Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where is the evidence for evolution?
wj
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 367 (31817)
02-09-2003 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by blanko
02-08-2003 7:56 AM


quote:
from blanko
First of all, let me apologize to everyone involved in this debate. I admit, I got a little lazy with my research and should have been more careful with my quote selection. I appreciate you guys keeping me honest, but understand I would in no way intentionally made false statements to support my argument.
Glad to hear it. I suppose it is just unfortunate that you happen to be posting on the same thread where others have been quote mining and misrepresenting the words of scientists to support their own positions. So I'm sure you would be happy to have any of your errors pointed out.
quote:
You may enjoy the article, but you would also have to admit, there is no way this guy would ever consider any evidence in favor of creation as valid regardless of the facts.
Hmmm. A bit of hyperbole in a book review. Pretty daming evidence that he would discard evidence!! Does Lewontin actually support such action? I can't see it mentioned anywhere. And I note that he was not required to sign a declaration of his religious beliefs as is practice for workers and contributors in aig and icr.
quote:
Couldn’t find any evolutionist rebuttals, so you tell me, are these just false allegations or were they stretching the evidence to support their theory?
I assume this remark is intended to refer to the Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man and Lucy.
Many contemporary scientists were suspicious of Piltdown Man because it did not fit well with the patterns displayed by other primate fossils. It was finally proven as a fraud after WW2. And who proved that it was fraudulent? Creationists? No.
Nebraska Man was a case of misidentification. Can you cite either Piltdown Man or Nebraska Man being used in a scientific paper or textbook after 1945 as valid examples of human ancestors? They don't represent effective fraudent evidence from evolutionists if the evolutionists have discarded it long ago.
Now, should be compare the very few frauds or misidentifications wihc you mention above with the number of sightings of Noah's Ark? Have any of them proven reliable?
quote:
There was Java Man (pithecanthropus erectus), based on a 19th century smattering of bone fragments, which was later discounted as a pre-human in a 342-page investigative report by a team of evolutionists.
Bold assertions. Any references to back them up?
quote:
(The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, "Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?" Dr. Johanson: "Anatomical similarity." (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities).
This is a misrepresentation of the facts. The facts are explained here. Basically, a creationist misunderstood the discoverer's answer to a question and confused the discovery of a knee with the discovery of Lucy. About 40% of the Lucy skeleton was found.
Now I'm sure you would wish to draw this to the attention of your source and ensure that such inaccuracies are not further spread.
And, back to the original question asked of you by compmage, do you have any evidence of scientists discarding evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by blanko, posted 02-08-2003 7:56 AM blanko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by blanko, posted 02-10-2003 1:27 AM wj has not replied

blanko
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 367 (31827)
02-10-2003 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by wj
02-09-2003 11:59 PM


wj:
Many contemporary scientists were suspicious of Piltdown Man because it did not fit well with the patterns displayed by other primate fossils. It was finally proven as a fraud after WW2. And who proved that it was fraudulent? Creationists? No.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If a creationist would have proved it would you believe it?
I'll reply to other post later...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by wj, posted 02-09-2003 11:59 PM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by compmage, posted 02-10-2003 1:33 AM blanko has not replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 124 of 367 (31828)
02-10-2003 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by blanko
02-10-2003 1:27 AM


blanko writes:
quote:

If a creationist would have proved it would you believe it?

If he had 'proven' it instead of just asserting, then yes.
------------------
Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-eight million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by blanko, posted 02-10-2003 1:27 AM blanko has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 125 of 367 (31847)
02-10-2003 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by blanko
02-08-2003 7:56 AM


quote:
First of all, let me apologize to everyone involved in this debate. I admit, I got a little lazy with my research and should have been more careful with my quote selection. I appreciate you guys keeping me honest, but understand I would in no way intentionally made false statements to support my argument.
Good show, blanko. I am very favorably impressed with your willingness to admit that you might have been misled - I never assumed you had done the "quote mining" yourself, nor did I think that you were being deliberately dishonest.
Having said that, although you're still using quotes (), at least you appear to be willing to discuss them.
Richard Lewontin: No, it's not a false accusation, in the sense that the quote probably represents Dr. Lewontin's opinion. He sees the issue as a cultural war between what he terms the "scientific establishment" and "the masses". Sagan, in "Demon Haunted World" which Lewontin was reviewing, sees it as an issue of reason vs superstition. Lewontin is injecting a lot of his (what I would call) Marxist leanings into his essay. But he ALWAYS does in his non-scientific writings. If you get a chance, check out the small book by Richard Morris "The Evolutionists", which provides a fairly easy-to-read overview of both the disagreements and the personalities of the major participants in the evolution debates. It's a fascinating bit of science history. Read the whole essay you referenced: it's a very interesting look - not into Sagan or the nature of science, but into Richard Lewontin. As to rebuttals, Lewontin was taken to task by a LOT of people for his characterization of Sagan's work. Here's one person's rather scathing look at the piece. However, remember that we are dealing with peoples' opnions, and in a literary review to boot, not with scientific facts. Both Lewontin and Nicastro are writing op-ed pieces, not science. Someone's opinion doesn't bolster or provide evidence for your claim that scientists are biased.
Piltdown Man: The story of Piltdown would make a great mystery movie. It has con artists, gullible scientists, national pride, Arthur Conan Doyle, etc. It's one of my favorite stories from the history of science. I think Percy is probably right - most of the evidence leads to Dawson being the culprit. Another potential perpetrator is Martin Hinton, who is alleged to have had a grudge against Dawson because of a lost job opportunity at the British Museum, and who was found in possession (or at least was attributed to him) of trunk full of similarly treated bones - some Dawson apologists think that Hinton set Dawson up. I think it was Dawson because, of all the players, he was the only linking thread. Anyway, Dawson already had the reputation of finding real bones, so his find was a priori accepted as genuine. Bring in a gullible Arthur Woodward (chief of geology at the Museum) who was the person who "validated" the find - not so much because of unequivocal evidence, but because it matched his preconceptions: after all, even the French (Cro Magnon) and the Germans (Neanderthal) had primitive humans, so why not the British? Couple this with an era where peer-review didn't really exist; the widespread acceptance of "argument from authority" (i.e., if Woodward accepts it - since he's the head of a department at the prestigious British Museum - who are we to question?); and lack of technology necessary to definitively "prove" the reality or falsehood of the claim; and you have all the makings of a wonderful embarassment. However, even then there were scientists who questioned the reality, foremost among them being the paleontologist William King Gregory (remember these names, you'll be seeing them again shortly). The point of all this is - it was scientists that exposed the hoax once they had the tools and access necessary. Go Oakley!
Nebraska Man: For a short-lived controversy, this one sure seems to be popular. Some of the same things happened here as happened with Piltdown (except it wasn't apparently a hoax - just a case of mistaken identity). An amateur geologist discovers a fossil tooth, sends it to Henry Osborn at the AMNH in New York. Osborn, apparently succumbing to the same temptation as Woodward in England, excited about the possibility of an early hominid in the US, proclaims Cook's initial identification as correct, names the beast Hesperopithecus haroldcookii before it's examined by anyone else. In other words Osborne jumped the gun by writing back to Cook that it was a real hominid tooth. However, he DID send it out to 26 other institutes, including the British Museum, where none other than Arthur Woodward proclaimed that it couldn't be anthropoid - for the same reasons he proclaimed the British Piltdown WAS genuine. However, that didn't stop the British anatomist Grafton Smith from not only adding Hesperopithecus to Eoanthropus (Piltdown) and Pithicanthropus (now Homo erectus - the only REAL hominid in the bunch), but collaborating with the tabloid Illustrated London News in an "artists reconstruction" - which became a sensation. Meanwhile, William Gregory of "piltdown skeptic" fame, very cautiously cast doubt on the relationship. It should be noted that, whereas Osborn certainly jumped the gun, he insisted that additional excavations be performed at the site - and it was the revelation of these subsequent discoveries that sounded the death knell of the American Ape Man less than five years later. Oddly, only Smith seems to have been embarassed - the man who helped sensationalize the find. As for the rest, it shows that the self-correcting nature of scientific inquiry - no matter WHICH authority proclaims something, it doesn't mean squat if there's no evidence to back it up. Not that we don't still make mistakes - consider Archeoraptor - but that science eventually corrects even the most egregious errors.
Java man: I'm not sure what the controversy here is supposed to be? Pithecanthropus (now re-classified as Homo erectus) may have been originally identified from a skull cap, but there have been other Java finds that have much more complete skulls, showing that Java man is in fact H. erectus. One such find is Sangiran 17 - a nearly complete skull that matches in most particulars the casts (all that remain) of Dubois' Pithecanthropus skull cap. You'll have to provide a better reference (like title, at least) of the "342 page investigative report" that calls Java man into question.
Peking man: Another Homo erectus (formerly Sinanthropus pekinensis). I've never heard anyone call it a monkey before. It had a cranial capacity of around 970 cc, lots bigger than any monkey. It would have to be a bloody huge monkey...
On Lucy: The whole quote is fraudulent, from wherever you got it. In any event, the simple explanation by Johanson himself was that there were TWO SEPERATE finds - the 1973 knee joint and the 1974 discovery of a nearly 40% complete skeleton (Lucy). Only in creationist writings has there ever been any conflation of the two. The point being, Johanson never claimed the knee joint he discovered belonged to Lucy. He did claim that both were from the same species...
The bottom line here is: argument from authority (or argument by quotation) simply doesn't fly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by blanko, posted 02-08-2003 7:56 AM blanko has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 126 of 367 (31860)
02-10-2003 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by DanskerMan
02-04-2003 5:01 PM


Sonnike, in reference to questions I had asked about several "information" related assertions that sonnnike had made:
"SLPx, would any answer actually satisfy you and possibly convince you?"
I have found that, by and large, most creationists do not fully understand the very arguments that they confidently make on these fora and in letters to he editor and the like. I have found that by asking them to 'explain' what they mean,rather than just attempting to argue points with them, is very instructive.
If one cannot "explain" what they mean when they write something like "all the information was already present", then there is a good chance that they are just parrotting an argument that they had seen or read about somewhere, it sounded good to them, so they are running with it.
First and formeost, one must be familiar with and understand the terminology. This is almost alwways a sticking point. Creationists seem to have a preference for their own personal defintions for terms, or to use definitions supplied by their creationist sources. These definitions often differ from the definitions used by those actually in the field in question. For example, on another board, I got into a lengthy exchange over the defintion of the terms "polyploidy" and "gene duplication."
The creationists' source was hydraulic engineer creationist Henry Morris, who had written in one of his books that polyploidy was the duplication of genes. I provided quotes from two molecular biology textbooks as well as links to several online university sites indicating that this definiton was incorrect. But this creationist simply would not have it - his creationist source said something, and he was going with it.
\So you can see how defining terms can have an impact on an argument.
First, then, one should supply the defintiuons of the terms in question so that all parties can assess whether or not all are on the same sheet of music.
If the definitions are askew, chances are the argument is as well.
To answer your question, you CAN convince me that you undestand the issues. But I doubt you can convince me of the 'correctness' of your argument.
Because I am elitist?
No.
Because I am committed to Darwinism?
Not at all.
Because I have seen the "information" arguments for some time. I have read the criticisms of them. I have read background material on the subject. I have found many published sientific articles that provide empirical evidence that the "information" arguments are at the same time irrelevant and largely false.
But lets see what you've got.
------------------
"The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade."
Page Not Found | University of Chicago
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by DanskerMan, posted 02-04-2003 5:01 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by DanskerMan, posted 02-10-2003 11:52 PM derwood has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 127 of 367 (31862)
02-10-2003 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by DanskerMan
02-05-2003 1:22 AM


Others have addressed the 'responses' quite well.
I am sorry, sonnike, but your selective quotes do not demonstrate your own understanding of the issues, nor do quotes 'prove' your points. Creationists, afterall, have a vested interest in siding with other creationists on any anti-evolution argument.
Please, anser the questions YOURSELF. Links supplying supporting documentation are fine, but all you did was provide some choice 'quotes' of dubious quality. You offered no explanations at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by DanskerMan, posted 02-05-2003 1:22 AM DanskerMan has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 128 of 367 (31864)
02-10-2003 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by DanskerMan
02-05-2003 9:59 AM


Sonnike:
What about the other quote?, see below:
"Another scientist, Dr. Ian Macreadie..."
This is THIS guy, right:
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
Creationist molecular biologist
and microbiologist:
Dr Ian Macreadie
------------------
"The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade."
Page Not Found | University of Chicago

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by DanskerMan, posted 02-05-2003 9:59 AM DanskerMan has not replied

DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 367 (31918)
02-10-2003 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by derwood
02-10-2003 9:45 AM


quote:
I have found that, by and large, most creationists do not fully understand the very arguments that they confidently make on these fora and in letters to he editor and the like. I have found that by asking them to 'explain' what they mean,rather than just attempting to argue points with them, is very instructive.
If one cannot "explain" what they mean when they write something like "all the information was already present", then there is a good chance that they are just parrotting an argument that they had seen or read about somewhere, it sounded good to them, so they are running with it.
I don't know the stats but I would be quite certain that most people on these types of discussion boards are not experts in some scientific area. What you state above is true to a point, but it doesn't mean that the assertion is necessarily wrong.
If I tried to "explain" my statement, it would be reliant upon research and documentation carried out by experts in the field, and not out of my own mouth, since it is not my area of expertise.
Does that invalidate the point? I should think not.
If you, dr. Page, have a car problem, you take it to the mechanic. When he/she tells you what the problem is, you either get a 2nd opinion (or 3rd or 4th, etc) or you "run with it" because you know that even though this isn't your area (I'm assuming here of course) of expertise, you know that it is the mechanic's.
So, we are faced with two situations, one that says information in the DNA sequence of an organism can easily increase naturally by random mutations, and one that says "‘There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.’(Dr Werner Gitt, leading information scientist) His challenge to scientifically falsify this statement has remained unanswered since first published. Even those mutations which give a survival benefit are seen to be losses of information, not creating the sorely needed new material upon which natural selection can then go to work."
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
When faced with two diametrically opposed answers, what does one do?
A choice must be made based on the information presented. When the observed evidence is that most mutations are either neutral or losses of information, coupled with the documentation from one of the world's leading information scientists stating that new information does not naturally arise, the choice becomes increasingly clear.
Therefore when I say that the information must have been present, it is not based on my expertise (if I have any) but on the assertations of the people whose expertise this area is.
Regards,
S
------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by derwood, posted 02-10-2003 9:45 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by wj, posted 02-11-2003 12:38 AM DanskerMan has not replied
 Message 135 by derwood, posted 02-11-2003 12:22 PM DanskerMan has replied
 Message 136 by Percy, posted 02-11-2003 1:22 PM DanskerMan has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 367 (31921)
02-11-2003 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by DanskerMan
02-10-2003 11:52 PM


quote:
Therefore when I say that the information must have been present, it is not based on my expertise (if I have any) but on the assertations of the people whose expertise this area is.
Well perhaps you could cite your experts and the papers which they have submitted for peer review which argue and support their assertions. Perhaps you could start by describing what "information" is. Or are you simply taking it on faith sans evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by DanskerMan, posted 02-10-2003 11:52 PM DanskerMan has not replied

blanko
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 367 (31926)
02-11-2003 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by lpetrich
02-08-2003 2:27 AM


lpetrich
I wonder how Sonnikke explains our anatomical, genetic, and behavioral resemblances to chimps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, some scientists estimate about 14 million species in existence (other estimates range from 1.6 to 80 million). Some also estimate 40,000 species become extinct every year (granted, no scientist knows exactly how many species become extinct each year, so feel free to fill in the estimate you feel is appropriate). Assuming the amount of species that existed when God created us (I know many will object to my plug for the Big Guy, but so what!), why is it hard to believe there would be similarities among species. I can’t explain the similarities, but I also know there are far more differences. The distance between an ape who can not read or write and a descendant of Adam who can compose a musical masterpiece or send someone to the moon is the distance of infinity (H. Hanegraaff). I don’t believe just because we have anatomical, genetic, and behavioral resemblances I should automatically assume a chimpanzee is my cousin. Email me 50 of your best drawn original designs and I guarantee I will be able to classify them into different categories based on similarities. Then try 14 million.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
compmage
This is not science. It is people who don't understand chemistry and probabilities misleading others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it’s a little arrogant to say someone with a PhD has no understanding of chemistry, especially since his article was merely a response to Dr. Robert Shapiro’s book ORIGINS: A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth (don’t let the title fool you Dr. Shapiro is an evolutionist). According to Dr. Charles E. Brewster’s article, Dr. Shapiro (Ph.D., Harvard University Postdoctoral training, Cambridge University whose research includes organic and bioorganic chemistry: effects of mutagens on the structure and function of nucleic acids) was not dismissing the probabilities, but using Jethro math to explain how extremely improbable occurrences are possible. http://www.arky.org/museum/science/life/chemabsu.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I will concede you have a better understanding of chemistry than me and since I’m having a hard time keeping up with the different arguments, I’m going to have to ask we continue the abiogenesis debate after I’ve had time to do further research.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
compmage
What does any of this have to do with evolution?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought this was a debate on creation vs. evolution. Whether you believe in creation or not, creation does give an explanation for our existence, while in order for evolution to present a valid explanation, abiogenesis would have first had to occur (can’t forget your other two theories: life being zapped into existence or arriving through a dimensional rift). However, I do believe a person can be a Christian and believe in creation through the means of evolution. Although, I strongly disagree with that position, if that is your stance compmage, God bless! I also feel that would be an in-house debate and should be handled in a Christian only forum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wj
Now, should be compare the very few frauds or misidentifications which you mention above with the number of sightings of Noah's Ark? Have any of them proven reliable?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would hardly consider sightings of Noah’s Ark comparable to the fraudulent acts committed in the Piltdown man scandal. I was merely trying to sight cases of scientist altering evidence to compmage, not accused every evolutionist of being deceitful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to need another day or two finding references for my Java man, Peking man, and Lucy argument (the name of the team of evolutionist that called Java man into question was "The Selenka Expedition" Quetzal, but so far the only web reference I've found for them was at CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Antiquity of the World - 9th paragraph down - and that was only a breif reference)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by lpetrich, posted 02-08-2003 2:27 AM lpetrich has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-11-2003 4:38 AM blanko has not replied
 Message 133 by compmage, posted 02-11-2003 6:01 AM blanko has not replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 367 (31929)
02-11-2003 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by blanko
02-11-2003 3:16 AM


quote:
Today, some scientists estimate about 14 million species in existence (other estimates range from 1.6 to 80 million). Some also estimate 40,000 species become extinct every year (granted, no scientist knows exactly how many species become extinct each year, so feel free to fill in the estimate you feel is appropriate). Assuming the amount of species that existed when God created us (I know many will object to my plug for the Big Guy, but so what!), why is it hard to believe there would be similarities among species. I can’t explain the similarities, but I also know there are far more differences. The distance between an ape who can not read or write and a descendant of Adam who can compose a musical masterpiece or send someone to the moon is the distance of infinity (H. Hanegraaff). I don’t believe just because we have anatomical, genetic, and behavioral resemblances I should automatically assume a chimpanzee is my cousin. Email me 50 of your best drawn original designs and I guarantee I will be able to classify them into different categories based on similarities. Then try 14 million.
We can do a quick back of the envelope calculation to test this - the assertion here is, that with 14 million species (lets call it 80 million) then of course you would expect to see similarities. The question between chimps and humans is whether you would expect to see 95% of the dna base pairs in the same order, by chance alone, given a population of 8 *10^7.
Probability of selecting n pairs from N possible = (N-n)!/N!
N = no of base pairs = 3*10^9
n = base pair matches between human and chimps = 95%*3*10^9 = 2.85*10^9
So, approximating conservatively at every turn:
(N-n)!/N! = 1/(3,000,000,000*2,999,999,999*......*2,850,000,000)
Note that very conservatively , we can call this 2.85^(-150*10^6)
Note also that 2.85^(-150*10^6) = 10^(-68*10^6) (rounding conservatively)
We have a population of 8*10^7. So chance of this occuring by random is:
8*10^7*10(-68*10^6) = approx 10^(-68*10^6-8) being conservative!
i.e chances are 1 in 10^(68 million) - 1 with 68 million zeroes after it, if we bend over backwards to make conservative approximations.
I may be a little rusty, so grateful if someone could check the maths.
PE
edited to add: I'm glad nobody's responded to this as I'm now of the opinion that its bollox.
It doesn't take into account the fact that there are only 4 possible base pairs. The calculation is a lot simpler done this way - all we are saying is that 95% of 3bn base pairs are identical, so the chances of this are:
(1/4)^(95%*3bn) {ignoring the 3/4* 10^(150,000,000) term} = 1/4^(2.85bn) = 10^(-1.7*10^9).
My apologies Blanko, the chances should only be 1 in 1 with 1.7 billion zeroes after it.
------------------
Reading computer manuals without the hardware is as frustrating as reading sex manuals without the software - Clarke's 69th Law
[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 02-11-2003]
[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 02-11-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by blanko, posted 02-11-2003 3:16 AM blanko has not replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 133 of 367 (31932)
02-11-2003 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by blanko
02-11-2003 3:16 AM


blanko writes;
quote:

Today, some scientists estimate about 14 million species in existence (other estimates range from 1.6 to 80 million). Some also estimate 40,000 species become extinct every year (granted, no scientist knows exactly how many species become extinct each year, so feel free to fill in the estimate you feel is appropriate). Assuming the amount of species that existed when God created us (I know many will object to my plug for the Big Guy, but so what!), why is it hard to believe there would be similarities among species. I can’t explain the similarities, but I also know there are far more differences. The distance between an ape who can not read or write and a descendant of Adam who can compose a musical masterpiece or send someone to the moon is the distance of infinity (H. Hanegraaff). I don’t believe just because we have anatomical, genetic, and behavioral resemblances I should automatically assume a chimpanzee is my cousin. Email me 50 of your best drawn original designs and I guarantee I will be able to classify them into different categories based on similarities. Then try 14 million.

Primordial Egg already dealt with this.
quote:

I think it’s a little arrogant to say someone with a PhD has no understanding of chemistry, especially since his article was merely a response to Dr. Robert Shapiro’s book ORIGINS: A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth (don’t let the title fool you Dr. Shapiro is an evolutionist). According to Dr. Charles E. Brewster’s article, Dr. Shapiro (Ph.D., Harvard University Postdoctoral training, Cambridge University whose research includes organic and bioorganic chemistry: effects of mutagens on the structure and function of nucleic acids) was not dismissing the probabilities, but using Jethro math to explain how extremely improbable occurrences are possible. The ARK Foundation Home Page museum/science/life/chemabsu.htm
I will concede you have a better understanding of chemistry than me and since I’m having a hard time keeping up with the different arguments, I’m going to have to ask we continue the abiogenesis debate after I’ve had time to do further research.

Do all the research you need.
As far as my being 'arrogant'. It is nothing of the sort. Chemical reactions are not random, therefore any calculations based on pure chance with regards to chemisty are invalid. That is simply not how chemistry works.
quote:

I thought this was a debate on creation vs. evolution. Whether you believe in creation or not, creation does give an explanation for our existence, while in order for evolution to present a valid explanation, abiogenesis would have first had to occur (can’t forget your other two theories: life being zapped into existence or arriving through a dimensional rift). However, I do believe a person can be a Christian and believe in creation through the means of evolution. Although, I strongly disagree with that position, if that is your stance compmage, God bless! I also feel that would be an in-house debate and should be handled in a Christian only forum.

I am not a Chistian.
You still have yet to explain why evolution requires abiogenisis. Care to answer this question?
quote:

I would hardly consider sightings of Noah’s Ark comparable to the fraudulent acts committed in the Piltdown man scandal. I was merely trying to sight cases of scientist altering evidence to compmage, not accused every evolutionist of being deceitful.

Scientists are human. However, your claim made it sound as if evolutiionary biologists as a rule almost, discard or falsify evidence.
------------------
Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-eight million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by blanko, posted 02-11-2003 3:16 AM blanko has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 367 (31947)
02-11-2003 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by peter borger
02-07-2003 7:40 PM


The ToE is subject to change as new information arises. This means it is not tautological.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by peter borger, posted 02-07-2003 7:40 PM peter borger has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 135 of 367 (31949)
02-11-2003 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by DanskerMan
02-10-2003 11:52 PM


quote:
quote:
I have found that, by and large, most creationists do not fully understand the very arguments that they confidently make on these fora and in letters to he editor and the like. I have found that by asking them to 'explain' what they mean,rather than just attempting to argue points with them, is very instructive.
If one cannot "explain" what they mean when they write something like "all the information was already present", then there is a good chance that they are just parrotting an argument that they had seen or read about somewhere, it sounded good to them, so they are running with it.
I don't know the stats but I would be quite certain that most people on these types of discussion boards are not experts in some scientific area. What you state above is true to a point, but it doesn't mean that the assertion is necessarily wrong.
That is true. However, if the one making the assertion does not understand what the assertion entails, how is it that the one making the assertion can know that it is right?
That is, for example, how is it that a lawyer can know that what he and his pals claim regarding evolutionary biology is correct when this lawyer admits that he has litle knowledge of the topic?
The answer is, of course, he cannot.
The claims might be correct, but he has no way of knowing, but insists that they ARE correct nonetheless.
See what I mean?
So, I ask for an actual explanation from the one making the assertions. If they cannot explain it themselves, chances are they are just arguing form authroity, and more often than not, it is actually from pseudoauthority.
quote:
If I tried to "explain" my statement, it would be reliant upon research and documentation carried out by experts in the field, and not out of my own mouth, since it is not my area of expertise.
Does that invalidate the point? I should think not.
It would if you were relying upon 'experts' that have been shown to be not only NOT experts, but in fact wrong about the things they have said. Of course, that still would not address the question of whether or not YOU understand the argument.
quote:
If you, dr. Page, have a car problem, you take it to the mechanic. When he/she tells you what the problem is, you either get a 2nd opinion (or 3rd or 4th, etc) or you "run with it" because you know that even though this isn't your area (I'm assuming here of course) of expertise, you know that it is the mechanic's.
That is correct. I would not, however, go to the accountant down the street who believes that the internal combustion engine is the work of the devil, and so condemns and has a vested interest in condemning all things having to do with internal combustion engines, for advice on what to do.
Nor would I, after going to see this chap (were I to do so) insist that what HE says is correct while what the mechanic's say ios all wrong because it is based on the flawed doctrine of the utility of the internal combustion engine.
quote:
So, we are faced with two situations, one that says information in the DNA sequence of an organism can easily increase naturally by random mutations, and one that says "‘There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.’(Dr Werner Gitt, leading information scientist)
And therein lies the rub. This is an example of arguing via pseudoauthority. Gitt is in fact not a "leading information scientist." He is a creationist information technologist. A glorified computer programmer, basically. Gitt simply ignores/refuses to accept that anything but a "conscious mind" can generate new information. He is mistaken. Motoo Kimura, an actual scientist, demonstrated mathematically in 1961 that, in fact, mutation and natural selection can add new information to the gene pool ("Natural Selection as the process of accumulation of genetic information in adaptive evolution." Genetical Research 2, 127-140. 1961. Kimura, M.)
. Naturally. In addition, many creationists accept that there are natural means by which new information can be added (they just argue that it doesn't happen much..).
quote:
His challenge to scientifically falsify this statement has remained unanswered since first published.
And where was this "challenge" published?
Was it, perhaps, his vanity press creationism book "In the beginning ..."?
If so, I doubt that many - if any - actual information scientists or geneticists are even aware of it.
quote:
Even those mutations which give a survival benefit are seen to be losses of information, not creating the sorely needed new material upon which natural selection can then go to work."
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
Perhaps then you can explain the flow of information described here:
******************************************
Duplication of the Hoxd11 gene causes alterations in the axial and appendicular skeleton of the mouse.
: Boulet AM, Capecchi MR.
: Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Human Genetics, University of Utah, School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-5331, USA.
: The Hox genes encode a group of transcription factors essential for proper development of the mouse. Targeted mutation of the Hoxd11 gene causes reduced male fertility, vertebral transformation, carpal bone fusions, and reductions in digit length. A duplication of the Hoxd11 gene was created with the expectation that the consequences of restricted overexpression in the appropriate cells would provide further insight into the function of the Hoxd11 gene product. Genetic assays demonstrated that two tandem copies of Hoxd11 were functionally indistinguishable from the normal two copies of the gene on separate chromosomes with respect to formation of the axial and appendicular skeleton. Extra copies
of Hoxd11 caused an increase in the lengths of some bones of the forelimb
autopod and a decrease in the number of lumbar vertebrae...
or here:
A Single P450 Allele Associated with Insecticide Resistance in Drosophila
Science 297:2253-56. 2002
From the abstract:
Here, via microarray analysis of all P450s in Drosophila melanogaster, we show that DDT-R, a gene conferring resistance to DDT, is associated with overtranscription of a single cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1. Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance.
quote:
When faced with two diametrically opposed answers, what does one do?
A choice must be made based on the information presented. When the observed evidence is that most mutations are either neutral or losses of information, coupled with the documentation from one of the world's leading information scientists stating that new information does not naturally arise, the choice becomes increasingly clear.
The embellishment of credentials is commonplace in creationism.
As I mentioned, Gitt is not what you claim he is. For example, I went to the "American Society for Information Science and Technology" and did a search for Gitt and it came up empty. Doing a search for Shannon, as in Claude Shannon, I got 17 returns. Stands to reason that a "leading information scientist" would at least garner mention at such a site, no?
On another board, a desperate fellow tried to claim that Gitt was indeed recognized as one of the world's leading information scientists by virtue of his attendance at a limited seating conference. Limited to the first 350 people that signed up.
I mentioned that the previous year that I had attended an invitation only meeting sponsored by the AAAS, and asked if that meant that I am a 'world's leading expert' on primate systematics. I got no response ( I am not, by any means).
In addition, as I mentioned, Gitt is a young earth creationist. Frankly, no other information scientists have reached the same conclusions that this committd YEC has.
Do you not find that interesting?
Is everyone else wrong and Gitt the information technologist right?
How could that be?
Argument from pseudoauthority. They do sound impressive, but it is mostly smoke in mirrors.
quote:
Therefore when I say that the information must have been present, it is not based on my expertise (if I have any) but on the assertations of the people whose expertise this area is.
And, again, if you do not possess the wherewithal to evaluate the claims, how is it that you conclude that Gitt is right and everyone else wrong?
See what I mean?
------------------
"The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade."
Page Not Found | University of Chicago
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-11-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by DanskerMan, posted 02-10-2003 11:52 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by DanskerMan, posted 02-12-2003 12:35 PM derwood has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 136 of 367 (31956)
02-11-2003 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by DanskerMan
02-10-2003 11:52 PM


sonnikke writes:
So, we are faced with two situations, one that says information in the DNA sequence of an organism can easily increase naturally by random mutations, and one that says "There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this." (Dr Werner Gitt, leading information scientist)
If you think through the examples and the explanations that have been provided to you, you'll see that Gitt is wrong. The simplest example of creation of new information is any simple copying error in a gene during reproduction. If the new gene is unique then it represents a new allele not previously present in the population, ie, new information. Where the population previously had n alleles for that gene it now has n+1. The longer explanation is in Message 64.
Before you imbue Gitt's views with any credibility you should first answer for yourself how Gitt could be right when almost any reproductive copying error can add information.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by DanskerMan, posted 02-10-2003 11:52 PM DanskerMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by peter borger, posted 02-11-2003 6:53 PM Percy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024