This entry was posted on Friday, February 24th, 2006 at 17:06 and is filed under News & Articles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Site Search:
Friday, February 24, 2006
Technology is helping scientists come out of the dark ages from a theory that was birthed from an island off of the coast of Africa hundreds of years ago. It seems that recent findings in DNA are just not adding up to what Darwin wrote in his famous book that is so often taught as fact rather then theory.
“As time goes on and as we make new discoveries in science,” Rob Crowther, of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, notes, “and as we find out more information about molecular biology and about DNA and the genome and these things, we’re beginning to see that the explanations that Darwin put forward — with natural selection and random mutation being the mechanism of how life evolved — just doesn’t seem to be the case.”
With scientists from well known universities, such as MIT, as well as from the Smithsonian Institute signing the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, including those that have membership in the U.S. National Academy of Science , serious doubt is starting to cloud the Theory of Evolution. While many schools fight to keep Darwin in, calling it science, more and more of those that retain a title with the same word are putting forth the notion that Darwin just wasn’t even close.
While Darwin made physical observations with his unaided eye, biologists are able to dig deeper then the English man could have ever hoped to have seen. With these new discovers have come proofs that have simply refuted Darwin’s theory that developed the idea that all life started from one common ancestor. “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged,” notes the CSC homepage with links of resources to accompany the encouragement.
Of the 500 scientists that have signed, 154 are biologists, 76 chemists and 63 physicists. The signers hold a broad range of disciplines including doctoral degrees in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines.
February 24th, 2006 at 21:57
Haven’t checked for a while – find it sad to see that you’re still peddling the same old tired propaganda!
February 28th, 2006 at 7:24
How about the millions of scientists who won’t sign up with these crackpot organizations? They have impressive degrees as well. The Discovery Institute is a political organization with an agenda. They ignore and distort facts as they see fit. It’s strange how only in the United States do religious groups wage war on Science. In most of the rest of the world, Christians and Scientists and Darwinians get along fine. Even the Pope is on board with evolution, yet it seems some want to take us back to the Dark Ages. Bring out the leeches!
February 28th, 2006 at 15:34
Propaganda is what Darwinists are, Martin. Schools pushing off a *theory* as fact with holes more abudent then swiss cheese and you fall right through it and believe it to the point that you call anything else propaganda.
Interesting how DNA now shows proof of problems with Darwins findings (BTW, those that did NOT sign the list have said there are issues,) and these opened minded commenters show how they really are closed minded themselves.
March 1st, 2006 at 6:32
Evolution is taught as a theory supported with facts, not as a fact. Gravity is also a theory, so perhaps you should subscribe to the belief in “intelligent falling.” And as to being able to believe in both Evolution and God, I guess you’d know more than the pope. I’d have more to say, but you really have presented no facts to talk about. What are these new findings you refer to, but give zero specifics? I’d like to see links to a legit source, rather than the Discovery Institute. They haven’t believed in Evolution for many years, and already made up there mind before any recent “discoveries.” Science is willing to change if there is the discovery of new facts. Can your religious beliefs say the same?
“Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What’s left is magic. And it doesn’t work.” — James Randi
March 1st, 2006 at 6:34
Doh! I meant to plug in the Onion link:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
March 1st, 2006 at 8:27
TOS. I have posted proofs of how science has gotten many aspects of Evolution wrong in the past. Time limits me from being redundant. However I will give you one example that science refuses to answer and that is how woodpeckers evolved. There is no link (gasp! another missing link!) between the woodpecker or any other bird that would indicate millions of years of evolving from a regular bird to that of the woodpecker. Since you are so versed in evolution, I don’t have to remind you that millions of years are required for such things to develop. Using your theory of gravity as a proof-positive example, if you pound your head against a tree, you will suffer brain damage and die. So TOS, how did birds evolve into a woodpecker if they would have not been able to survive pecking wood?
Science as a whole does not openly accept its mistakes. Lucy was proven a fake fifteen years ago but can still be found in newly published school texts. (I thought you said this stuff isn’t taught as fact?)
The Discovery Institute member list holds a great deal of well respected scientists. Some on this list were voted into the U.S. National Academy of Science, which is not an easy academy to become part of. Nice try slandering the names of these scientist because they do not share your misguided beliefs. Interesting, too, that these scientists are saying science has gotten something wrong — as you state science does — and yet you discount their findings. Mmm, I can find a word that starts with an H to describe you there.
You interest me with your pope comments since in the past you seemed to find the Catholic church a poor example of substance. I guess when one comes to your side, you’ll eagerly accept them, huh?
As to your reference of me being smarter then the pope, I’d review the Gospels first and note what the pope is doing and then you can make a more astute insight in what that man is doing as your ignorance in this matter bleeds worse then that of the leeches you request would cause.
March 1st, 2006 at 11:04
This is in answer to TOS. Let me get this straight. You go on & on about [secular] science, its willingness to change [sic], etc. But then you destroy your foundation of supposedly appealing to the rigors of science by quoting from the anti-Christian Onion website (your bias is showing, TOS), and – this is a riot – James Randi!
There are 2 kinds of science, TOS – empirical science and historical (origins) science. Historical science must be taken by faith – whether one is a creationist or evolutionist. The other is based on observation. No one has ever observed real, vertical evolution (macroevolution). The unobserved philosophy of macroevolution says blue whales came from unknown prokaryotes “billions of yrs. ago.” But the science of genetics states there are natural limits to biological change. There’s nothing in genetics (population genetics or otherwise) that points in any way to macroevolution. Indeed, evolutionist A.G. Fisher said in 2002, “Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown.” Doesn’t sound like the “fact” of macroevolution to me.
It gets better.
Evolutionist Peter Forey of London’s Natural History Museum reviewed Jeff Levinton’s 2nd ed. of “Genetics, Paleontology & Macroevolution” in the J. of Paleontology 77(1). What was Forey’s conclusion? “Do not expect answers” (p. 200). As a creation zoologist I must agree – when it comes to macroevolution, don’t expect answers.
“Human evolution”? Not hardly. Creation-basher James Trefil said in 1996, ” . . . human paleontology is a field that has always been – and most likely always will be – starved for data.” How can “human evolution” be a fact on 1 hand – and starved for data on the other? Help me in my unbelief.
When it comes to the origin of everything, it’s either “In the beginning, God . . . ” or “In the beginning, hydrogen . . .” There’s no 3rd position.
March 1st, 2006 at 11:46
To TOS — Why do you waste your time trying to teach some sense to these nutcases? You know that they’re beyond reasoning . . .
March 1st, 2006 at 11:52
Martin, we may be nut cases, but your ignorance displays you are void of reason.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:20
Martin: Name-calling. Just what I expect from a militant darwinist. You have the opportunity to clearly list your case for macroevolution on this site. Instead, the only “case” you make is “nutcase.”
Well, as long as I’m logged on – Martin, this is for you, friend. Macroevolutionists maintain their position is based on “science.” And yet, here’s what Dyer & Obar (1994) have to say regarding the alleged prokaryotic-to-eukaryotic cell transition, “In tracking the emergence of the eukarotic cell, one enters a kind of wonderland where scientific pursuit leads almost to fantasy. Cell & molecular biologists must construct cellular worlds in their own imaginations.”
Let’s see, the 2 evolutionists use the scientific terms “wonderland” “fantasy” and “imagination” – and yet because I openly question this strange transition, I’m labeled a “nutcase.” Dr. Takahata said in the Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics (v 26), “Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.” Even Darwin said, “[one's] imagination must fill up the very wide blanks” (letter to Asa Gray, 5 Sept. 1857). When science fails, imagination avails – and that’s why macroevolution is a fact.
March 1st, 2006 at 18:59
Frank:
I try to inject humor in my arguments whenever possible, especially when I find an argument humorous. Unfortunately, I do not always succeed. However, The Onion is a news parody website. I thought everyone knew this. It is hardly “anti-Christian.” But whatever. But I’m glad you found my quote “a riot.” Thanks.
TOS to SOT:
Way to change the topic without bothering to explain your initial posting. Rather than explain what this NEW evidence is that refutes evolution, you go on a tangent about missing links and peckers. Fine. Guess what? No one has ever seen a black hole in space, but there is pretty convincing facts to show that they are there. It would be impossible to find a fossil of every species that have ever existed on our planet. Yet we can still connect the dots of the bigger picture to see that these links must have been there.
As to the Catholic Church, I have nothing bad to say about them or any other religion for that matter– as long as they understand as most people do. Science is Science. Religion is a Belief. While religion might answer “Who” created everything, Science can tell us “How.”
For the record: My wife is a non-denominational Christian, and an 8th Grade Science teacher. My in-laws are Catholic, and very active in their Church. My father-in-law is also a professor at Vanderbilt University. They believe in both God and Evolution. They are intelligent, and well informed in both topics. I have no idea what you are referring to in my views of the Catholic Church. You are mistaken.
I’m really tired of a vocal extremist minority trying to force their religious views on others. Teach religion at church, teach Science in the Science classroom. Or perhaps you’d like your children to learn about the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster:
http://www.venganza.org/
If you really find it upsetting that YOUR religious views are not taught in public school, send your children to your church-funded private school. I find it really disturbing when a vocal minority wants to force their religious beliefs on the rest of us. If you want a government and school system run by religion, perhaps you’d be happier in Iran.
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:55
“If you really find it upsetting that YOUR religious views are not taught in public school, send your children to your church-funded private school. I find it really disturbing when a vocal minority wants to force their religious beliefs on the rest of us. If you want a government and school system run by religion, perhaps you’d be happier in Iran.”
Ouch. We’re dealing with an attitude here.
Name me one place, anywhere – authored by me – that I demand “MY religious views are to be taught in public school.” Anywhere. You won’t find any such demands because I believe taxpayer-paid public school biology classrooms are not the place for overtly religious instruction. That’s why I’m against macroevolution being taught – using my tax dollars – with the kind of unscientific dogma that can only be termed religious/philosophical. Example: YOU believe a tasteless, odorless, colorless gas allegedly formed “billions of years ago” – has become people. That’s not science, it’s religion and should have no place in public school biology classrooms.
Yes, the people-from-hydrogen religion is, using your words, “really disturbing.” I’m against this “vocal minority [wanting] to force their religious beliefs on the rest of us.” It reminds me of a “government and school system” run by muslims. What I’m advocating – and you are against – is allowing the students to actually think for themselves and “remain skeptical” (Karp, 2002, p. xi). darwinists are even against using class time to point out the serious flaws of macroevolution.
You said, “Science is Science. Religion is a Belief.” Fine. Give citation(s) to the experiment(s) that validate hydrogen-to-people. In the meantime, macroevolutionist Karp said (p. xi), “Biology is an empirical science; nothing is ever proved.” Empirical work in the biology lab shows there are natural limits to biological change.
March 2nd, 2006 at 15:35
TOS, you may want to sit down and talk to your in-laws. You can’t believe in God and believe in evolution, they’re contractions.
While many people miss the account of how our existence was created (read Genesis chapter 1,) it is well known by those that read the Bible that the sun and moon were not created until day three…after the Earth was created. Now how can you believe in God and evolution when God says He created Earth before He created the sun and Darwinists say that the Earth came from the sun? Let’s not even get started on the birds…
March 2nd, 2006 at 21:09
Fortunately, the majority of Christians are not as narrow-minded and judgemental as you. If they were, you would still be be trying to say the earth is flat. I find it to be extremely arrogant and insulting of you to say that you can not believe in both God and Evolution. Millions of Christians do, including the Pope. But hey, you know everything, and they are all wrong in your mind. You have a three letter word answer for everything, so there is no point continuing this illogical conversation.
March 2nd, 2006 at 21:20
TOS, you’re right, I am narrow minded. Jesus said, “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.”(Matthew 7:13 ESV)
Unfortunately, the church has eroded because of people such as yourself that would rather follow man then Jesus. A true Christian is narrow minded so if you believe that the majority are not, then I’m sorry to say, by Jesus’ own words, you don’t know Christians.
No, I wouldn’t believe the world is flat. Again, you show your ignorance of Bible knowledge for nowhere in the Bible does it say it is. It was Galileo who discovered that many things the Bible taught was true. When he presented it to the pope, he was banished. The pope was wrong and the Bible was right. Again today, the pope is wrong and the Bible is right.
I gave you specific proof how the Bible and evolution contradict each other and your only refute is that I’m narrow minded. Instead of acknowledging fact, you call me names.
As you rightfully say, there is no point continuing this illogical conversation when you desire not to present any logic to our conversation.
March 3rd, 2006 at 0:19
To TOS –
As I said, you’re wasting your time with these nutcases! Be cool.
March 3rd, 2006 at 10:02
Let’s see, when Sven & I make a point, it’s labeled an “illogical conversation.”
I need to read a cogent rebuttal from my buddy martin regarding post #10. Step up to the plate, martin! (In your answer I need you to list all graduate-level evolution courses you have had, and from what institution.)
In the meantime, trying to shoehorn Genesis into darwinism results is serious scientific & Scriptural problems. We must remember the reason WHY darwinism was dreamt up in the first place (1859) was to have creation without a Creator. Genesis & darwin – oil & water – don’t even try to mix them. Example: evolutionism says the Earth began as a molten ball, Genesis says the Spirit of God moved over the waters (i.e. Earth was cool – with water). They both cannot be right. I prefer to accept the written record of One who was there “In the beginning . . . ” vs the description of the atheist who was not there, who does not know everything.
If anyone would like to see a prime example of one who is “narrow-minded and judgemental” – just read Judge Jones III’s decision to censor a non-Biblical model of origins in the Dover School system!
“I gave you specific proof how the Bible and evolution contradict each other . . . ” I missed this. Which post # is it, please?
Once again, I maintain that both macroevolution and creation science require faith. Alan Guth of MIT & Steinhart said in 1984 -
“It is tempting to go 1 step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing” (Scientific American). martin & TOS, please describe for us an experiment showing how something can come from “literally nothing.”
The clock is ticking . . . .
March 3rd, 2006 at 12:00
Martin, you’ve sunk to your primate level you believe you evolved from with your “nutcase” arguement. You may wish to stop pushing that and present your case with some proof as Frank is requesting.
March 3rd, 2006 at 18:14
Here is the Proof of Evolution. Let’s see your proof of God.
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm
The Short Proof of Evolution
by
Ian Johnston
Malaspina University-College
Nanaimo, BC
[This document is in the public domain and may be used, in whole or in part, without charge and without permission, by anyone, provided the source is acknowledged. Last revised in March 2005]
We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)–the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.
Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).
The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).
The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.
The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).
Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.
To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that’s a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance.
March 6th, 2006 at 13:48
TOS – this (Ian Johnston’s article) is great! Finally, something of substance to address – which I will do shortly.
I must, however, caution you on your use of the word “proof” – a word I never use in presentations or debates – for good reason.
Personally, I would never try to “prove” God’s existence. The onus is on you – the atheist – to present compelling legal/historical evidence against the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus.
In fact, allow me to please challenge you to do so now via this link:
“TOS, I challenge you to give compelling legal/historical evidence against the Resurrection of Christ.”
To the extent that you can shows you have conducted a detailed investigation of the #1 event of the Christian faith. To the extent that you cannot shows that your position is based on bias & emotion.
Good luck.
March 6th, 2006 at 17:46
I’m glad you enjoyed the article Frank. However, I have no desire to disprove God’s existence, mearly to point, to the limits of my knowledge, that it can not be done scientifically. SOT (Sven on Tech) would actually be the one arguing against the existance of God, since he is the one arrogantly declaring that it is impossible to believe in both Evolution and God. And to be very clear: I am most definately NOT an atheist.
March 6th, 2006 at 20:12
TOS, I am the, “one arrogantly declaring that it is impossible to believe in both Evolution and God”? I would have to say that is you that is being arrogant since you are having difficulty admitting when you are wrong.
Both Frank and I have clearly shown where the Bible and Evolution are in contradiction. Now, since God’s Word is perfect, to believe something that contradicts it would mean one of two things. Either God’s Word is not perfect or you can not believe in God and His Word which says the universe was created completely different then evolution states.
Let me put it another way. TOS, it’s like saying you believe in G.W. Bush and his reason for the war yet you totally back the Democrats and their position on the war. It just can’t be both, TOS!
March 6th, 2006 at 20:33
That’s too funny. Wow. Way to stay on topic SOT. Sign of your losing argument, as you haven’t even address any of my 3 point in the proof of evolution I posted.
March 6th, 2006 at 20:39
Huh? Off topic? How is shinning light on the fact that you are avoiding a monumental piece of the argument being off topic? I think what you like to do is just spin everything in hopes the real point will be lost in your chaos of confusion. Kinda like your evolution…
March 7th, 2006 at 6:56
I’ll see your point when you actually make one. You’ve done nothing but offer red herrings, and avoided any acknowledgement of the proof I’ve offered for evolution. At least Frank has been polite enough to offer a rebuttal at some point. You’ve given nothing SOT.
The Other Sven (TOS)
March 7th, 2006 at 8:28
“I have no desire to disprove God’s existence, mearly to point, to the limits of my knowledge, that it can not [sic] be done scientifically.”
TOS – OK, I understand you’re not an atheist. But you still did not take the time to carefully read my post (#20). I believe I was quite clear that one must utilize legal/historical evidence eithter for or against the Resurrection of Christ. (For those atheists/”agnostics” reading this post, that means if Jesus did rise from the dead, miracles – such as creation from nothing – are possible because the God of the Bible is real)
One cannot scientifically prove Lincoln was shot in Ford’s Theatre. However, using legal/historical evidence, one can make an air-tight case.
What turned 11 cowardly men and 1 raving anti-Christian into dynamos for Jesus – to the extent they all suffered a martyr’s death (save John)? Answer: the stone was rolled away . . . .
Let’s understand the clear difference between scientific & legal/historical evidence.
March 7th, 2006 at 9:18
My answer to Ian Johnston (PART I), by frank sherwin, ICR
The Short Proof of Evolution
by
Ian Johnston
Malaspina University-College
Nanaimo, BC
The first 2 mistakes in IJ’s article are in none other than the title. It goes downhill from there. Fast.
1. To prove something means to test by experiment; to establish as true (Webster’s New World Dictionary). Although IJ doesn’t use the term, in paragraph #2 he defines – like it or not – MACROevolution, which I have constantly & directly addressed in earlier posts on this Website. But then IJ does something only a philosopher would do – he allows himself a massive amount of wiggle room so a scientist can’t pin him down. IJ states, “This definition [MACROevolution], it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).”
Does everyone see what IJ is doing here? Try to nail him down on any point and I’ll just bet he’ll say, “Well, that’s the subject of another argument.”
2. So, the second mistake of IJ is that he refuses to use terminology in his title that would show the reader exactly what he’s addressing (i.e why doesn’t he say, “The Short Proof of Macroevolution”?)
OK, see the above definition of proof. Now read his statement, “This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur . . . ” What IJ is saying is, “we have fish [that] gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle” – but he “makes no claims about how the process might occur.” Well, if that’s the case then of course he can “prove” macroevolution! He won’t allow himself to be pinned down into having to define a clear macroevolutionary process. Good Night, that’s the whole point of this debate!!!
In other words, IJ is saying we have fish, cows, kangaroos & eagles, and macroevolution says they evolved – we just don’t know the process. Put another way, macroevolution is supposedly “proved” (without a process) because we have fish, cows, kangaroos & eagles.
The problem is macroevolutionists such as A.G. Fisher of Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia (2002) state, “Both the origin of life, and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown” (fossil section). Darwin’s infamous book (1859) was On the Origin of Species – but he never addressed the origin of species. In 2002 macroevolutionists still don’t know the origin of species. We certainly cannot – contrary to IJ – “test by experiment” the origin of the major animal groups (or I would add, prokaryotic-to-eukaryotic cell transition).
If there is “proof” of [macro]evolution as IJ states, then why must macroevolutionists resort to using unscientific terms such as Dyer & Obar’s (1994) “wonderland” “fantasy” and “imagination” (post #10)?
March 7th, 2006 at 18:22
How disappointing. Your argument is one of semantics, and not of any substance. Fish on. I’m not taking the bait in your attempt to frame the debate in this fashion. He didn’t call it Macroevolution, because he was not differentiating it as Creationists seem to desire in their attempt to coopt the term. You’ve explained no fault with Johnston’s proof itself, and are offering only one big nothing burger. Martin is correct. This is a big waste of time.
But hey, here’s a nice article by the NYTimes about the bogus petition SOT has linked to:
Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html?ex=1141880400&en=45db30424930729a&ei=5070
James Tour, one of your own, even says he remains open-minded about evolution. Since he’s an evangelical Christian, I doubt that means he’s giving up God any time soon. I guess he believes it’s possible to believe in both. Go figure!
March 7th, 2006 at 18:45
Thank you.
March 7th, 2006 at 18:57
Nice. I just googled who you are Frank. Congratulations on being quite the word-smith. I claim no such pedigree myself, but I’m an avid reader, and I can google and copy and paste. I found this particularly interesting:
http://members.aol.com/anapsid5/sherwin.html
You’ve got fans!
March 8th, 2006 at 10:14
“Your argument is one of semantics, and not of any substance.”
Sigh. Once again, you failed to read my post: my answer to IJ, “PART I.” Did you see that TOS? IJ starts with his brand of semantics and I responded to his word juggling. He’s setting the stage with his own brand of macroevolution and I expose that before going on.
You, bartlett & boyce are welcome to attempt to explain why the macroevolutionists didn’t really mean what they said – and then what they really meant. Good luck.
Meanwhile the quotes by the secular scientists stand. All the agnostics can do is level the tired “google” “copy & paste” “wordsmith” accusation. Well, when there’s no fact of macroevolution, I guess that’s the only route to take. Example, you & boyce have not adequately answered any of my posts (e.g. If there is “proof” of [macro]evolution as IJ states, then why must macroevolutionists resort to using unscientific terms such as Dyer & Obar’s (1994) “wonderland” “fantasy” and “imagination” (post #10)? Alan Guth of MIT & Steinhart said in 1984 -
“It is tempting to go 1 step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing” (Scientific American). martin & TOS, please describe for us an experiment showing how something can come from “literally nothing.” TOS – do you atribute these to ‘cut & paste’ or ‘wordsmithing’? Are you & boyce going to answer?
BTW, boyce said, “you’re wasting your time with these nutcases!” But here he is (post #29). What’s it going to be boyce, jump in & defend the people-from-hydrogen philosophy or leave this Website?
March 8th, 2006 at 11:36
Reply to IJ – PART II
From post #19 – “. . . one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept . . . –the fact of evolution.”
Like it or not TOS, IJ is clearly discussing macroevolution here.
The title of IJ’s article is “The Short Proof [sic] of Evolution” – and IJ begins with calling [macro]evolution a fact. That’s like my writing an article to prove God’s existence and starting with assuming God’s existence.
“The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent.” IJ shows he’s not a scientist here – and a dozen other places in the article. Macroevolution means major change from 1 kind of creature into something else. Macroevolution also assumes life came from non-life. But IJ just talks about parentage. Oranges & apples.
IJ mentions Pasteur – the creation scientist. Nice touch, but Pasteur’s work doesn’t help the ‘organic life from inorganic non-life’ position. Life only comes from life and the onus is on the macroevolutionists TOS & boyce to show how this ocurred. Meanwhile, Sven, check out Meyer’s article in The Intercollegiate Review (v. 31 #2). Outstanding reading. A certain feminist/chemist/atheist in Illinois really needs to read it.
IJ mentions “some primordial soup” – and certainly “the existence of a prebiotic soup is crucial to the whole scheme” – M. Denton (agnostic). Sadly for IJ, TOS & boyce, the oldest rocks have been carefully examined over the past 4 decades. None of them has a “trace of abiotically produced organic cpds.” None.
IJ states, “But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism.”
First, it’s not at all “clear”! That’s what we’re having this debate. He then commits errors-of-assumption. IJ assumes life can spring from non-life and further assumes it will be “simple”. “Simple life” is an oxymoron.
“. . . simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones . . . ” This is an extremely subjective, if not a flat-out false statement. Ask any zoologist or botanist that studies “simple animals and plants” and (s)he will tell you simplicity is not part of their vocabulary. Ask any plant biologist if an algal cell is “simple”. The agnostics on this site need to review the light & dark stages of photosynthesis and get back to me with how simple the process is. Once folk like IJ understand life’s complexity, then all they are left with is the vacuous ‘life has been on Earth a long time’ idea. Big deal. Now, please show me proof for macroevolution.
March 8th, 2006 at 11:45
Clarification: “Life only comes from life and the onus is on the macroevolutionists TOS & boyce to show how this ocurred.”
- by “this” I mean where life came from in the first place. See post #27, A.G. Fisher of Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia (2002) states, “Both the origin of life, and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown” (fossil section)
March 8th, 2006 at 15:55
Reply to IJ – PART III
Why is origin of life such a difficult problem?: A few considerations
by Denyse O’Leary
ARN correspondent
We sometimes hear that the origin of life is a simple question with simple answers.
Couldn’t life begin with simple entities like bacteria with few genes, viruses, viroids*, or proteins such as prions** and then gradually build up to complex forms?
Not as far as we know, because all these entities are parasites on more complex life forms. Whatever the answer is, they are not the answer. A life form that devolves into a parasite may indeed survive even though it sacrifices complexity – but only because the much more complex host provides many needed functions.
*viroids – short stretches of RNA that lack a protein coat, known to cause plant diseases
** complex folded proteins
The National Academy of Sciences identifies origin of life as an active research area that will soon yield key answers:
Of course, even if a living cell were to be made in the laboratory, it would not prove that nature followed the same pathway billions of years ago. But it is the job of science to provide plausible natural explanations for natural phenomena. The study of the origin of life is a very active research area in which important progress is being made, although the consensus among scientists is that none of the current hypotheses has thus far been confirmed. The history of science shows that seemingly intractable problems like this one may become amenable to solution later, as a result of advances in theory, instrumentation, or the discovery of new facts.
But the telling phrase is “seemingly intractable problems like this one.” “Seemingly” intractable or actually intractable? And in either case, why?
Now, it’s fine with me if NAS members solve the problem tomorrow. BUT … we need to be clear about one thing: It is perfectly possible that they will never solve it, not because it is some kind of forbidden knowledge, but simply because the relevant information is lost. In other words, it could be a cold case file with no new clues.
After all, most NAS members believe in a naturalistic materialist universe, so there is no reason to assume that the information about the origin of life was saved. In their own view, no intelligence created it or took the trouble to save it.
Here is a timeline that gives some idea what to expect from this line of research:
1988 Klaus Dose, Director of the Institute for Biochemistry at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany candidly admitted in Interdisciplinary Science Reviews :
More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present, all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in a stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.
1992 Dr. Werner Arber, Professor of Microbiology at the University of Basel and recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine in 1978, stated:
Although a biologist, I must confess that I do not understand how life came about. . . . I consider that life only starts at the level of a functional cell. The most primitive cell may require at least several hundred different specific biological macro-molecules. How such already quite complex structures may have come together, remains a mystery to me. The possibility of the existence of a Creator, of God, represents to me a satisfactory solution to this problem.
1998 Trends in Ecology and Evolution (March 3) contained a report on a NASA-sponsored workshop called “Evolution: A Molecular Point of View.” Many of the big names in origins research were present and a lot of interesting points of view were discussed. The author of the article noted:
Sherwood Chang opened the program with the cautious reminder that any canonical scenario for the stepwise progression toward the origin of life is still a ‘convenient fiction.’ That is, we have almost no data to support the historical transitions from chemical evolution to prebiotic monomers, polymers, replicating enzymes, and finally cells.
2004 Andy Knoll, a professor of biology at Harvard and author of Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billion Years of Life, was interviewed (May 3) as part of a PBS NOVA program. He is described as a person who has “exhaustively investigated” the origin of life. Here are excerpts from an interview:
NOVA: In a nutshell, what is the process? How does life form?
Knoll: The short answer is we don’t really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance.
NOVA: So at this point we’re seeing the origins of life through a glass darkly?
Knoll: If we try to summarize by just saying what, at the end of the day, do we know about the deep history of life on Earth, about its origin, about its formative stages that gave rise to the biology we see around us today, I think we have to admit that we’re looking through a glass darkly here. . . .
. . . We don’t know how life started on this planet. We don’t know exactly when it started, we don’t know under what circumstances.
It’s a mystery that we’re going to chip at from several different directions. . . .
NOVA: Will we ever solve the problem?
Knoll: I don’t know. I imagine my grandchildren will still be sitting around saying that it’s a great mystery, but that they will understand that mystery at a level that would be incomprehensible to us today.
2005 The July 1 issue of Science included in its top 25 questions facing science “How and where did life on earth arise?”
2005 The article “Jump-Starting a Cellular World: Investigating the Origin of Life, from Soup to Networks” in the November 15, 2005 issue of PLOS (Public Library of Science) included:
“But beyond assuming the first cell must have somehow come into existence, how do biologists explain its emergence from the prebiotic world four billion years ago?
“The short answer is that they can’t, yet.”
Actually, scientists would be better to put their faith in intelligent design if they want to solve origin of life mysteries, because then they might reasonably believe that someone left them clues – in much the same way that Arthur Conan Doyle always left clues for his great detective Sherlock Holmes to find. But it’s okay with me if they don’t. I have other stories to cover. Most of the world’s problems can be addressed without knowing the origin of life anyway.
Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O’Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada’s Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of the forthcoming The Spiritual Brain (Harper 2007).