Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Calling Von Cullen - Anti Evolution Molecular Biologist!!
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1 of 43 (503934)
03-23-2009 3:56 PM


We have a claimed molecular biologist who appears to be anti-evolution.
This must be a first?
As such, if Von Cullen is willing to take up the challenge, this must be worthy of a thread of it's own.
The following is taken from here Message 22
Von Cullen writes:
As a molecular biologist I find it rather comical how the so called evolutionists here accuse creationists of "PRATTS", when you yourselves repeatedly do the exact same thing; only you refuse to recognize that scientific literature consistently refutes 99% of your arguments.
Von Cullen are you prepared to take up the challenge and expand upon your claims?

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Wounded King, posted 03-23-2009 6:01 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 6 by Stagamancer, posted 03-23-2009 8:22 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 9 by Von Cullen, posted 03-25-2009 7:48 AM Straggler has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 43 (503957)
03-23-2009 5:37 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 3 of 43 (503966)
03-23-2009 5:58 PM


If I may, I would offer up the following paper for refutation:
Johnson and Coffin (1999)
It discusses how endogenous retroviruses supply three different types of phylogenetic information. From the article:
Endogenous retrovirus loci provide no less than three sources of phylogenetic signal, which can be used in complementary fashion to obtain much more information than simple distance estimates of homologous sequences. First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. . .
Second, as with other sequence-based phylogenetic analyses, mutations in a provirus that have accumulated since the divergence of the species provide an estimate of the genetic distance between the species. . .
Third, sequence divergence between the LTRs at the ends of a given provirus provides an important and unique source of phylogenetic information. The LTRs are created during reverse transcription to regenerate cis-acting elements required for integration and transcription. Because of the mechanism of reverse transcription, the two LTRs must be identical at the time of integration, even if they differed in the precursor provirus (Fig. 1A). Over time, they will diverge in sequence because of substitutions, insertions, and deletions acquired during cellular DNA replication.

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 4 of 43 (503967)
03-23-2009 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
03-23-2009 3:56 PM


We have a claimed molecular biologist who appears to be anti-evolution.
This must be a first?
I don't know. Jonathan Wells PhD is in developmental biology, Behe is a biochemist and both of those disciplines can have extensive overlap with molecular biology.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 03-23-2009 3:56 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 03-23-2009 6:16 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 5 of 43 (503971)
03-23-2009 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Wounded King
03-23-2009 6:01 PM


Behe accepts most of evolution but claims that it is incapable of producing irreducibly complex microbiological structures, and that their presence is evidence of intelligent design.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Wounded King, posted 03-23-2009 6:01 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


Message 6 of 43 (503986)
03-23-2009 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
03-23-2009 3:56 PM


Straggler writes:
We have a claimed molecular biologist who appears to be anti-evolution.
Now before we get started with this, I'd just like to point out that Von Cullen has an email address at http://www.shsafetysolutions.com, which I'm assuming he has because he works there. This is a company that offers safety training to construction companies. So, it makes me curious to know what exactly a molecular biologist does for this company.
IMPORTANT
This does not mean I think it's impossible for Von Cullen to be a molecular biologist, only that I'm skeptical, and would like an explanation before we assume Von Cullen is an actively researching molecular biologist.
So, Von Cullen, if you'd oblige, please........
ALSO
I am not doing this as some kind of witch hunt. If Von Cullen has interesting arguments to make, whether a biologist or not, he should be heard, but the purpose of this thread is pretty much defeated if he is not, in fact, a molecular biologist.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 03-23-2009 3:56 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Von Cullen, posted 03-25-2009 7:43 AM Stagamancer has not replied

  
Sarawak
Member (Idle past 5478 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-07-2009


Message 7 of 43 (504008)
03-24-2009 12:05 AM


I'd like to see such arguments, too. Outside of the Washington shenanigans, life is getting a bit boring.

  
Von Cullen
Junior Member (Idle past 5482 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 03-23-2009


Message 8 of 43 (504200)
03-25-2009 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Stagamancer
03-23-2009 8:22 PM


Now before we get started with this, I'd just like to point out that Von Cullen has an email address at http://www.shsafetysolutions.com, which I'm assuming he has because he works there. This is a company that offers safety training to construction companies. So, it makes me curious to know what exactly a molecular biologist does for this company.
IMPORTANT
This does not mean I think it's impossible for Von Cullen to be a molecular biologist, only that I'm skeptical, and would like an explanation before we assume Von Cullen is an actively researching molecular biologist.
So, Von Cullen, if you'd oblige, please........
ALSO
I am not doing this as some kind of witch hunt. If Von Cullen has interesting arguments to make, whether a biologist or not, he should be heard, but the purpose of this thread is pretty much defeated if he is not, in fact, a molecular biologist.
I guess I should clarify this...No problem. I am, by profession, an occupational safety & health consultant and Industrial Hygienist. I have a PhD in Molecular Biology and a BS in occupational health. As a profession my research has been focused in the field of industrial hygiene. But I do a great deal of independent research in a variety of areas related to Biology. Does this suffice?
Edited by Von Cullen, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Stagamancer, posted 03-23-2009 8:22 PM Stagamancer has not replied

  
Von Cullen
Junior Member (Idle past 5482 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 03-23-2009


Message 9 of 43 (504203)
03-25-2009 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
03-23-2009 3:56 PM


We have a claimed molecular biologist who appears to be anti-evolution.
As Ive said before, I'm not "Anti-Evolution". My point was to simply state that evolution cannot be explained by remaining at the level of Gross Anatomy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 03-23-2009 3:56 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 03-25-2009 8:59 AM Von Cullen has not replied
 Message 11 by Chiroptera, posted 03-25-2009 9:14 AM Von Cullen has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 10 of 43 (504207)
03-25-2009 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Von Cullen
03-25-2009 7:48 AM


As Ive said before, I'm not "Anti-Evolution".
Well, you've already stated you view much of what is said here as PRATTs for evolution, and that our views are contradicted by 99% of the scientific literature. But you're not "Anti-Evolution".
So you're being about as clear as mud and as contradictory as a kosher Arab. What is it exactly you're trying to say?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Von Cullen, posted 03-25-2009 7:48 AM Von Cullen has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 43 (504209)
03-25-2009 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Von Cullen
03-25-2009 7:48 AM


Actually, what you said was that 99% of the arguments for evolution on this forum are refuted by the scientific literature.
Even if "99%" is an exaggeration, you are still saying that a large majority of the arguments for evolution on this forum are factually incorrect.
It would be nice of you to provide a good sample of these arguments you think are contradicted by the scientific literature.
If not, then, seeing how such a large portion are wrong, then a random sample of arguments that we bring up should be incorrect, and perhaps we will start providing samples of the arguments that are most compelling to us to see if you can show how they are refuted by the scientific literature.

To count as an atheist, one needn't claim to have proof that there are no gods. One only needs to believe that the evidence on the god question is in a similar state to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Von Cullen, posted 03-25-2009 7:48 AM Von Cullen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Von Cullen, posted 03-25-2009 11:37 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
Von Cullen
Junior Member (Idle past 5482 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 03-23-2009


Message 12 of 43 (504218)
03-25-2009 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Chiroptera
03-25-2009 9:14 AM


Here is an example provided by a member in the "Evolution of Creationism" thread. The person quotes a section of Darwins Origin of Species.
In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. . . With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class.
What the poster fails to mention is that Darwin failed to discover an evolutionary pathway used to make the eye. Instead, he pointed to modern day animals with different kinds of eyes and suggested that evolution of the human eye MIGHT have involved similar organs as intermediates. At best, Darwin convinced most of the world that a modern eye evolved gradually from a simple structure, but he didnt even try to explain where the starting point - The light sensitive spot - came from.
When it became apparent that larger complex features could be explained by extant and extinct species (the mammalian middle ear is another good example) the creationists moved to systems which could not leave a fossil record, namely cellular microscopic systems such as bacterial flagellum. With zero chance of a fossil record they wouldn't have to worry about those pesky transitional fossils.
Larger complex features cannot be explained by extant and extinct species. To say that it "could", is a rather weak hypothesis. Saying something "could" have developed in a particular manner isnt the same as providing viable, scientific evidence that it has. This is the problem with societies main stream view of evolutionary science. Possibilities and educated guesses get presented as irrefutable fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Chiroptera, posted 03-25-2009 9:14 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Huntard, posted 03-25-2009 11:44 AM Von Cullen has not replied
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 03-25-2009 11:50 AM Von Cullen has replied
 Message 16 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-25-2009 12:00 PM Von Cullen has not replied
 Message 20 by Taq, posted 03-25-2009 12:13 PM Von Cullen has not replied
 Message 23 by CosmicChimp, posted 03-25-2009 12:18 PM Von Cullen has not replied
 Message 33 by caffeine, posted 03-26-2009 10:08 AM Von Cullen has not replied
 Message 35 by Chiroptera, posted 03-26-2009 12:30 PM Von Cullen has not replied
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-26-2009 12:40 PM Von Cullen has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 13 of 43 (504219)
03-25-2009 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Von Cullen
03-25-2009 11:37 AM


Von Cullen writes:
What the poster fails to mention is that Darwin failed to discover an evolutionary pathway used to make the eye. Instead, he pointed to modern day animals with different kinds of eyes and suggested that evolution of the human eye MIGHT have involved similar organs as intermediates. At best, Darwin convinced most of the world that a modern eye evolved gradually from a simple structure, but he didnt even try to explain where the starting point - The light sensitive spot - came from.
Like all the other steps, from a mutation.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Von Cullen, posted 03-25-2009 11:37 AM Von Cullen has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 14 of 43 (504221)
03-25-2009 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Von Cullen
03-25-2009 11:37 AM


Von Cullen writes:
What the poster fails to mention is that Darwin failed to discover an evolutionary pathway used to make the eye.
There's a great deal that Darwin failed to discover, which is fortunate because it left something for future generations of scientists to do.
You could write for pages and pages about what scientists of prior eras failed to discover, and could even go on for pages and pages about what today's scientists have yet to discover. The whole name of the game in science is tackling unsolved problems, and fortunately there are always lots of those. It isn't much of an accomplishment finding things we don't know yet, and it makes little sense to claim that the things we don't know call into question the things we do.
Saying something "could" have developed in a particular manner isnt the same as providing viable, scientific evidence that it has.
This is true.
This is the problem with societies main stream view of evolutionary science. Possibilities and educated guesses get presented as irrefutable fact.
But your Darwin excerpt is not an example of this.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Von Cullen, posted 03-25-2009 11:37 AM Von Cullen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Von Cullen, posted 03-25-2009 11:58 AM Percy has replied

  
Von Cullen
Junior Member (Idle past 5482 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 03-23-2009


Message 15 of 43 (504223)
03-25-2009 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Percy
03-25-2009 11:50 AM


I was asked to provide an example and I did. Im sorry if that example doesnt suffice.
Edited by Von Cullen, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 03-25-2009 11:50 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Von Cullen, posted 03-25-2009 12:01 PM Von Cullen has not replied
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 03-25-2009 12:05 PM Von Cullen 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