Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hoyle & Wickramasinghe were not naive about biology & paleontology
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 13 (30003)
01-23-2003 6:16 AM


I just stumbled across a 2nd hand copy of Hoyle & Wickramasinghe's 1982 book on 'Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism' for A$10.
It turns out that they were not naive about biology and paleontology at all.
On the biology front they were conservative enough in their 10^40000 calc to allow for the fact that multiple amino-acid seqeunces could perform the same function or that simpler organisms than exist today may have existed. These physicists legitimately came to the conclusion that the origin of life on Earth is riduclously unlikely without 'seeding' or God.
On the paelontology front they in detail point out that in any group of organisms almost all basic sub-groups appear in an 'explosion' of novelty without transitional forms. They go to great pains to point out that the links drawn in are deceptive and assumed only. They dish out serious critism to paleontology.
They pretty much agree with Behe that someone or something seeded the Earth with the basic gene types. The only thing stopping them and Behe from being YECs is that they don't accept the scientific and theological implications of a literal global flood (and Hoyle is no longer with us of course).
They go back and historically anylyse why evolution was accepted in the 1800s and they see it as an oever reaction against the concept of fixity of species. They point out that Blythe introduced the 'natural process of selection' before either Wallace or Darwin in the 1830s and that his suggestion of preexisiting groups diversifying via this process fits the data better than Darwin and Wallaces' extrapolation to ultimate origin of species.
The evolutoinary reaction to their book was/is both predicatble and lamentable.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-23-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Randy, posted 01-23-2003 9:21 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 3 by Weyland, posted 01-23-2003 9:37 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2003 4:31 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6246 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 2 of 13 (30021)
01-23-2003 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
01-23-2003 6:16 AM


Well TB, I see you have gotten your reading within 21 years of the present. I would guess that you are highly selective in which of Hoyle and Wickramsinghe’s views you support.
You support Hoyle’s bogus post hoc probability calculations but certainly not their conclusions about the age of the earth and the global flood.
You do know that in McLean vs Arkansas Board of Education Wickramasinghe testified for the creationists and said that
"no rational scientist" would believe the earth's geology could be explained by reference to a worldwide flood or that the earth was less than one million years old.
Hoyle proposed the steady state Universe and I think was the one who coined the term Big Bang though he meant it derisively because he thought the Universe has been here forever.
So however niave they may have been about biology and paleontology, and they were certainly wrong in their claim that archeopteryx was a fraud, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe at least understood that YEC is irrational. What stopped them from being YECs is their understanding the YEC is not supported by any aspect of science. Of course they didn’t accept the scientific implications of a literal global flood. You have been shown repeatedly on thread after thread that the world’s geology, paleontology, biogeography and biodiversity completely contradict the scientific implications of a literal global flood so you should not be surprised that scientists who do not share your absolute need to believe in it for religious reasons do not take the global flood seriously.
So do you think life came from space? Are you a fan of directed panspermia now?
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-23-2003 6:16 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-23-2003 6:19 PM Randy has not replied

  
Weyland
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 13 (30023)
01-23-2003 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
01-23-2003 6:16 AM


quote:
On the paelontology front they in detail point out that in any group of organisms almost all basic sub-groups appear in an 'explosion' of novelty without transitional forms. They go to great pains to point out that the links drawn in are deceptive and assumed only. They dish out serious critism to paleontology.
They do all this without, of course, actualy being paleontologists. Are we to assume that paleontologists are simply too stupid to have spotted these problems, that they are too wedded to their tenures to want to rock the boat, or are we allowed to consider that these issues might have been addresses and that the authors are unaware of the explanations?
quote:
They pretty much agree with Behe that someone or something seeded the Earth with the basic gene types. The only thing stopping them and Behe from being YECs is that they don't accept the scientific and theological implications of a literal global flood (and Hoyle is no longer with us of course).
A couple other thing stopping them from being YECs is that there is no evidence whatsoever that they think the world is 6000 years old, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are both famous for their hypothesis that life on early earth was seeded from space ( a view difficult to reconcile with Genesis), and given Wickramasingh's Hindu upbringing I think it difficult to justify calling him a christian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-23-2003 6:16 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-23-2003 6:28 PM Weyland has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 13 (30054)
01-23-2003 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
01-23-2003 6:16 AM


I would say that the fact that they thought that they could do a worthwhile calculation is an example of considerable naivity concerning biology. It presimes that they have an understanding of life sufficient to narrow down how it could have come abou to the point where such a calculation is feasible. Given the variety of ideas then and since that is not only naive but clearly false.
I also find this comment of yours absurd:
"The only thing stopping them and Behe from being YECs is that they don't accept thescientific and theological implications of a literal global flood (and Hoyle is no longer with us of course)."
As an astronomer Hoyle was well aware of the antiquity of the universe. But even without that they are not doubt aware of the very strong evidence against a young Earth and reject it on that basis.
And what are the "scientific and theological condequences" - it seems to me clear that they are ones that Christians would reject. They are that science is incapable of telling us about the past because God has rigged the evidence in an intnetional and massive deception. And if God is so determined to deceive, how can you trust ANYTHING ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-23-2003 6:16 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-23-2003 6:39 PM PaulK has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 13 (30058)
01-23-2003 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Randy
01-23-2003 9:21 AM


Randy
I strongly suspect that very few here have read their book. It is a good book, even after 20 years.
I perfectly understand their disbelief in the flood. Without the miraculous it is completely ridiculous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Randy, posted 01-23-2003 9:21 AM Randy has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 13 (30059)
01-23-2003 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Weyland
01-23-2003 9:37 AM


Weyland
My PhD was a training in research. I am currently reseaching and lecturing in a completely differnt field. These astrophysicists went into great detail in their reading up on paleontology. And they critisize it only marginally more than SJ Gould (a paleontologist).
The upshot was that these scientists did not believe that transitional forms ever existed.
That is how bad the situaiton is for macroevolution. Paleontology couldn't convince a dedicated pair of astrohphysicists that transitional forms ever existed.
They believe that new gene types came from space and presumably got into existing forms. Of course the YEC theory is better than this becasue we are not left with the problem of how to coordinate new genes into new cell-types and ultimately novel anatomies. In YEC of course we use the flood to explain that the geo-col is a snap shot of life.
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were not naive on the issues of abiogenesis or paleontology. I will argue that they were quite naive in cell and developmental biology. I think they consciously ignored this major problem for their thesis.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Weyland, posted 01-23-2003 9:37 AM Weyland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Randy, posted 01-23-2003 6:56 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 13 (30062)
01-23-2003 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
01-23-2003 4:31 PM


PaulK
If you read their book you would immediately realise that they were not naive on the issues of molecular biology (or paleontology). They perfectly understood how it works. They were naive in thinking that seeding novel gene types could easily generate novel organs and anatomies.
I also find this comment of yours absurd:"The only thing stopping them and Behe from being YECs is that they don't accept thescientific and theological implications of a literal global flood (and Hoyle is no longer with us of course)."
I said that because the clear problem with their theory is how gene types come together to form novel anatomies and organs, a problem solved by YEC and the flood. Of course they beleived in an old universe (as I do also via Humphreys cosmology).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2003 4:31 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2003 7:13 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6246 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 8 of 13 (30064)
01-23-2003 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Tranquility Base
01-23-2003 6:28 PM


quote:
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were not naive on the issues of abiogenesis or paleontology. I will argue that they were quite naive in cell and developmental biology. I think they consciously ignored this major problem for their thesis.
So they were naive in the areas that you agree with and they were not in the area you don't agree with. How convenient for you. I think their claim that archeopteryx was a fraud shows that they were naive about paleontology. I haven't read this book but I did read a lot of Fred Hoyle science fiction in the 50's and 60's so I know he writes well. I just think he got fact and fiction a little confused later in his scientific career.
quote:
In YEC of course we use the flood to explain that the geo-col is a snap shot of life.
And it fails miserably to explain the geologic column or the fossil record as you have been shown over and over on numerous threads.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-23-2003 6:28 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-23-2003 7:42 PM Randy has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 9 of 13 (30065)
01-23-2003 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tranquility Base
01-23-2003 6:39 PM


As I said I consider it naive to believe that the probability can be calculated. Can you give me a good reason to think otherwise ? How can we make this claculation without a very good understanding of how it happened and under what conditions. Do you want to tell me what role they allowed for Cairns Smith's clays. Kaufman's hypercycles or the pyrites chemistry currently favouredf by a number of researches ? How about RNA world or the hypotheses of a preceding state based on PNA ?
Oh and the idea that the Flood solves the problem of "how gene types come together" is completely absurd. Creationism "solves" the problem by deus ex machina - any pattern is possible so there is no possibility that we could argue that it could not produce any set of observations- Where it fails is in giving positive reasons for why we see the patterns that we DO see and ecpalining WHY they are so strongly consistent with evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-23-2003 6:39 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-23-2003 7:38 PM PaulK has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 13 (30068)
01-23-2003 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by PaulK
01-23-2003 7:13 PM


PaulK
Your points are very sensible.
However, in their book they address some of your issues. They admitt that their calc was in the context of assuming that a a certain number of proteins need to arrive at a point in space and time. But they comment that the other schemes produce astronomically high numbers as well (against).
All of the RNA world etc hypotheses are completely hypothetical as you know. And know one knows how to morph the RNA world into ours either.
The flood is falsifiable. It does make predictions about the geo-col and the fossil record. We'll see how it pans out. Neither the flood or evolution are as easy to rule out as diverse alternative laws of gravitaiton. The type of data is very different.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 01-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2003 7:13 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 01-24-2003 3:11 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 13 (30069)
01-23-2003 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Randy
01-23-2003 6:56 PM


Is is abundantly clear reading their book that their whole argument fails (and is hardly discussed) at the cell biology level.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Randy, posted 01-23-2003 6:56 PM Randy has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 12 of 13 (30088)
01-24-2003 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tranquility Base
01-23-2003 7:38 PM


So they assumed that a certain number of proteins needed to be assembled. Presumably as the minimum requirement for a replicator capable of evolving. Did they justify that assumption ? Because I don't think that anyone now would say that they knew.
As for your point about the RNA world, I am afraid gaps in our ideas act against your argument. They indicate that we do not know enough to come up with a reliable probability calculation.
As for your claims about the Flood I would disagree. The main attempt to explain the fossil record is based on the assumption that eco-systems were caught entire and somehow happened to end up in an order that matches the fossil record. But there is no clear match with geological age (this is especially disturbing given the reliance on accelerated radioactive decay to explain radiometric dating - it places quite strict constraints on the order in which beds form - the relative timing has to be the same and you have to compress the scale by many orders of magnitude). There are serious problems with the fossils actually found - I raised some on marine fossils in another thread, but there are others. Why for example do we find a sequence of whale ancestors leading TO modern whales instead of FROM modern whales ? Why don't we find whales swiming with icthyosaurs and plesiosaurs, before their shore dwelling and terrestrial ancestors, which by your scheme would be fossilised last ?
I would say that it is clear that the Flood here is "saved" by ad hoc assumptions which sound plausible (especially to believers) in the abstract but have not been detailed to the point where they can be tested, and that they some very hard work is needed before we can say that they even represent a viable alternative to the standard view within the restricted area of the fossil record. They have not been presented in a falsifiable form maing detailed predictions. The geological record as a whole contains many other features which seem to add up to a conclusive case that Flood geology cannot reasonably explain what we see.
If the Flood is hard to rule out it is no more than a verification of the Duhem-Quine thesis. ANY theory can be defended from falsification by making enough ad hoc assumptions. Science works because scientists give up defending theories which require that much work to keep viable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 01-23-2003 7:38 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Randy, posted 01-24-2003 5:05 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Randy
Member (Idle past 6246 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 13 of 13 (30091)
01-24-2003 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by PaulK
01-24-2003 3:11 AM


Paulk:
quote:
ANY theory can be defended from falsification by making enough ad hoc assumptions. Science works because scientists give up defending theories which require that much work to keep viable.
It is actually much worse than this. Whenever the problem gets so severe that even a collection of ad hoc assumptions won't save it TB invokes another miracle. You can see this on the the biogeography thread on the flood forum.
We all tend to believe everything is chance and luck but the Bible makes it very clear that God gave different peoples to different lands. I would be not suprised at all if this is the same with animals.
Once animals (and man) settled then, sure I'm a Galapogos man, and naturalism takes over.
It's not hard to find other examples of this. He invokes God to suddenly speed up radioactive decay to get runaway subduction started for example and of course all creationists admit that God directed the animals to go to the ark. I don't see how TB can claim the flood is falsifiable with a straight face and not admit that is it falsified. The flood is clearly falsified as a scientific hypothesis. You can't falsify anything if miracles are allowed.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 01-24-2003 3:11 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024