Some questions about evolution.

[idav]

...one goes through material, essentially says, 'ah, now I think I get it. With this I can agree and would like to advance this field of study further. But I have just a few questions for clarification...'

If that is the attitude brought into any field of study (and I do mean any), those around who are truly there to help, will earnestly do so. But start off on the foot that says, "this is all hogwash, and is all pointless drivel that I shall expose constantly for the stupidity that I think it is," and regardless of the field of study, there will be people pouncing on you left and right, especially if you are outnumbered and 'defenders' are under bizarre impression that truth is in need of some human made, emotionally based, defense.

I agree with that people should keep in mind. I hardly meet anyone that thinks they know everything but some religious or secular people can be pretty egotistical which I will quickly argue against. However I see religious using emotionally based arguments a lot more than secular folks.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I understand you don't agree with scientists and millions of others who believe the available evidence demonstrates that life was created by God. The evidence for both sides of this issue has been presented at length, and is generally available to anyone interested to examine. )

I know you have been asked this before, but...

Provide a list of accredited biologists who believe the available evidence demonstrates that life was created by God, and can provide the empirical and objective evidence for their "Theory of Creation".

Well?

 

[johnhanks]

Why would the conclusion that they bear no relation to evolutionary relationships be deemed feasible?

It was not, at the time, a foregone conclusion that protein structures would reflect the same relationships that had been deduced from comparative anatomy and morphology. For all anyone knew, human cytochrome c would turn out to be identical to that from an octopus, and wholly different from chimp cytochrome c. Testing evolution was not the biochemists' principal aim, but the fact remains ToE was put to the test.[/QUOTE]

 

[Matthew78]

Well?

Why do I get the feeling that the name Michael Behe might make the list?

 

[fantome profane]

Why do I get the feeling that the name Michael Behe might make the list?

Well then let’s just nip that in the bud. Behe has his Phd in biochemistry and is a professor of biochemistry. Regardless of what you think of him he fits that requirement for the list. But does Michael Behe reject the theory of evolution? No he does not! Behe believes in evolution, he believes in common descent, that all life evolved from a common ancestor. He believes that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, and that life has been evolving on this planet for about 3.5 billion of those years. He believes these things because the evidence for these things is overwhelming. It is simply not possible for anyone educated in biology to deny these facts.

So if you are looking for a professional biologist who denies evolution, keep looking.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And like most debates, the people who are meeting at the level where the error is being made, pretty much just perpetuate the error.

If you realize your mistake then stop making the same mistakes over and over.

But if someone such as rusra02 makes claim that "it is not observable fact" and response is pretty much, "evolution is observable fact," it is pretty much perpetuating the error, or at very least not advancing anything.

But the fact of the matter is it is observable and plenty of evidences and examples have been given to him. His refusal to accept said evidence says more about his religious bias then it does our persistence in trying to educate him.

Like if someone says to me, "God is made up illusion," and I say, "God is not made up illusion," how much have I actually overcome the error? Even a teeny tiny bit?

This isn't a good analogy because gods aren't observable, can't be tested and what is attributed to them can't be repeated. Belief in gods is a matter of faith. Faith is the absence of evidence.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well then let’s just nip that in the bud. Behe has his Phd in biochemistry and is a professor of biochemistry. Regardless of what you think of him he fits that requirement for the list. But does Michael Behe reject the theory of evolution? No he does not! Behe believes in evolution, he believes in common descent, that all life evolved from a common ancestor. He believes that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, and that life has been evolving on this planet for about 3.5 billion of those years. He believes these things because the evidence for these things is overwhelming. It is simply not possible for anyone educated in biology to deny these facts.

So if you are looking for a professional biologist who denies evolution, keep looking.

I agree. The question is...(Do they disagree with the TOE or are they simply disagreeing with certain mechanisms of the TOE?). I find it's the latter and not the former.

 

[rusra02]

I have read several chapters of The Neck of the Giraffe. The author isn't a scientist and much of his analysis is out of touch with modern science. I'm not trying to attack the author but I find his arguments uncogent and his statements lead me to believe that he doesn't have much familiarity with the relevant scientific literature.

Furthermore, you quote from him but you don't provide his "explanations" of fossil specimens which mainstream biologists and paleontologists take to be evidence of evolutionary transitions between major groups. How does Hitching explain, for instance, the mammal-like reptiles?

Another thing- Hitching was still an evolutionist despite what you quoted from him. I read from his book, too. He proposes his own theory of evolution; it's not like he abandoned evolutionary theory in favor of creationism. He has his own hypothesis and I'm afraid that he's marginalized himself from the scientific community as something of a crank.



I have a copy of his book The Triiumph of Evolution. In fact, Eldredge makes a convincing case for evolution from his argument regarding the nested hierarchy of life. For some reason you didn't quote this part of a previous post of mine where I mentioned his argument. In fact, Eldredge doesn't deny that any transitional fossils exist! Eldredge believes that on the species level living organisms appear fully formed and show little evolutionary change. The transitional fossils appear at higher taxonomic levels. This is what led him and Gould to propose "punctuated equilibrium". This was a hypothesis to explain the rarity of transitional fossil forms.



Sagan admitted this? He's stating an obvious fact. The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer. But notice the key word: could. He's not saying that it is. The fossil record can be consistent with both creation and evolution but is only likely to be consistent with just one hypothesis.Furthermore, saying that the fossil record is consistent with the idea of a Great Designer (which Sagan is not saying) is not the same thing as saying that the fossil record is consistent with a belief in special creation.

The problem here is that only Eldredge and Sagan are actual scientists and neither of them are admitting anything damaging. Creationists would like to think that they are because they want to think that most evolutionists will go through great depths to deny creation so as to not be accountable to a creator.



Proof of evolution? I know of no such evolutionist who has ever made such a claim. I doubt that any scientist would any say that there is any "proof" in the same sense of proving a mathematical theorem. Most evolutionists argue that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. This much I agree with.

But let me ask you someting: what would it take to convince you that evolution happened, if anything?

The point is that the much ballyhooed "evidence" for evolution isn't there. But scientists refuse to accept intelligent design because of the implications of that hypothesis. And those who do follow the evidence are inevitably set upon and ridiculed. So ToE theorists come up with ever more torturous theories which are quickly accepted with a sigh of relief from the ToE intelligentsia:
This quote sums up the the current state of evolution:

​

(g98 3/8 p. 11) In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, a researcher in biology, wrote: “The raising of the status of Darwinian theory to a self-evident axiom has had the consequence that the very real problems and objections with which Darwin so painfully laboured in the Origin have become entirely invisible. Crucial problems such as the absence of connecting links or the difficulty of envisaging intermediate forms are virtually never discussed and the creation of even the most complex of adaptations is put down to natural selection without a ripple of doubt.”
He continues: “The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago . . . Nothing could be further from the truth.”—Page 77.​

 

[rusra02]

And yet you yourself have not examined any evidence apart from Awake! and the movie Expelled. Is this an example of "Do as I say, not as I do?"

You must have a superior intellect to know what I have or have not examined, especially without asking me.

 

[idav]

(g98 3/8 p. 11) In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, a researcher in biology, wrote: “The raising of the status of Darwinian theory to a self-evident axiom has had the consequence that the very real problems and objections with which Darwin so painfully laboured in the Origin have become entirely invisible. Crucial problems such as the absence of connecting links or the difficulty of envisaging intermediate forms are virtually never discussed and the creation of even the most complex of adaptations is put down to natural selection without a ripple of doubt.”
He continues: “The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago . . . Nothing could be further from the truth.”—Page 77.​

What year is the from? This has been thoroughly discussed and the more evidence we find the more evolution becomes evident. It is wrong that there is no ripple of doubt. You live in the US where most everyone is theist. You don't think that for hundreds of years scientists want to prove ID or debunk evolution? Problem is they try and debunk and it backfires and solidifies the theory of evolution. When Darwin did evolution we had no idea that we would find more and more evidence to support it. I really thought that multiple origins or even alien interference would somehow pan out but it hasn't and doesn't look like it ever will.

 

[rusra02]

Show us your math.

Also, care to reply to this: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2605732-post386.html

​

Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist, has calculated that the chances of getting the simplest living bacterium by random changes is 1 in 1 followed by 100,000,000,000 zeros. “This number is so large,” Shapiro said, “that to write it in conventional form we would require several hundred thousand blank books.” He charges that scientists committed to the chemical evolution of life ignore the increasing evidence and “have chosen to hold it as a truth beyond question, thereby enshrining it as mythology.” Quote from g87 1/22 p. 9 Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide,
pp. 32, 49, 128. But you knew such calculations are published and readily available, didn't you? Ben Stein referenced this in his movie "Expelled".​

 

[rusra02]

Repeating that a lie is the truth over and over will not make it true.

I agree.

 

[McBell]

I agree.

Then why do you keep repeating the same lie over and over?

 

[McBell]

Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist, has calculated that the chances of getting the simplest living bacterium by random changes is 1 in 1 followed by 100,000,000,000 zeros. “This number is so large,” Shapiro said, “that to write it in conventional form we would require several hundred thousand blank books.” He charges that scientists committed to the chemical evolution of life ignore the increasing evidence and “have chosen to hold it as a truth beyond question, thereby enshrining it as mythology.” Quote from g87 1/22 p. 9 Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide,
pp. 32, 49, 128. But you knew such calculations are published and readily available, didn't you? Ben Stein referenced this in his movie "Expelled".​

If they are so readily available then why have you not shown any of them?
Merely making the claim "so and so calculated" does not show the calculations.

Care to try again?

 

[painted wolf]

Ah creationist quote mining and then empty parroting.

Scientific ignorance also leads to the abuse of such citations, and you have to carefully pay attention to context. Coppedge, for instance, also cites (on p. 235) Harold J. Morowitz, Energy Flow in Biology (p. 99), who reports that (paraphrased by Coppedge) "under 'equilibrium' conditions (the stable state reached after initial reactions have balanced), the probability of such a fluctuation during Earth's history would be...1 chance in 10^339,999,866." In particular, this is "the probability of chance fluctuations that would result in sufficient energy for bond formation" needed to make a living cell. This statistic is laughable not only for its outrageous size, but for the mere absurdity of anyone who would bother to calculate it--but what is notable is that it has nothing to do with the origin of life. For notice the qualification: these are not the odds of the first life forming, but the odds of enough energy being available for any life to grow at all, in an environment which has reached an effective state of thermal equilibrium--a condition which has never existed on Earth. It is obvious that in an equilibrium state, with no solar or geothermal input, it would be impossible for life to gather enough energy to go on. Who needs to calculate the odds against it? Morowitz was demonstrating a fact about the effects of maximized entropy on a chemical system, not the unlikelihood of life originating in a relatively low entropy environment like the early or even current Earth. The fact is that life began in, and has always enjoyed, an active chemical system that is not only far from equilibrium, but receiving steady energy input from the sun and earth. So this statistic has no bearing on the question of the odds of life.

Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? (Addendum B to Review of David Foster's The Philosophical Scientists)

and more on why this claim is false and worse, the use of Dr. Morowitz's "quote" is a lie:
Darwin, Dogma, Deceit, And The Real Victims of Creationist Propaganda
CB010: Probability of Abiogenesis

wa:do

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist, has calculated that the chances of getting the simplest living bacterium by random changes is 1 in 1 followed by 100,000,000,000 zeros.

Abiogenesis doesn't claim that living bacterium formed by "random changes", therefore his calculation is meaningless. Chemicals and compounds, such as the proteins required for life to develop, do not develop "randomly". They, like everything else, are subject to and influenced by the laws of the universe.

Look up statistical thermodynamics if you're interested in learning more.

 

[jarofthoughts]

​

Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist, has calculated that the chances of getting the simplest living bacterium by random changes is 1 in 1 followed by 100,000,000,000 zeros. “This number is so large,” Shapiro said, “that to write it in conventional form we would require several hundred thousand blank books.” He charges that scientists committed to the chemical evolution of life ignore the increasing evidence and “have chosen to hold it as a truth beyond question, thereby enshrining it as mythology.” Quote from g87 1/22 p. 9 Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide,
pp. 32, 49, 128. But you knew such calculations are published and readily available, didn't you? Ben Stein referenced this in his movie "Expelled".​

This:

If they are so readily available then why have you not shown any of them?
Merely making the claim "so and so calculated" does not show the calculations.

Care to try again?

And also; No-one is postulating that the first cell evolved fully formed from random chance.
His premise, provided that you have described it correctly, is flawed on an astonishing scale.

 

[camanintx]

The point is that the much ballyhooed "evidence" for evolution isn't there.

Do you know what an endogenous retrovirus is?

 

[Matthew78]

The point is that the much ballyhooed "evidence" for evolution isn't there.

The fossil record is not the only evidence cited in favor of evolution. There are also anatomical homologies, molecular homologies, vestigial organs, the nested hierarchy of life, as well as the fossil record and other such evidences. You quoted from only two scientists and these quotes are taken out of context to imply something the authors don't agree with.

Too bad that I'm a fan of both Sagan and Eldredge. I have books written by both of them. It's sad to see both Sagan and Elredge both quoted as though they're making embarassingly fatal admissions that destroy evolution. In fact, Elredge argued that we don't even need a fossil record because we can test evolution by observing the living world. If evolution happened in history, then living organisms nowadays can be arranged in a nested hierarchy. Well, guess what rursa02, they are!

But scientists refuse to accept intelligent design because of the implications of that hypothesis.

So you're ascribing ulterior motives to scientists? Is that the real issue here? They don't want to worship your god? They're too full of pride to humble themselves before Jesus Christ? Is this implication of "intelligent design" that you have in mind?

And those who do follow the evidence are inevitably set upon and ridiculed. So ToE theorists come up with ever more torturous theories which are quickly accepted with a sigh of relief from the ToE intelligentsia:

Do you seriously think that all of this is motivated by a desperate evasion to avoid the gospel of Jesus Christ? Is that what you think underlies all of this?

This quote sums up the the current state of evolution:

(g98 3/8 p. 11) In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, a researcher in biology, wrote: “The raising of the status of Darwinian theory to a self-evident axiom has had the consequence that the very real problems and objections with which Darwin so painfully laboured in the Origin have become entirely invisible. Crucial problems such as the absence of connecting links or the difficulty of envisaging intermediate forms are virtually never discussed and the creation of even the most complex of adaptations is put down to natural selection without a ripple of doubt.”
He continues: “The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago . . . Nothing could be further from the truth.”—Page 77.​

I have read Denton's book as well. I was impressed as a creationist teenager. Nowadays I'm embarrassed that I took Denton seriously. Denton has marginalized himself as a crank, unfortunately. Note, also, that Denton doesn't deny evolution but is critical of Darwin's theory. Denton is an advocate of ID, I believe, but he hasn't converted to creationism and it should embarrass Christian creationists to refer to his work because he explicitly rejects biblical creationism. Creationists are left in a dilemma; if he's wrong to reject Genesis, why is he not also wrong to reject Darwin's theory? If he's right to reject Darwin's theory, why isn't he right in rejecting Genesis?

 

[johnhanks]

​

Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist, has calculated that the chances of getting the simplest living bacterium by random changes is 1 in 1 followed by 100,000,000,000 zeros...​

James Watson was right on the money when he remarked that physicists tend to be 'kinda stupid' about biology. Since no biologist would ever claim that 'the simplest living bacterium' was spontaneously assembled solely by random events, Dr Morowitz's calculation is supremely irrelevant.​