|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Calling Von Cullen - Anti Evolution Molecular Biologist!! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Von Cullen writes: 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. He didn't fail. He was just not privy to the 150+ years of data that now support the evolution of the eye. He laid the basis for further research and investigation which in the end backed up much of his observations of how evolution through natural selection occurred. Stacks of books and scientific peer-review articles on the evolution of the eye attest to this evolutionary foundation which Darwin set forth. Would you say that Newton failed in his scientific ideas and theories since Einstein later modified and added to much of Newton's work to more accurately describe gravity and other forces of nature acurately?
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. Could you have even come close to the amount of work that Darwin conducted as a result from his world wide travels, dilligent observation and research of the fauna and flora of living organisms around the world? I think not. Yes, some of his conclusions were flawed (or more accurately put "incomplete") but the majority of his work on evolutionary biology has now been supported time and again by over 99% of biological scientists worldwide.
Von Cullen writes: 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. What is preventing smaller biological changes from adding up to become larger changes? In fact small changes are not just likely to produce larger and more complex biological changes but will unquestioningly produce larger changes with the direction of natural selection, without a doubt. I have serious doubts of your claims of having a PhD in molecular biology much less being a scientist. And your blatant lies about not being anti-evolution are evident in your baseless accusations here. You are just not credible. Sorry just calling a spade, a spade. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Von Cullen Junior Member (Idle past 5511 days) Posts: 13 Joined: |
Like all the other steps, from a mutation All mutations still require a starting point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Von Cullen writes: I was asked to provide an example and I did. Im sorry if that example doesnt suffice. You were asked to provide an example and you *didn't*. It is hard to see Darwin's phrasing of "I can see no very great difficulty in believing that natural selection [produced the eye]" as a claim of irrefutable fact. Most everyone here is very aware of the tentative nature of science. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Von Cullen writes: All mutations still require a starting point. Your claim to be a molecular biologist isn't consistent with your lack of knowledge about mutations. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
What the poster fails to mention is that Darwin failed to discover an evolutionary pathway used to make the eye. But Darwin did find viable intermediate stages which is all that was needed to counter the argument that the complexity of the lensed eye required it to appear fully formed, like a watch found on the heath.
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. A "could have" is all that is needed to counter the argument that "it's impossible".
This is the problem with societies main stream view of evolutionary science. Possibilities and educated guesses get presented as irrefutable fact. Since scientists present their conclusions in tentative language (as exemplified above) it would seem to be the fault of mainstream society for reading too much into scientific papers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
The photoreceptive molecules in animal eyespots are similar to G-Protein coupled receptors, that would provide a suitable starting point.
As one of the many papers published on the evolution of the eye, see the reviews: Goldsmith, T.H. (1990) Optimization, Constraint, and History in the Evolution of Eyes. The Quarterly Review of Biology Vol. 65, No. 3 (Sep., 1990), pp. 281-322 (Stable URL: JSTOR: Access Check) or Land M F, Fernald R D (1992), The Evolution of Eyes, Annual Review of Neuroscience, March 1992, Vol. 15, Pages 1-29
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Von Cullen,
In the opening post you are quoted as saying:
quote: As an example, we could use the thread ERV's: Evidence of Common Ancestory as an example. The thread argues that ERV's are evidence of shared ancestry among primates. Further up in this thread I also linked to a peer reviewed paper that supported this conclusion. Can you please provide for us the peer reviewed papers that refute this conclusion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CosmicChimp Member Posts: 311 From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland Joined: |
Hi Von Cullen,
Welcome to EvC. I hope you stay a long while and can show me and the other members a few new things. I'd like to point out that you have not, at least not to my satisfaction, shown your two points to be examples of evolution PRATT (point refuted a thousand times). Am I wrong here? It seems you have only shown how a poster has poorly used a quote from Darwin and then you have shown that the poster's poor choice of the word "could" somehow implies that his hypothesis is weak. I didn't read it that way at all, I think the interpretation is wrong, or let me rephrase that, I KNOW your interpretation is wrong. I have to admit I really love this sentence:
Von Cullen writes: This is the problem with societies main stream view of evolutionary science. Possibilities and educated guesses get presented as irrefutable fact. That one still has me thinking about its veracity. At first look I feel that it is wrong but in the sense that true and good science always has a tentative quality about it due to its nature. Science always seeks a new and better explanation for the facts. Your claim is a criticism that should never really be ignored even when the criticism is unwarranted. Also, I hope you're not trying to move the goalposts in that is seems you're trying to change the subject away from the evolution PRATT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Since scientists present their conclusions in tentative language (as exemplified above) it would seem to be the fault of mainstream society for reading too much into scientific papers. I think Von Cullen does identify a real problem with the presentation of science, however. And it's a very tricky one to solve; subtle distinctions of certainity are hard to communicate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
I think Von Cullen does identify a real problem with the presentation of science, however. And it's a very tricky one to solve; subtle distinctions of certainity are hard to communicate. I think you are giving Von Cullen more credit than he is due. Every respectable scientist understands how scientific language is expressed. It is an honest scientist who state there findings in a tentative format. Absolutes are the realm of religion not true science. "The doubter is a true man of science; he doubts only himself and his interpretations, but he believes in science." ~Claude Bernard For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Von Cullen writes:
Yes, the original gene. Are you sure you're a molecular biologist? All mutations still require a starting point. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Also the scientific data itself in theories, hypothesis, etc should determine how much certainty we should have in thes findings.
Unfortunately the uneducated and layman have little or no frame of reference on which to determine how much certainty they should have in this data. That is a problem of educating the public more than it is with the scientist providing the data. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Von Cullen participated over at the Raving Atheists Forum back in January, click on this link for Von Cullen's Post List. He seems to reject both evolution and evangelical Christianity, see for example his post of 1/18/2009.
He was as maddeningly vague over there as he's been here, but at least he didn't tell them he was a molecular biologist. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: Perhaps he just recently added that to his resume. Does the Eagle Forum University offer a degree in molecular biology? For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Just out of curiosity Von Cullen, what was your molecular biology thesis on and what university are you an alumni of? If you can answer these credibly, I will lay off calling your academic claims into question bit.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024