The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Soul Winner

J C wrote: »

...there have been so many questions ... and so many answers ... that I don't know what you are talking about at this stage!!!

Yeah but I seem to remember a post where you did answer AH's list of questions. I can't seem to find it though. If you could re-post it then maybe some of the folks in here will stop going on about it.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

... anyway I think that we have had enough of this denial of the 'Elephant in the Room' ... the fact that I have mathematically proven that the spontaneous evolution of a specific short protein sequence is a mathematical impossibility even using ALL of the matter and time in the supposed Big Bang Universe

Proteins developed gradually over millions of years and were not present in the first forms of life which were far simpler, most likely consisting entirely of naturally occurring chemicals. Proteins are necessary for life as it is today but not for life as it was 5 billion years ago. "Proving" that proteins could not have spontaneously formed says nothing about evolution because no one is claiming they did and even if they were claiming that, abiogenesis is not evolution.

Watch as this gets ignored spectacularly with multi-coloured text and smilies.

J C

Soul Winner wrote: »

I take it you don't subscribe to the Big Bang (terrible name for it) model then? If not then what model do you subscribe to? Do you not think that there is insurmountable evidence for the Big Bang model? And do you not think that that model is consistent with the creation ex nihilo?

God didn't do it with a loud hot explosion ... He did it with a whisper of His sovereign voice with a cold start and SUBSEQUENT firing up of the stars, including our Sun!!!

The Universe was rolled out by God INSTANTLY less than 10,000 years ago !!!:cool::)

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Proteins developed gradually over millions of years and were not present in the first forms of life which were far simpler, most likely consisting entirely of naturally occurring chemicals. Proteins are necessary for life as it is today but not for life as it was 5 billion years ago. "Proving" that proteins could not have spontaneously formed says nothing about evolution because no one is claiming they did and even if they were claiming that, abiogenesis is not evolution.

...it doesn't matter HOW gradually proteins supposedly developed... the whole hypothesis collapses when we find that the useless combinatorial space occupied by even a simple protein chain is so VAST that it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for undirected processes to produce specific functional proteins for NS to select!!!

... this distinction between Abiogenesis and Evolution is spurious because BOTH are required for any coherent materialistic 'origins' theory ... and my maths shows that the many new specific functional proteins (and indeed other biomolecules) required for EITHER Abiogenesis OR any subsequent Spontaneous Evolution CANNOT be produced with any degree of practical efficiency by non-intelligently designed systems!!!:pac::):D

Like I have said BEFORE, ...my statistics prove that Abiogenesis or Evolution couldn't happen ... neither in one go ... nor via a large number of gradual small steps ... IF undirected processes were used.

...because multiplication is distributive, the total odds remain the same, for multiple small steps or one large step, once undirected processes are being proposed as the mechanism!!!

....mbeep!! ... mbeep!!!

...I will be away for the next few weeks ... and I will try and 'pop in' now and again to the thread while I am abroad.

I also leave you in the competent care of Wolfsbane!!!!

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...it doesn't matter HOW gradually proteins supposedly developed... the whole hypotehsis collapses when we find that the useless combinatorial space occupied by even a simple protein chain is so VAST that it is matematically IMPOSSIBLE for undirected processes to produce specific functional proteins for NS to select!!!

Your argument was against it spontaneously forming, not against it gradually developing. A 6000 atom molecule spontaneously coming together is indeed very unlikely but a 6000 atom molecule coming together in 6000 separate stages over millions of years is considerably more likely. Each stage just had to survive long enough for the next mutation to happen. It's a process of trial and error where billions of offspring are produced all with random mutations and the mutations that turn out to be useful survive. When you say evolution is nonsense, you are saying that trial and error is nonsense.

The Mad Hatter

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yeah but I seem to remember a post where you did answer AH's list of questions. I can't seem to find it though. If you could re-post it then maybe some of the folks in here will stop going on about it.

That list formed the basis for the second round of questions, which to the best of my knowledge J C has not addressed at all.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Your argument was against it spontaneously forming, not against it gradually developing. A 6000 atom molecule spontaneously coming together is indeed very unlikely but a 6000 atom molecule coming together in 6000 separate stages over millions of years is considerably more likely. Each stage just had to survive long enough for the next mutation to happen. It's a process of trial and error where billions of offspring are produced all with random mutations and the mutations that turn out to be useful survive. When you say evolution is nonsense, you are saying that trial and error is nonsense.

...my example rules out BOTH large spontaneous formation AND spontaneous gradual development!!!

......because multiplication is distributive, the total odds remain the same, for multiple small spontaneous gradual steps or one large spontaneous step, once undirected processes are being proposed as the mechanism!!!

....there is no 'yellow brick road' up which any biomolecule could have developed with marginally increasing utility at each step (which would be a requirement for its selection and retention). Most biomolecules have critical sequences where any change removes their functionality ENTIRELY!!!

They are effectively on isolated tiny 'islands' of utility in a vast 'ocean' of 'non-utility' ... and the problem for undesigned systems is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for these biomolecules to spontaneously 'cross' the vast 'ocean' of useless combinatorial space which separates these 'islands' of utility.

Intelligent overview and deliberate design can easily construct specific functional sequences to order, so to speak. The application of intelligence can also account for systems which are observed to cross the 'ocean' of non-functionality between the 'islands' of functionality, often in one step ... so intelligent overview and deliberate design is the ONLY plausible means known to science, of explaining complex functional life-forms and their behaviour, at present.

The reality of the current state of out SCIENTIFIC knowledge on the 'origins' question is that we know of ONLY ONE mechanism that accounts for life ... and that is intelligent design by an (unknown) intelligence.
BTW this isn't conclusive scientific evidence for the existence or action of the God of the Bible ... but it certainly doesn't rule Him out either.

Equally, in fairness to the Materialists, there could in theory, be some UNKNOWN mechanism (other than the appliance of intelligence) that accounts for the APPARENT Intelligent Design of life ... BUT we certainly haven't yet discovered such a mechanism ... and to borrow a phrase from the great Stephen J Gould ... we are unable to even IMAGINE what such a mechanism could possibly look like!!!!:pac::):D

I think that it would be useful after over one thousand pages if we could at least agree on the ACTUAL state of our scientific knowledge on the 'origins question'.

robindch

J C wrote: »

....there is no 'yellow brick road' up which any biomolecule could have developed with marginally increasing utility at each step

By the same logic, creationists believe that movement only happens a few mils at a time, while anything longer must be done by magic.

Yet another amazing conclusion brought to you by "Creashun Sients"(tm)!

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...my example rules out BOTH large spontaneous formation AND spontaneous gradual development!!!

......because multiplication is distributive, the total odds remain the same, for multiple small spontaneous gradual steps or one large spontaneous step, once undirected processes are being proposed as the mechanism!!!

That just shows that you don't understand natural selection. The processes are not undirected, they are directed by natural selection. The odds are only the same if the entire process is done by random chance. Let me explain natural selection using an example experiment in probability:

There is an unknown sequence of random numbers between 1 and 6, 20 digits long, stored on an electronic keypad. Your task is to try to roll a dice a number of times so that you produce the correct sequence in the correct order until you get all 20 numbers. When you press a number on the keypad, if the number is right a green light comes up and if it's wrong a red light comes up.

There are two approaches to this, the random chance approach and the natural selection mechanism.

Random chance:
You roll the dice. You have a 1/6 chance of getting the right number each time and if you get the wrong number at any stage you have to start again. The odds of getting the 20 numbers in the right order are:
(1/6)^20=0.00000000000002735%

Natural selection:
You roll the dice just as before but this time, at each stage of the sequence you can roll the dice as many times as you want and when you put in the wrong number the sequence doesn't start again. The keypad waits until you get the correct answer and then moves onto the next number in the sequence.

The probability now depends on the number of rolls it takes to get the right number at each stage.

The probability of never getting the right number is (5/6)^n
where n is the number of rolls

and the probability of getting it right at least once is 1 - (5/6)^n

To get a 98% chance of getting the right number at each stage, this is how many rolls it would take:
1 - (5/6)^n =0.98
1 -0.98= (5/6)^n
0.02 = (5/6)^n
n = ln 0.02/ ln (5/6) = 21.45~ 21

Then spreading that over a sequence of 20: 0.98^20 = 0.667= 66%

So if I am allowed to take 21 rolls at each stage before I have failed the task, I will increase the odds of success from 0.00000000000002735% to 66%.

The numbers involved in evolution are much larger. The "goal" to be achieved is much less likely but equally, life got an awful lot more than 21 chances to get it right. The above experiment shows that a seemingly very unlikely goal can be achieved by a series of small random steps even if the goal itself is unknown, ie you don't know the sequence and it shows the error in your logic above. No guidance is required because by trying over and over again until you get it right, you can get there all on your own as long as you don't have to start from the beginning each time. This is how evolution works and it's the approach used in evolutionary algorithms, a method used to solve extremely complex mathematical problems very efficiently without having to have any knowledge of the solution and it can even solve problems which our most intelligently designed algorithms failed to solve

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That just shows that you don't understand natural selection. The processes are not undirected, they are directed by natural selection. The odds are only the same if the entire process is done by random chance. Let me explain natural selection using an example experiment in probability:

There is an unknown sequence of random numbers between 1 and 6, 20 digits long, stored on an electronic keypad. Your task is to try to roll a dice a number of times so that you produce the correct sequence in the correct order until you get all 20 numbers. When you press a number on the keypad, if the number is right a green light comes up and if it's wrong a red light comes up.

...let me STOP you right there ... and then I'm going to bed to prepare for my long journey tomorrow.

...of course IF each step on the 'ladder' could somehow be 'locked in'....and the system somehow 'knew' that a particular number at a particular positon was 'right' an otherwise random process would hit the 'jackpot' in a few HOURS or even less!!!!!

....but this is NOT how it works!!!

...the critical sequence is EXACTLY one SPECIFIC sequence and all other sequences don't work AT ALL ... so even IF you have positions 1 to 99 filled 'correctly' you will STILL have a non-functional protein and all intermediary positions will be equally non-functional ... it is like a slot machine that only 'pays' out on one sequence, or a combination lock that ONLY opens when the exact sequence is dialled in ... and gives NO INDICATION that you are 'close' to cracking the combination, even if you are just one number away from doing so!!!.

Natural Selection is quite capable of selecting an individual animal that has sight, for example, over a blind individual ... but it is COMPLETELY POWERLESS to 'produce' the sight, in the first place....

...so it is capable of MAINTAING the fitness of a population in a static environment or CHANGING a population (by selecting from pre-exiating genetic diversity) to better match a changed environment!

If a climate were to get colder, for example, NS would select the hairy individuals over the less hairy ones ... and very soon the population, as a whole would become more hirsute!!!
...equally, if the climate were to become warmer, the less hairy individuals would be selected for ... and the population genetics would 'drift' towards a less hairy average individual.

Please note that the NS would ALWAYS be selecting from amongst EXISTING FUNCTIONAL traits !!!!

...in plain man's language, Natural Selection may explain the SURVIVAL of the fittest ... but it is completely incapable of explaining the ARRIVAL of the fittest!!!:D

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There are two approaches to this, the random chance approach and the natural selection mechanism.

Random chance:
You roll the dice. You have a 1/6 chance of getting the right number each time and if you get the wrong number at any stage you have to start again. The odds of getting the 20 numbers in the right order are:
(1/6)^20=0.00000000000002735%

Natural selection:
You roll the dice just as before but this time, at each stage of the sequence you can roll the dice as many times as you want and when you put in the wrong number the sequence doesn't start again. The keypad waits until you get the correct answer and then moves onto the next number in the sequence.

...this isn't how Natural Selection works...the 'keypad' DOESN'T KNOW which are the correct answers at all points along the sequence ... this would only become obvious after ALL of the correct sequence has been assembled...and the protein starts working ...
There will be NO INDICATION that part of a critical sequence has been assembled ... or any 'lock in' of any progress in assembling part of the sequence like your example is claiming!!!!

The only way that your 'keypad' could know each 'correct' number along the sequence is if the numbers were pre-programmed into the 'keypad' by an Intelligent Designer ... and the system was intelligently programmed to 'lock in' each 'correct' number as it turned up - and then move on to the next number in the sequence ... but I think that kinda defeats what you were trying to establish with this 'keypad' idea of yours, in the first place!!!!

Equally, the supposed provider of the 'variation' upon which the NS is supposed to work is mutagenesis ... and, as a random undirected process, it is much more likely to 'undo' any 'progress' made to date than it is to produce other 'correct' parts of the sequence ... and that is why people very rationally AVOID mutagenic agents .... because mutations do VASTLY more HARM than GOOD!!!
....equally, NS has no way of selecting for 'correct bits' within a putative critical sequence that have absolutely no beneficial effects, until they are ALL in place ... it is the ultimate game of 'nothing happens until everything happens' .... and therefore NOTHING will EVER happen!!!!

NS is quite efficient at selecting between different levels of 'fitness' amongst individuals which ALREADY have functional biochemical processes ... and it acts as a 'culling process' upon individuals who have become unable to compete for mates and/or resources with other indivduals ... BUT it is UNABLE to produce ANY of the 'fitness' traits, in the first place.

...like I have said, NS can ensure the survival of the fittest ... but it cannot ensure the arrival of the fittest!!!!

...NS is a bit like a system which decides which car goes to the scrap heap and which doesn't ... which is quite EASY...in comparison with the task of making the cars, in the first place!!!

...NS is a quality control system at the end of an Intelligently Designed living 'assembly line' that is the reproductive system of all living organisms!!!

NS is just a simple 'culling agent' ... and it is NOT a sophisticated 'creative agent'!!!!

J C

...and I will leave you with the following thought-provoking article from Kevin Myers in last Tuesday's Irish Independent, which is exactly about the current item under discussion.

Kevin is noted for his level-headedness ... and he is NEITHER a Creationist nor an ID Proponent ... yet he has concluded that Materialistic Evolution requires a faith which approaches that required to believe in the Virgin Mary appearing on a tree stump in Co. Limerick.

.... I must admit myself, that the image conjured up by Kevin Myer's article ... of 'hard-boiled' Atheists down in a wet field in County Limerick, on their knees, in adoration of a tree stump, does require some getting used to!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

...ENJOY!!!:D

How does reducing one's ability to find a mate confer any kind of genetic advantage?

By Kevin Myers
Tuesday July 14 2009

The image of the Virgin Mary is reported to have been seen on a tree stump in the village of Rathkeale, and thousands of people have flocked there. And yes, this is quite absurd.

But is it more preposterous to believe that that piece of timber, and the willow tree from which it came, and the eye that beheld the wood, arrived in this world entirely by accident? For in this, the 150th anniversary of the publication of 'The Origin of Species', that is what we've been endlessly told this year.

Before Darwinian dogmatists sneer the words "intelligent design" and "creationism", let me declare that I embrace neither concept. But nor do I reject them. I've been reading up on this subject recently, especially Ernst Mayr, Dawkins and Darwin, and what strikes me most is the sheer act of Darwinian faith which is required for us to accept that natural selection was the prime engine that conjured the vast complexity of modern life from its birthplace in the methanogenic oceans of the pre-Cambrian.

It's far too easy to look back and postulate a route to where we are today, deducing it from whatever evidence archaeologists and palaeontologists have found. Instead, we should be taking the teleological approach, and viewing the problem the other way round. How can life naturally progress forward from those evil seas to our modern world, but without having the least idea where it is going?

Now life as we know it depends on proteins. But even a relatively simple molecule such as insulin, consists of 51 conjoined amino-acids, with a molecular weight of 5808: nearly 6,000 times the weight of a hydrogen atom. And an average living cell contains 100 million protein molecules, involving perhaps 20,000 varieties of protein. Moreover, there are several hundred thousand types of protein, all of them impossibly complex. How were these made by accident? To say that such order is implicit in all of nature -- as some scientists do -- is begging the question, the equivalent of saying matter is intrinsic to materials.

Time, you might add; time will enable these molecules to be assembled, bit by bit. Indeed, given enough time, you will be able to explain everything that has occurred from the first genetic trick at the dawn of existence. But has there been enough time? Would a mathematician looking at the random ingredients of those ancient, poisonous seas be able to propose that, actuarially, enough molecular encounters would sooner or later result in the first spark of life (whatever that might be) leading to us, just four billion (or so) years later? That's not an awful lot of time, considering all the random accidents that could not merely have started proto-life, but also wiped it out.

This logically means that there must have been many competing proto-life forms. Just one -- apparently the one that depends upon DNA -- survived. But how did the dear old double helix come into existence? For DNA doesn't function at all unless complete. It's either the final, impossibly complex but useful article, or it's incomplete and utterly useless. So, no simple evolution here.

But that's the way with so much of "natural selection". It often doesn't tolerate halfway houses. The swallow that doesn't make it from Africa to Europe simply doesn't survive to reproduce its genes. That's it: line extinct. Or put it another way. I drop you and your family in an unpopulated Africa, without telling you where you are, or giving you a map or a compass, and I then tell you to find your way back to your sitting room. You couldn't do it. You'd die on the way. Your children, neither knowing your fate, nor what NOT to do, (because evolution is about numbers, not about learning) would follow, to a similar fate. And their children, also.

Granted -- with enough species types, and enough genetic mutation, sooner or later, someone will get back to the right room in Ireland, and then return to the right desert in Africa.

But is there enough of the vital dimension, TIME, to enable the right gene to emerge and triumph, out of all these ghastly accidents?

Or -- even more absurd -- did the complete navigation gene simply arrive out of nowhere?

Even the title of Darwin's book hasn't been answered adequately. How do separate species emerge, in the process of "speciation"? How do outwardly identical, but reproductively-discrete species emerge alongside one another in the same ecological niche, as many kinds of fish have done? This is counter-intuitive. For how does reducing one's ability to find a mate confer any kind of genetic advantage? Conversely, not one single species of domesticated animal is unable to mate with its remote relatives.

Human-triggered speciation has never occurred, despite separations of thousands of years. The dingo of the Australian desert is five millennia removed the Arctic wolf; yet they can still interbreed. Similarly, Northern Dancer could have bred with a Connemara.

So, is speciation naturally pre-ordained? If so, is it unreasonable to ask how, by whom and why?

And are such questions more or less absurd than ones about the stump in Rathkeale?

kmyers@independent.ie

- Kevin Myers

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...let me STOP you right there ... and then I'm going to bed to prepare for my long journey tomorrow.

...of course IF each step on the 'ladder' could somehow be 'locked in'....and the system somehow 'knew' that a particular number at a particular positon was 'right' an otherwise random process would hit the 'jackpot' in a few HOURS or even less!!!!!

....but this is NOT how it works!!!

...the critical sequence is EXACTLY one SPECIFIC sequence and all other sequences don't work AT ALL ... so even IF you have positions 1 to 99 filled 'correctly' you will STILL have a non-functional protein and all intermediary positions will be equally non-functional ... it is like a slot machine that only 'pays' out on one sequence, or a combination lock that ONLY opens when the exact sequence is dialled in ... and gives NO INDICATION that you are 'close' to cracking the combination, even if you are just one number away from doing so!!!.

You have been corrected on this before. Please provide evidence which demonstrates that proteins could not have evolved from simpler proteins. Assertions are irrelevant unless you can reference scientific research to back them up.

Natural Selection is quite capable of selecting an individual animal that has sight, for example, over a blind individual ... but it is COMPLETELY POWERLESS to 'produce' the sight, in the first place....

This is untrue, as creatures with sight can evolve from creatures without sight.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003998277_blob07.html

...so it is capable of MAINTAING the fitness of a population in a static environment or CHANGING a population (by selecting from pre-exiating genetic diversity) to better match a changed environment!

You have been corrected on this before. Evolution can develop novel molecular information through the natural selection of mutations. You don't accept this because you are using an irrelevant and incorrect definition of molecular information.

I have snipped the parts of your post that repeat themselves as they are unnecessary.

qdog

i find it really hard to believe that anyone still believes that the bible is an accurate description of how the earth began. Are you taking the piss and just winding us up? aaah i called it ....u nearly had me

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...this isn't how Natural Selection works...the 'keypad' DOESN'T KNOW which are the correct answers at all points along the sequence ... this would only become obvious after ALL of the correct sequence has been assembled...and the protein starts working ...

In fact that's exactly how natural selection works, it doesn't work the way you think it does because the way you think it works is random chance, ie it doesn't work. Natural selection doesn't "know" the answer but nature tells it it's got the wrong answer at each stage by killing it and that it's got the right one by not killing it.

Mickeroo has dealt with your point pretty well but I'll just reiterate:

Your assertion that a protein is irreduceably complex is completely baseless. Simpler components of a protein would not function in exactly the same way but less complex molecules could perform a similar task in a less efficient or different way just like methanol and ethanol are very chemically similar with ethanol being more complex, they could perform a completely different task or they could perform no task at all and just be along for the ride in the organism until they mutate into something useful, which can then gradually become a protein. The "irreducably complex" concept was shown to be nonsense long ago.

Unless you can provide proof that no simpler molecule made up of some of the atoms that are also in a protein can perform any useful function? Remember that it doesn't have to be exactly the same function as the protein itself

Mickeroo

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Mickeroo has dealt with your point pretty well but I'll just reiterate:

I did? Or are you referring to the ever knowledgable Morbert?

Sam Vimes

Mickeroo wrote: »

I did? Or are you referring to the ever knowledgable Morbert?

I am indeed. Apologies

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wa_ey3jGPs

wolfsbane

I heard a interview this morning with Fern Elsdon-Baker, author of the new book: The Selfish Genius: How Richard Dawkins Rewrote Darwin's Legacy

Fern is an atheist and a Darwinist, if I picked her up right from the interview.

I gather she is not only opposed to Dawkins' militant atheism, but argues also against his Neo-Darwinism. I found this interesting review on Dawkins' site:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,4051,A-New-Flea-The-Selfish-Genius-How-Richard-Dawkins-Rewrote-Darwins-Legacy-by-Fern-Elsdon-Baker,Times-Online

That site also provides a sample of the reverence in which Dawkins is held by many.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Fern is an atheist and a Darwinist, if I picked her up right from the interview.

Fern is a science historian.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I gather she is not only opposed to Dawkins' militant atheism, but argues also against his Neo-Darwinism.

Possibly, but that has little to do with biology or with the censoring of scientists.

This is a discussion of Dawkins.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That site also provides a sample of the reverence in which Dawkins is held by many

Many would argue justifiably.

But this article also paints the opposite picture of the Creationist claim that scientists are too afraid censor if they question Neo-Darwinian biological evolution.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Fern is a science historian.



Possibly, but that has little to do with biology or with the censoring of scientists.

This is a discussion of Dawkins.



Many would argue justifiably.

But this article also paints the opposite picture of the Creationist claim that scientists are too afraid censor if they question Neo-Darwinian biological evolution.

You misrepresent my position. Scientists are afraid of censor if they question biological evolution. Fern sticks with the group-mind, manifesting only an internecine spat.

Anyway, censorship was not my reason for posting. I only wanted to flag up a dissenting voice to Neo-Darwinism, not evolution as such.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You misrepresent my position. Scientists are afraid of censor if they question biological evolution. Fern sticks with the group-mind, manifesting only an internecine spat.

Fern is an historian.

And scientists are not afraid of censor if they question biological evolution. Scientists have been questioning it for the last 150 years. That is what science is. The main process in science is trying to disprove theory. It is very difficult to take your claims about science seriously when you apparently don't know the first thing about it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Anyway, censorship was not my reason for posting. I only wanted to flag up a dissenting voice to Neo-Darwinism, not evolution as such.

Oh no, a dissenting voice. What will we do :rolleyes:

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You misrepresent my position. Scientists are afraid of censor if they question biological evolution. Fern sticks with the group-mind, manifesting only an internecine spat.
Fern is an historian.

I agree. I never said otherwise. Unless one cannot be a Darwinist without being a scientist.

And scientists are not afraid of censor if they question biological evolution. Scientists have been questioning it for the last 150 years. That is what science is. The main process in science is trying to disprove theory. It is very difficult to take your claims about science seriously when you apparently don't know the first thing about it.

Evolutionists have been questioning particular mechanisms within the theory, not the theory itself. When anyone questions the theory, ostracism follows. They suddenly become non-scientists, doing non-science. Not to be published or given any respect. Even being open to hear a non-evolutionary case makes one an object of scorn and discrimination, e.g:
Dr. Richard Sternberg
http://www.discovery.org/a/2399

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Anyway, censorship was not my reason for posting. I only wanted to flag up a dissenting voice to Neo-Darwinism, not evolution as such.
Oh no, a dissenting voice. What will we do

Hopefully tar and feathers will not be involved.:D

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree. I never said otherwise. Unless one cannot be a Darwinist without being a scientist.

What is a "Darwinist"?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Evolutionists have been questioning particular mechanisms within the theory, not the theory itself.

Not true. Aside from the fact that questioning all the particular mechanisms within the theory is questioning the theory, the entire theory has been questioned more than once.

wolfsbane wrote: »

When anyone questions the theory, ostracism follows. They suddenly become non-scientists, doing non-science. Not to be published or given any respect.

Totally untrue. You are just making stuff up now.

No one has ever been refused publication for showing flaws or problems with current Darwinian evolution, and in fact some have become famous for doing just such a thing including Richard Dawkins.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Even being open to hear a non-evolutionary case makes one an object of scorn and discrimination, e.g:
Dr. Richard Sternberg
http://www.discovery.org/a/2399

If you had bothered to ready why that happened it was because they published Intelligent Design which failed to meet the scientific standards of the paper Sternberg was editing at the time.

Sternberg, who was about to retire, by passed the normal peer-review process that had been used for ever other paper published in the journal and handled the peer review entirely on his own, in order to get the paper published.

He rightly got a slap on the wrist for allowing his own person affinity for an idea effect the scientific standards and reputation of the journal.

If he had followed the correct procedure for peer reviewing the paper rather than trying to sneak it in by the back door, and it had passed proper peer view (doubtful considered the poor standard of the Meyers paper and the lack of scientific standards behind Intelligent Design) no one would have batted an eye lid.

This is typical Creationist FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). Sternberg messed up and got in trouble for that and instead of accepting he messed up started crying persecution despite the fact that it was clearly documented that he didn't follow standard procedure for this paper.

It would be like me stealing a computer from work, getting fired over this, and then saying the reason I got fired was because my boss never liked me and was jealous of my programming ability.

So leaving aside that this case has nothing to do with neo-darwinian evolution, he wasn't even "persecuted" for being a proponent of Intelligent Design, he was persecuted for not doing his job properly.

No one has ever been persecuted for scientifically challenging Neo-Darwinian evolution.

There are standards to follow, follow them and you will be perfectly fine. The only time anyone ever gets into trouble is when they try and by-pass scientific standards and shoe horn their "theory" in to science because they cannot demonstrate their theory if they stick to these standards.

On the other hand an awful lot of people have been genuinely persecuted for trying to teach Darwinian evolution in science class rooms.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I agree. I never said otherwise. Unless one cannot be a Darwinist without being a scientist.
What is a "Darwinist"?

One who believes in the Darwinist theory of evolution, as opposed to the Neo-Darwinist version.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Evolutionists have been questioning particular mechanisms within the theory, not the theory itself.
Not true. Aside from the fact that questioning all the particular mechanisms within the theory is questioning the theory, the entire theory has been questioned more than once.

I'm open to correction: please provide the refs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
When anyone questions the theory, ostracism follows. They suddenly become non-scientists, doing non-science. Not to be published or given any respect.
Totally untrue. You are just making stuff up now.

No one has ever been refused publication for showing flaws or problems with current Darwinian evolution, and in fact some have become famous for doing just such a thing including Richard Dawkins.

Really? Richard Dawkins has refuted the theory of evolution? No, you are the one making it up - you have moved from my assertion that the theory itself may not be questioned, to offering proof that aspects of it can be. But that is precisely what I said - one may question various mechanisms, but not the theory, not the concept of biological evolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Even being open to hear a non-evolutionary case makes one an object of scorn and discrimination, e.g:
Dr. Richard Sternberg
http://www.discovery.org/a/2399
If you had bothered to ready why that happened it was because they published Intelligent Design which failed to meet the scientific standards of the paper Sternberg was editing at the time.

Sternberg, who was about to retire, by passed the normal peer-review process that had been used for ever other paper published in the journal and handled the peer review entirely on his own, in order to get the paper published.

He rightly got a slap on the wrist for allowing his own person affinity for an idea effect the scientific standards and reputation of the journal.

If he had followed the correct procedure for peer reviewing the paper rather than trying to sneak it in by the back door, and it had passed proper peer view (doubtful considered the poor standard of the Meyers paper and the lack of scientific standards behind Intelligent Design) no one would have batted an eye lid.

This is typical Creationist FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). Sternberg messed up and got in trouble for that and instead of accepting he messed up started crying persecution despite the fact that it was clearly documented that he didn't follow standard procedure for this paper.

It would be like me stealing a computer from work, getting fired over this, and then saying the reason I got fired was because my boss never liked me and was jealous of my programming ability.

So leaving aside that this case has nothing to do with neo-darwinian evolution, he wasn't even "persecuted" for being a proponent of Intelligent Design, he was persecuted for not doing his job properly.

Others beg to differ. If you want an insight to the hysteria in the evolutionist establishment, remember what happened to Prof. Reiss:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4768820.ece

No one has ever been persecuted for scientifically challenging Neo-Darwinian evolution.

What about for challenging biological evolution per se?

There are standards to follow, follow them and you will be perfectly fine. The only time anyone ever gets into trouble is when they try and by-pass scientific standards and shoe horn their "theory" in to science because they cannot demonstrate their theory if they stick to these standards.

That's handy - for those who get the final say on whether its scientific or not. Catch 22 anyone?

On the other hand an awful lot of people have been genuinely persecuted for trying to teach Darwinian evolution in science class rooms.

Again, I'll be grateful for the refs.

2Scoops

Wicknight wrote: »

No one has ever been refused publication for showing flaws or problems with current Darwinian evolution, and in fact some have become famous for doing just such a thing including Richard Dawkins.

QFT.

An inconvenient fact that creationists are keen to ignore. In fact, I seem to recall asking for evidence that creation science of any kind had been refused publication in mainstream journals and it turns out they never even submitted anything to be published in the first place. They must not be very serious about doing science or educating people.

Soul Winner

J C wrote: »

...and I will leave you with the following thought-provoking article from Kevin Myers in last Tuesday's Irish Independent, which is exactly about the current item under discussion.

Kevin is noted for his level-headedness ... and he is NEITHER a Creationist nor an ID Proponent ... yet he has concluded that Materialistic Evolution requires a faith which approaches that required to believe in the Virgin Mary appearing on a tree stump in Co. Limerick.

.... I must admit myself, that the image conjured up by Kevin Myer's article ... of 'hard-boiled' Atheists down in a wet field in County Limerick, on their knees, in adoration of a tree stump, does require some getting used to!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

...ENJOY!!!:D

How does reducing one's ability to find a mate confer any kind of genetic advantage?

By Kevin Myers
Tuesday July 14 2009

The image of the Virgin Mary is reported to have been seen on a tree stump in the village of Rathkeale, and thousands of people have flocked there. And yes, this is quite absurd.

But is it more preposterous to believe that that piece of timber, and the willow tree from which it came, and the eye that beheld the wood, arrived in this world entirely by accident? For in this, the 150th anniversary of the publication of 'The Origin of Species', that is what we've been endlessly told this year.

Before Darwinian dogmatists sneer the words "intelligent design" and "creationism", let me declare that I embrace neither concept. But nor do I reject them. I've been reading up on this subject recently, especially Ernst Mayr, Dawkins and Darwin, and what strikes me most is the sheer act of Darwinian faith which is required for us to accept that natural selection was the prime engine that conjured the vast complexity of modern life from its birthplace in the methanogenic oceans of the pre-Cambrian.

It's far too easy to look back and postulate a route to where we are today, deducing it from whatever evidence archaeologists and palaeontologists have found. Instead, we should be taking the teleological approach, and viewing the problem the other way round. How can life naturally progress forward from those evil seas to our modern world, but without having the least idea where it is going?

Now life as we know it depends on proteins. But even a relatively simple molecule such as insulin, consists of 51 conjoined amino-acids, with a molecular weight of 5808: nearly 6,000 times the weight of a hydrogen atom. And an average living cell contains 100 million protein molecules, involving perhaps 20,000 varieties of protein. Moreover, there are several hundred thousand types of protein, all of them impossibly complex. How were these made by accident? To say that such order is implicit in all of nature -- as some scientists do -- is begging the question, the equivalent of saying matter is intrinsic to materials.

Time, you might add; time will enable these molecules to be assembled, bit by bit. Indeed, given enough time, you will be able to explain everything that has occurred from the first genetic trick at the dawn of existence. But has there been enough time? Would a mathematician looking at the random ingredients of those ancient, poisonous seas be able to propose that, actuarially, enough molecular encounters would sooner or later result in the first spark of life (whatever that might be) leading to us, just four billion (or so) years later? That's not an awful lot of time, considering all the random accidents that could not merely have started proto-life, but also wiped it out.

This logically means that there must have been many competing proto-life forms. Just one -- apparently the one that depends upon DNA -- survived. But how did the dear old double helix come into existence? For DNA doesn't function at all unless complete. It's either the final, impossibly complex but useful article, or it's incomplete and utterly useless. So, no simple evolution here.

But that's the way with so much of "natural selection". It often doesn't tolerate halfway houses. The swallow that doesn't make it from Africa to Europe simply doesn't survive to reproduce its genes. That's it: line extinct. Or put it another way. I drop you and your family in an unpopulated Africa, without telling you where you are, or giving you a map or a compass, and I then tell you to find your way back to your sitting room. You couldn't do it. You'd die on the way. Your children, neither knowing your fate, nor what NOT to do, (because evolution is about numbers, not about learning) would follow, to a similar fate. And their children, also.

Granted -- with enough species types, and enough genetic mutation, sooner or later, someone will get back to the right room in Ireland, and then return to the right desert in Africa.

But is there enough of the vital dimension, TIME, to enable the right gene to emerge and triumph, out of all these ghastly accidents?

Or -- even more absurd -- did the complete navigation gene simply arrive out of nowhere?

Even the title of Darwin's book hasn't been answered adequately. How do separate species emerge, in the process of "speciation"? How do outwardly identical, but reproductively-discrete species emerge alongside one another in the same ecological niche, as many kinds of fish have done? This is counter-intuitive. For how does reducing one's ability to find a mate confer any kind of genetic advantage? Conversely, not one single species of domesticated animal is unable to mate with its remote relatives.

Human-triggered speciation has never occurred, despite separations of thousands of years. The dingo of the Australian desert is five millennia removed the Arctic wolf; yet they can still interbreed. Similarly, Northern Dancer could have bred with a Connemara.

So, is speciation naturally pre-ordained? If so, is it unreasonable to ask how, by whom and why?

And are such questions more or less absurd than ones about the stump in Rathkeale?

kmyers@independent.ie

- Kevin Myers

I was expectng the reply to come that Kevin Myers just doesn't understand the theory of evolution, but it didn't come. Any takers? :cool:

The Mad Hatter

Soul Winner wrote: »

I was expectng the reply to come that Kevin Myers just doesn't understand the theory of evolution, but it didn't come. Any takers? :cool:

I guess no-one could get over someone describing Kevin Myers as 'level-headed'.

marco_polo

Soul Winner wrote: »

I was expectng the reply to come that Kevin Myers just doesn't understand the theory of evolution, but it didn't come. Any takers? :cool:

Perhaps the article justs speaks for itself.


The annotated version of the article is roughly as follows

So I just finshed reading some Ernst Mayr, Dawkins and Darwin and .....
<A entire article which suggest that the above never happened>
- Kevin Myers

Soul Winner

marco_polo wrote: »

Perhaps the article justs speaks for itself.


The annotated version of the article is roughly as follows

So I just finshed reading some Ernst Mayr, Dawkins and Darwin and .....
<A entire article which suggest that the above never happened>
- Kevin Myers

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I guess no-one could get over someone describing Kevin Myers as 'level-headed'.

This just illustrates the point Wolfsbane was making to Wiknight about people who don't subscribe to the theory of evolution. If their understanding of it is bad then target their reasoning but if their understanding of it is good then just attack the man. Go figure!!!