Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 5:23 AM
20 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,630 Year: 3,667/19,786 Month: 662/1,087 Week: 31/221 Day: 2/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Calling Von Cullen - Anti Evolution Molecular Biologist!!
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1180 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 16 of 43 (504225)
03-25-2009 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Von Cullen
03-25-2009 11:37 AM


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

  
Von Cullen
Junior Member (Idle past 3561 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 03-23-2009


Message 17 of 43 (504226)
03-25-2009 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Von Cullen
03-25-2009 11:58 AM


Like all the other steps, from a mutation

All mutations still require a starting point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Von Cullen, posted 03-25-2009 11:58 AM Von Cullen has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 03-25-2009 12:06 PM Von Cullen has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Dr Jack, posted 03-25-2009 12:17 PM Von Cullen has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Huntard, posted 03-25-2009 12:36 PM Von Cullen has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 18 of 43 (504227)
03-25-2009 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Von Cullen
03-25-2009 11:58 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Von Cullen, posted 03-25-2009 11:58 AM Von Cullen has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 19 of 43 (504228)
03-25-2009 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Von Cullen
03-25-2009 12:01 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Von Cullen, posted 03-25-2009 12:01 PM Von Cullen has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 20 of 43 (504229)
03-25-2009 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Von Cullen
03-25-2009 11:37 AM


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.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dr Jack, posted 03-25-2009 12:19 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 21 of 43 (504230)
03-25-2009 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Von Cullen
03-25-2009 12:01 PM


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: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2832368)

or

Land M F, Fernald R D (1992), The Evolution of Eyes, Annual Review of Neuroscience, March 1992, Vol. 15, Pages 1-29


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Von Cullen, posted 03-25-2009 12:01 PM Von Cullen has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 22 of 43 (504231)
03-25-2009 12:18 PM


Von Cullen,

In the opening post you are quoted as saying:

quote:
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.

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: 306
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 23 of 43 (504232)
03-25-2009 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Von Cullen
03-25-2009 11:37 AM


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.


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

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 184 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 24 of 43 (504233)
03-25-2009 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Taq
03-25-2009 12:13 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Taq, posted 03-25-2009 12:13 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-25-2009 12:32 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1180 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 25 of 43 (504234)
03-25-2009 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Jack
03-25-2009 12:19 PM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Jack, posted 03-25-2009 12:19 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-25-2009 12:42 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 374 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 26 of 43 (504235)
03-25-2009 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Von Cullen
03-25-2009 12:01 PM


Von Cullen writes:

All mutations still require a starting point.


Yes, the original gene. Are you sure you're a molecular biologist?


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Von Cullen, posted 03-25-2009 12:01 PM Von Cullen has not yet responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1180 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 27 of 43 (504236)
03-25-2009 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by DevilsAdvocate
03-25-2009 12:32 PM


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-25-2009 12:32 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 28 of 43 (504240)
03-25-2009 2:38 PM


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


Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by subbie, posted 03-25-2009 3:09 PM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 31 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-25-2009 4:15 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 39 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 29 of 43 (504243)
03-25-2009 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Percy
03-25-2009 2:38 PM


quote:
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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 03-25-2009 2:38 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1180 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 30 of 43 (504247)
03-25-2009 3:55 PM


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
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019