” would involve several proteins vastly more complex than the putative protein that we are trying to “evolve” – and all with critical chain sequence “needs” of their own – a real “chicken and egg” problem.
The second is that there is no plausible means of signalling to the outside world that a particular organism such as organism A has made the “progressive” step of achieving two amino acid at the correct loci – until ALL 100 are PRESENT AND CORRECT no FUNCTIONALLY USEFUL protein will result. As I have said on my previous post it is anolagous to trying to crack open a safe – a critical sequence with even 99 amino acids present is just as useless as one with none – you therefore cannot “work up” to the result. It is “all or nothing” so to speak and therefore mathematically impossible – because of the astronomical number of permutations involved in hitting “the jackpot”.

Quote
Lucky for us then that small genetic changes have such a HIGH probability that they are essentially guaranteed.

Feeling lucky today are we?

No real problem with the probability of very small genetic changes – one problem is CONSERVING them from one “generation” to the next in a random primitive system – see above. The other is that ALL observed mutational changes are devolutionary – ie produce a LOSS of genetic information.

Quote
Macro-evolution is not directly observable because, by definition, it takes thousands of years. But the effects of macro-evolution are observable. By studying the results of evolution we can see how is takes place and what the result are.
An observation of an effect IS a valid scientific observation – but there needs to be a verifiable trail of evidence if scientifically valid CONCLUSIONS are being reached on “evidence from the past”. Talk to any Police person if you want verification of this.
In any event, what IS observed certainly ISN’T consistent with the theory of evolution, as I have pointed out in Item 5 of a previous post of 28/2/05 @ 23:37 on page 4 the predictions of EVOLUTION simply don’t fit with the observed REALITY of many very fundamental biological phenomena !!

Quote
JCs arguments about genetic mutation (that all genetic mutation leads to a terminal sick creature that should be weeded out by NS) display a complete lack of understanding of biology and chemistry, and the ideas of evolution.
I said that – ALL observed mutation “is invariably damaging to the genome and results in lethal and semi lethal conditions, conferring disadvantage most of the time and observed loss of genetic information ALL of the time”. This will result, in the “weeding out” by NS of all of the individuals suffering from lethal conditions and some of the individuals suffering from semi-lethal conditions. NS will have no effect on individuals carrying the heterozygous form of the disease because it will be “masked” by the dominant allele – nor will it have any effect on mutations that produce their effects in old age ie after reproductive success has been achieved.

Quote
It's like saying that if it is a mathematical impossibility to get all the parts of an aeroplane, throw them in the air and expect them to end up as a fully-formed plane .... then it is impossible to build an aeroplane step by step. Come into the real world JC.

I am very much in the REAL WORLD - where I have never observed a plane building ITSELF step by step. This is analogous to inanimate matter evolving i.e. building ITSELF up to animate matter step by step. Of course, I have observed INTELLIGENT Human Beings and their INTELLIGENTLY invented and INGENIOUSLY manufactured machines (including robots) assembling planes step by step.

Quote
An easy example (of evolution in action) is the evolution of resistance to antibiotics in viruses + bacteria, which I think even JC might have problems denying.

Is it really? - well fddley dee!!!

Antibiotics don’t have any effect on viruses. No problem with the observed phenomenon of antibiotic resistance in BACTERIA. It is thought that this occurs in three main ways –
1. There are already bacteria “out there” with the genetic diversity to “resist” the antibiotic and they survive and grow in numbers while the non- resistant bacteria die - NS in action.
2. The resistance gene is transferred to non-resistant bacteria, through DNA exchange, thereby allowing the newly resistant bacteria to survive and grow in numbers.
3. A mutation occurs which “confers” resistance on a bacterium thereby allowing it to survive and grow in numbers while it’s non-resistant “cousins” die off. This third scenario has been billed as evidence for “upwards and onwards” evolution through mutation.
However, there is only one problem – antibiotic resistance in bacteria generally results from a “defect” or LOSS of genetic information in the bacterium. What actually kills most bacteria is not the antibiotic itself – but the metabolites of the antibiotic – if the ability to metabolise the antibiotic ISN’T PRESENT the bacterium usually stays alive and therefore “resistant”. The non-resistant bacteria literally "know" too much for their own good!!! If anything, antibiotic resistance is an example of devolution in action ie a LOSS of genetic information – admittedly doing some short term good for the bacterium. However, as soon as the antibiotic pressure is removed from the environment the non-resistant (but otherwise “fitter") bacteria tend to take over again.

Bye Bye!!

Zombrex · 08-03-2005 10:39am

JC wrote:

I saw NO references to any verification by observation or experimentation of any of the speculative mechanisms postulated on the site.

You didn't look very hard .. the bottom of the page is full of them.

Myksyk · 08-03-2005 11:35am

J C wrote:

I am very much in the REAL WORLD - where I have never observed a plane building ITSELF step by step. This is analogous to inanimate matter evolving i.e. building ITSELF up to animate matter step by step. Of course, I have observed INTELLIGENT Human Beings and their INTELLIGENTLY invented and INGENIOUSLY manufactured machines (including robots) assembling planes step by step.

Usual obfuscating creationist reply ... picks the bit of the analogy that is not relevant and retorts on that basis ... and misses (or ignores) the point completely (what a surprise that is). Nothing you have said changes the simple fact that you made an illogical and false statement - if something is impossible one way it's impossible in any way.

Here's the thing. An organisms slightly imperfect copying mechanism simply means it changes from generation to generation by default. All we need then is some sort, any sort, of filtering process blindly selecting changes which better fit the environment and we have an evolving organism. No intelligence is required. In the case of evolution natural selection, not the organism itself, is the shaper and the builder. A different slant on this which illustrates the same point is evolutionary engineering, where computer programmes can evolve designs never dreamt of, and having nothing to do with the original programmer. Now this may leave us with our still unanswered question about origins and that mysterious starting point but it shows unequivocally that once under way, simple algorithms can evolve designs which have nothing to do with the original source. This highlights the two arguments here, one on origins and it's mystery (which we all accept though some of us suspect that science will evntually answer that question), and one of evolution and whether direction and intelligence is required. It's clear that once we can get an alogorithm going we can step out and watch the process unfold completely within it's own resources and information base.

robindch · 08-03-2005 12:47pm

> the observed phenomenon of antibiotic resistance in BACTERIA.
> 1. There are already bacteria “out there” with the genetic
> diversity to “resist” the antibiotic and they survive and grow

Good.

> 2. The resistance gene is transferred to non-resistant
> bacteria, through DNA exchange,

Excellent -- we're getting somewhere. This one's called 'horizontal evolution'.

> 3. A mutation occurs which “confers” resistance on a
> bacterium thereby allowing it to survive and grow in
> numbers while it’s non-resistant “cousins” die off.

Wonderful -- we agree at last -- positive evolution in action!

> However, there is only one problem – antibiotic resistance
> in bacteria generally results from a “defect” or LOSS of
> genetic information in the bacterium.

Why do you call something advantageous a 'defect', except to make it fit your weird and counter-evidential assertion that there can never be a positive genetic change? Here's an example of such a beneficial change and you still insist upon calling it a defect! Go on, be strong -- admit that it's positive!

There are plenty of resources out on the net which document some of the fairly basic maths which surround this kind of mutation. A brief one lives here, though I'm sure there are many more comprehensive ones.

- robin.

robindch · 08-03-2005 8:27pm

> and have even attended the evening ceremony at the grotto
> in Lourdes (an astonishing human spectacle),

I'd love to hear more about your experiences there. I remember seeing a documentary on Lourdes, or some other similar establishment, some good while back, with people going through the usual extreme-religious act -- kneel-walking the last bit to the church on concrete on their bleeding knees; buying wax models of the diseased parts of their bodies, then dumping them into (worryingly large) fires kept burning beside the church; collapsing in blubbering heaps; standing bolt-upright, eyes like saucers, having visions; and all the rest of it.

This topic isn't relevant to this thread, so do feel free to start up a new one, if you reckon it's worth a discussion.

- robin.

J C · 08-03-2005 10:05pm

Usual obfuscating creationist reply ... picks the bit of the analogy that is not relevant and retorts on that basis ... and misses (or ignores) the point completely (what a surprise that is).
What IS the point that I missed (or ignored)?

Nothing you have said changes the simple fact that you made an illogical and false statement - if something is impossible one way it's impossible in any way.
I NEVER said that “if something is impossible one way it’s impossible in any way” – in fact I gave an aeroplane manufacturing example of precisely how an IMPOSSIBLE feat for blind chance and his awkward “first cousin” Natural Selection – is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE with the INTELLIGENT appliance of science by Humans.
Stop arguing that “blue” is “green with the yellow stripped out” when there is a spanking great RED Bus parked and clamped on your metaphorical front lawn!!!!

An organisms slightly imperfect copying mechanism simply means it changes from generation to generation by default. All we need then is some sort, any sort, of filtering process blindly selecting changes which better fit the environment and we have an evolving organism. No intelligence is required. In the case of evolution natural selection, not the organism itself, is the shaper and the builder
And all I need for Christmas are my two front teeth.
Dream on !!!!
Show me a filtering AND conserving mechanism that is simpler than the simple protein that it has supposedly helped to evolve (because such mechanisms must exist before the simple protein exists if evolution is true) – and as a scientist I will believe you. If you cannot SHOW me, just for my own interest, try to theoretically describe such a putative “beast” - something that is very SIMPLE yet able to perform very COMPLEX filtering and conserving operations. MY imagination certainly doesn't stretch that far!!! I have no problem with you having faith in whatever you choose – including a belief that that "RED is actually Green" AKA the belief that "Black is White". However, if you do so, I reserve the right to classify you as evidentially Colour-blind.

A different slant on this which illustrates the same point is evolutionary engineering, where computer programmes can evolve designs never dreamt of, and having nothing to do with the original programmer. Now this may leave us with our still unanswered question about origins and that mysterious starting point but it shows unequivocally that once under way, simple algorithms can evolve designs which have nothing to do with the original source.
What you are describing here is a very SOPHISTICATED and INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED computer programme running on an EXTREMELY COMPLEX and INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED computer. Please note that there is nothing blind or random about any of this.
Like life it oozes INTELLIGENT DESIGN out of every pore – or should I say every microchip and gigabyte. If I observe INTELLIGENT DESIGN I believe that it is reasonable to conclude that there was an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER somewhere. It cannot be scientifically proven, in the case of life, because you cannot observe the intelligent designer in action – but it provides the basis for a very well-founded faith.

It's clear that once we can get an algorithm going we can step out and watch the process unfold completely within it's own resources and information base
Yes, ONCE we have an INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED and COMPLEX computer and an equally INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED and COMPLEX programme, we can step away. Your example is actually very analogous to the Biblical account of creation – where God supposedly designed all of the “software” and “hardware” of life and then stepped back and allowed it to “go forth and multiply” using it’s own, mind bendingly complex information base. Again I would classify this as a well-founded faith-based statement – unlike faith in evolution, which lacks both logical AND evidential support.

> 1. There are already bacteria “out there” with the genetic
> diversity to “resist” the antibiotic and they survive and grow

Good.

> 2. The resistance gene is transferred to non-resistant
> bacteria, through DNA exchange,

Excellent -- we're getting somewhere. This one's called 'horizontal evolution'.

> 3. A mutation occurs which “confers” resistance on a
> bacterium thereby allowing it to survive and grow in
> numbers while it’s non-resistant “cousins” die off.

Wonderful -- we agree at last -- positive evolution in action!

My answers are :
1. Good (as well!!).
2. This one is actually called DNA exchange – a form of sexual reproduction in bacteria.
3. We DON’T AGREE unfortunately – because this is Positive devolution or LOSS of genetic information.

Why do you call something advantageous a 'defect', except to make it fit your weird and counter-evidential assertion that there can never be a positive genetic change? Here's an example of such a beneficial change and you still insist upon calling it a defect! Go on, be strong -- admit that it's positive!
A mutation that allows AN INDIVIDUAL to survive through a LOSS of genetic information – is CLEARLY NOT proof of “upwards and onwards” evolution. Another LOSS of genetic information like that, and you mightn’t even have a viable organism. I also did say that once the antibiotic pressure is removed from the environment the non-resistant (but otherwise "fitter") bacteria take over again under NS – leaving us back where we started so to speak – again not what you would expect if “upwards and onwards” evolution exists. Antibiotic resistance shows the huge amount of pre-existing genetic diversity that is out there even in bacteria – but again provides no explanation for how it got there in the first place. The observed LOSS of genetic information in this case is neither “positive” for the “Theory of Evolution” nor for the misfortunate patient playing host to the resistant bacteria. It is not even ultimately “positive” for the mutant bacteria themselves – as NS selects AGAINST them when the antibiotic pressure ceases and/or a different antibiotic is used.
Please give me an example where a mutation resulted in an INCREASE in genetic information. Even the word “mutant” which immediately conjures up images of defects should give you a hint that this not a positive mechanism for “upwards and onwards” Evolution. There are good reasons why the word “mutant” puts a shiver down the spine – and the reason is that mutants are almost invariably OBSERVED to be suffering from a defect – and very often a catastrophic one at that!!!

Myksyk · 09-03-2005 10:53am

I NEVER said that “if something is impossible one way it’s impossible in any way”

"A mathematical probability which is a statistical impossibility remains a mathematical and statistical impossibility – even if you break it down into many individual steps."

The above 'red bus' is what I was referring to. It is an illogical and false statement. We gave just one example which refuted it - i.e. where something is essentially an impossibility one way (all at once) but perfectly possible the other (step by step). This applies even if you involve human intelligence in both acts (e.g. a human deliberately throws the bits of the aeroplane in the air or builds it step by step) or not (natural selection cannot selct for huge genetic changes but can shape huge changes in small steps). Get it?????????

Show me a filtering AND conserving mechanism that is simpler than the simple protein that it has supposedly helped to evolve (because such mechanisms must exist before the simple protein exists if evolution is true) – and as a scientist I will believe you. If you cannot SHOW me, just for my own interest, try to theoretically describe such a putative “beast” - something that is very SIMPLE yet able to perform very COMPLEX filtering and conserving operations.

Hope, hope helps you cope. Eh?

You (being a god of the gaps man) hang on grimly to what we don't know hoping it disproves or refutes something. It doesn't refute a single thing. What we DO know in almost every sphere of science is consistent with the theory of evolution. As long as the theory is consistent with what we DO know and is indispensible in terms of explanation and prediction it must be considered a valid and useful scientific theory, which of course it is. Of course you're not interested in the vasts amount of knowledge that are consistent with the theory, just the gaps.

Now if you'd turn the table around again please and provide evidence for us that proteins DIDN'T evolve from simpler molecules then we can have a different discussion after you come back from Stockholm with your prize.

MY imagination certainly doesn't stretch that far!!!

We know.

Yes, ONCE we have an INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED and COMPLEX computer and an equally INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED and COMPLEX programme, we can step away. Your example is actually very analogous to the Biblical account of creation – where God supposedly designed all of the “software” and “hardware” of life and then stepped back and allowed it to “go forth and multiply” using it’s own, mind bendingly complex information base.

Hang on a second ..... are you now accepting theistic evolution?????? Hallelujah, we have agreement on the possibility of evolution. Thanks JC. I knew you'd see the light.

(By the way, replacing a mystery with a mystery is not science ... you've just reset the problem to a point you say YOU are not satisfied with). How DO you live with the contradictions JC?

Turley · 09-03-2005 12:43pm

Myksyk wrote:

As long as the theory is consistent with what we DO know and is indispensible in terms of explanation and prediction it must be considered a valid and useful scientific theory, which of course it is.

The argument above would validate the Ptolemaic Universe. It is both predictable and useful. Although useful, it must not be considered valid because it is NOT true. Useful and predictable does not equal true.

Creationist Ham appearing at Cork + UCD

Comments