Religions > Atheism > Re: Why isn't the easily observable evolution of bacteria and virusesevidence enough for skeptics?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
27 Oct 2005 07:27:50 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Why isn't the easily observable evolution of bacteria and virusesevidence enough for skeptics? |
Budikka wrote:
david ford wrote:
"Believe" whatever you like.
I believe you ran away from the thread: "Re: In the news: Scientists
condemn 'intelligent design'", a thread that you began and then ran
from when I challenged you to a debate.
That's me, always on the run.
I believe you cannot support
your IDiotic assertions and don't have the intellectual integrity to
admit it.
You're not trying to pretend you're a Christian, are you?
Shhhhh, don't blow my cover.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Budikka666 wrote in "Re: In the news: Scientists condemn 'intelligent
design'":
david ford wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
david ford wrote:
Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
Wow! For once I actually *agree* with you!
<snip self-referencing diatribe>
I'm immensely heartened that you "actually *agree* with" me for once.
Do you also "*agree* with" me that belief in spontaneous generation,
blindwatchmaking, and mental spoon-bending is 'scientific'?
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401291120.41a6d843%40posting.google.com
I'd be *delighted* to formally debate your position anywhere online,
any time you want. But you *will* be required to support your position
as opposed to simply stating it. You will be required to provide
positive evidence for your position as opposed to simply nay-saying the
accepted scientific position.
I notice that you chickened out of debating me.
Bock-baawk.
That was entirely
predictable. You cannot support your position, can you?
Nope. I can't even support my position that I can't support my
position.
Now that's pretty bad.
Neither do
you have the intellectual honesty to admit to it.
OK, I'll admit it.
What is "the accepted scientific position"?
"Accepted" by whom?
By the overwhleming majority of scientists. Duhh.
Do the percentages below sound correct to you?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Sagan, Carl. 1996. _The Demon-Haunted World: Science
as a Candle in the Dark_ (New York: Random House), 327.
Cited in Phillip E. Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism by
Opening Minds_ (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 131pp.,
47.
I meet many people who are offended by evolution, who
passionately prefer to be the personal handicraft of God
than to arise by blind physical and chemical forces over
aeons from slime. They also tend to be less than
assiduous in exposing themselves to the evidence.
Evidence has little to do with it. What they wish to be
true, they believe is true. Only nine percent of
Americans accept the central finding of modern biology
that human beings (and all the other species) have
slowly evolved by natural processes from a succession
of more ancient beings with no divine intervention
needed along the way.
Huba, Stephen. 22 Aug 1998. "Americans lead industrial
world in belief of creationism" _The Washington Times_, C5:
Citing Gallup and other public opinion polls since the early 1980s,
Mr. [George] Bishop said [in the Aug/Sept _Public Perspective_]
about 45 percent of Americans believe that God created man "pretty
much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."
Another 40 percent believe that man developed over millions of
years from less advanced forms of life but that God guided this
process--what Mr. Bishop calls "theistic evolution." And 10
percent of Americans hold the Darwinist evolution position that man
developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life
but that God had no part in the process. .... Only 5 percent of
American natural and physical scientists believe in the biblical
creationist view, according to one survey. Fifty-five percent
endorse the Darwinist position, and 40 percent accept theistic
evolution.
In short,
10% of the American general public accepts the blindwatchmaking
position.
55% of American scientists accept the blindwatchmaking position.
45% of American scientists accept the seeingwatchmaking position.
85% of the American general public accepts the seeingwatchmaking
position.
If you're at such a
low level of intellectual development that you need the simplest of
things explained to you, then you're clearly not able to debate the
subject, as oyur avoidance of debate testifies. This, of course, begs
the obvious question as to why you feel qualified to pontificate at all
on the topic.
The accepted scienctific position on the distribution and diversity of
life, for example is the one called the Theory of Evolution, which has
its supporting evidence published (by people of all nationalities and
faiths) in peer-reviewed science journals the world over.
That's why it's the accepted position, and why it's taught in schools.
It is a solid, testable theory which has withstood 150 years of
testing.
What are 3 of the tests performed?
Has any of this "testing" involved the fossil record?
It has a massive amount of supportive evidence from a
diversity of scientific disciplines which ahs been published in those
refereed science journals.
That's quite a claim. What are 3 of the better lines of "supportive
evidence... which ahs been published in... refereed science journals"?
Vestigial Organs, Biogeography, Homology,
and Embryology as Evidence for the Theory of Evolution
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0305250118100.2340516-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
_Basilosaurus_'s purported vestigial leg
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970709233733.17288H-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Mayr and G. Nelson & N. Platnick on biogeography
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990719222253.1868077A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Bogus 'Vestigial Leg' Claims
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9910142302001.6397-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Get it now?
Er, no. I'm hopeless, you see.
Are you up for it, or are you full of it?
Let's start by having you define, scientifically, the mechanism which
would prevent an organism from evolving from what might be termed one
"kind" into another "kind" (of course, you would have to scientifically
define "kind" before we could begin). Can you do that?
No: I don't understand what it means to "scientifically define" a
term.
Then you truly are out of your league. Why is it that you feel
qualified to contest scientifically estabished theories if you are, by
your own admission, utterly ignorant of the scientific method?
Beats me.
What are 2 illustrations of such?
Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency in a population.
Does [B]"the Theory of Evolution" equal 'the theory of changes in
allele frequencies in a population'?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Dobzhansky's 1937 redefinition of "evolution"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981011235608.19729A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Energy is defined as mass multiplied by the speed of light squared.
Get it now?
So now you've exhausted your straw man and demonstrated your limited
skills at the creationist side-step, it's *still* your turn to define
"kind" and to define the mechanism which prevents one "kind" from
transforming over time into another "kind".
I'll pass.
Do you think lots of 'microevolution' can add up to 'macroevolution'?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1933 and 1940 Goldschmidt on macro- vs. microevolution
I consider Goldschmidt's position to be opposed
to the theory of natural selection, Goldschmidt maintaining
that there exists a fundamental difference in kind-of-change
between microevolution and macroevolution.
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1982. "The Uses of Heresy: An
Introduction to Richard Goldschmidt's _The Material Basis
of Evolution_" in Richard Goldschmidt, _The Material Basis
of Evolution_ (New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 1940, 1982), at least 399pp., xiii-xlii. On xx-xxi, 4
paragraphs:
Goldschmidt had made a clean and complete break
between micro- and macroevolution, thus challenging
the most important premises of the modern synthesis--
continuity and extrapolation-- and justifiably earning the
enmity of a growing orthodoxy. _The Material Basis of
Evolution_ is the major work of his full-fledged heresy.
....
Goldschmidt did not invent the words micro- and
macroevolution, but he did popularize them. By
microevolution, he referred to changes within local
populations and geographic variation-- in short, to all
evolutionary events occurring within species.
Macroevolution designates the origin of species and
higher taxa. (Goldschmidt recognized, of course, that
higher taxa must begin as new species, but he believed
that the morphological jumps accompanying some
events of speciation are so profound that descendant
species must be designated as new higher taxa from
their inception.)
For most evolutionists, this contrast between micro- and
macroevolution can only be intergrading and indistinct
because geographic variation, by intensification, leads to
the origin of new species. But not for Goldschmidt.
Viewing the two phenomena as products of distinct
genetic mechanisms, he envisioned an absolute break
between geographic variation and speciation. If
continuity from micro- to macroevolution, with unity of
genetic mechanisms throughout, is the primary belief of
neo-Darwinism (as I believe it is; see quotes of Mayr
and Dobzhansky on p. xiv), then no claim could be more
unorthodox. Goldschmidt had rekindled an issue that
extended back to the earliest days of evolutionary
theory. After all, Lamarck had contrasted local
adaptation, induced by "1'influence des circonstances,"
with progress up life's ladder, caused by "the force that
tends, incessantly, to complicate organization." And
Chambers, author of the anonymous _Vestiges_, had
separated diversification within type from transition
between types as products of different mechanisms of
change. In an important sense, Darwin's greatest
achievement was not merely to support evolution (as
these worthy gentlemen had done before him), but to
propose continuity between local changes that could be
observed and made the object of controlled experiment
and large-scale evolutionary changes that could not be
seen directly. And now Goldschmidt, albeit in different
guise, was resuscitating the old dichotomy just when
modem Darwinians thought they had finally buried it for
good.
Mayr, Ernst. 1963. _Animal Species and Evolution_
(Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press), 797pp. On 586, the opening paragraph of the chapter
"Species and Transpecific Evolution" and a sentence:
The nature and cause of transpecific evolution has been
a highly controversial subject during the first half of this
century. The proponents the synthetic theory maintain
that all evolution is due to the accumulation of small
genetic changes, guided by natural selection, and that
transpecific evolution (Rensch 1947) is nothing but an
extrapolation and magnification of the events that take
place within populations and species. A well-informed
minority, however, which includes such outstanding
authorities as the geneticist Goldschmidt (1940, 1948a,
1952a), the paleontologist Schindewolf (1950b), and the
zoologists Jeannel (1950), Cuenot (1951), and Cannon
(1958), maintain that neither evolution within species
nor geographic speciation can explain the phenomena of
"macroevolution," or, as it is better called, "transpecific
evolution." These authors maintain that the origin of
new "types" and of new organs cannot be explained by
the known facts of genetics and systematics. As
alternatives they advance two explanations which are in
conflict with the synthetic theory: saltations (the sudden
origin of new types) and intrinsic (orthogenetic) trends.
It is not the task of this volume, which centers around
the evolutionary problems of the species, to refute these
theories and to cover in detail the entire area of
transpecific evolution.
Goldschmidt, Richard. 1940. _The Material Basis of
Evolution_ (New Haven and London: Yale University Press,
1982), at least 399pp. From the beginning of the
"Conclusion" chapter, on 396:
THE THESES presented in these lectures have been
derived from a large body of research in diverse fields
of biology, undertaken, at least in part, with the problem
of evolution in mind. They have developed and
changed with the progress of my own work and with
increasing acquaintance-- much of it firsthand-- with
material studied by others. The result as it stands today,
and which we have tried to base upon a large body of
diversified facts converging toward a single center, may
be expressed in a few sentences. Microevolution within
the species proceeds by accumulation of micromutations
and occupation of the available ecological niches by the
preadapted mutants. Microevolution, especially
geographic variation, adapts the species to the different
conditions existing in the available range of distribution.
Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the
species, and the typical products of microevolution, the
geographic races, are not incipient species. There is no
such category as incipient species. Species and the
higher categories originate in single macroevolutionary
steps as completely new genetic systems.
Goldschmidt, Richard. 1933. "Some Aspects of Evolution"
_Science_ 78:539-47. Goldschmidt was at the time a
professor at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Biology,
Berlin-Dahlem. His paper was read at a June 1933 general
meeting of the American Association for the Advancement
of Science, in Chicago. A paragraph on 542:
Let us turn now to the other problem stated above and
answered in the affirmative by Osborn and probably by
most taxonomists: Is the formation of geographic
subspecies the beginning of speciation? My own work
was started with the idea of proving that it was. As I
have already stated at last year's International Congress
of Genetics, the results of the analysis led me to the
conclusion that it was not. The different subspecies in
the different regions occupied by the species are
genetically different in many characters. Most of these
are found to form quantitative gradients which run
parallel to definite features of the climatic conditions.
But the series of local changes in regard to one character
is not exactly paralleled by those of other characters, so
that in a given area one hereditary and differential
character might be found over the whole area, another
be subdivided into three types and another into more
types. But I was unable to find one or a combination of
subspecific characters which could be regarded as
leading out of the limits of the species or towards
another one.
A paragraph on 542-3:
I am perfectly aware of the dangers of generalizing from
one case, even the best known one. I know also the
objections to such conclusions, for example: There are
Rassenkreise, the most distant members of which might
be so different that in case of isolation they might
become the starting point for quite new developments
towards another species. Looking closely at the facts
concerning the typical differences within a Rassenkreis,
I can not see why the isolation of two members of a
Rassenkreis could give better chances for new
developments than the isolation of individuals within a
subspecies: The changes necessary for the formation of
a new species are so large that the relatively small
differences of the subspecies as a starting point would
hardly count. And I can not help confessing that after
trying to get acquainted with the taxonomist's material,
the skeptical standpoint derived from my own genetic
analysis could not be shaken. There is in my opinion no
reliable fact known which would force us to assume that
geographic variation or formation of subspecies has
anything to do with speciation; the results of genetical
analysis and of sober evaluation of the other facts are
positively in contradiction to such an assumption.
For further reading:
H. Graham Cannon
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9911222044330.19223-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Cannon was a creationist; _Of Pandas and People_
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9911082221330.16551-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Gould: Goldschmidt was one of the premier geneticists of 1900s
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970728093741.24782C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
1952 Goldschmidt; analogy of earth's reversal of direction in the
unrecorded past; 1953 Martin
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970810221802.13362E-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
1952 Goldschmidt on the theory of NS's "crazy-quilt" prediction
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401271936.9a5dfd2%40posting.google.com
Schindewolf; Simpson on bats
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10001222211190.17988-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Grene on Schindewolf; Margulis; Calder; Gould on hogwash in
evolutionary theory
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970721233453.16211D-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Chris N. discusses a theory of NS essay; gradualism and
J. Huxley, Schindewolf, Mayr, Lovtrup, 1913 Bateson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.10004021232370.15068389-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Your continued evasion will be taken as a de facto admission that you
cannot define these terms and mechanisms.
Once again, and straight at you, no side-stepping: Are you prepared to
formally debate, online with me, the positive evidence (which you will
supply) for intelligent design?
I'm unprepared.
Failing that, are you prepared to formally debate, online with me, some
other aspect of the creation-evolution dispute?
Do you think that the nanotools Davies mentions below exhibit the
(false) appearance of having been the product of mind/ intelligence?
Do you think that the nanotools' being [Davies]"integrated in a highly
organized way" [Davies]"to form a smoothly functioning whole, like an
elaborate factory production line" exhibits the (false) appearance of
having been the product of mind/ intelligence?
Davies, Paul. 1999. _The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin
and Meaning of Life_ (New York: Simon & Schuster), 304pp. On 97-98,
two paragraphs:
These [just-described human] achievements of
microengineering are breathtaking in their implications,
but we should not lose sight of the fact that nature got
there first. The world is already full of nanomachines:
they are called living cells. Each cell is packed with
tiny structures that might have come straight from an
engineer's manual. Minuscule tweezers, scissors,
pumps, motors, levers, valves, pipes, chains, and even
vehicles abound. But of course the cell is more than just
a bag of gadgets. The various components fit together
to form a smoothly functioning whole, like an elaborate
factory production line. The miracle of life is not that it
is made of nanotools, but that these tiny diverse parts are
integrated in a highly organized way.
What is the secret of this astonishing organization?
How can stupid atoms do it? Individually, atoms can
only jostle their neighbors and bond to them if the
circumstances are right. Yet, collectively, they
accomplish ingenious marvels of construction and
control, with a fine-tuning and complexity as yet
unmatched by any human engineering. Somehow nature
discovered, on its own, how to do this. It found out how
to build the intricate machine we call the living cell,
using only the raw materials to hand, all jumbled up. It
repeats this feat every day in our own bodies, every time
a new cell is made. That is already a fantastic
accomplishment. Even more remarkable is that nature
built the first cell from scratch. How was it done?
Do you know how totally-blind-at-every-level processes could have
[Davies]"built the first cell from scratch"?
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
| User: "Augray" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't the easily observable evolution of bacteria and virusesevidence enough for skeptics? |
28 Oct 2005 05:38:37 PM |
|
|
On 27 Oct 2005 17:27:50 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
in news:<dford3-1130459269.961916.25020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
[snip]
_Basilosaurus_'s purported vestigial leg
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970709233733.17288H-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Debunking of the above link:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d832da00bcb39fb0
[snip the rest]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't the easily observable evolution of bacteria and virusesevidence enough for skeptics? |
29 Oct 2005 12:27:57 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Budikka wrote:
david ford wrote:
"Believe" whatever you like.
I believe you ran away from the thread: "Re: In the news: Scientists
condemn 'intelligent design'", a thread that you began and then ran
from when I challenged you to a debate.
That's me, always on the run.
At least you have the decency to admit to it.
[snip idiotic blather and *****]
What is "the accepted scientific position"?
"Accepted" by whom?
By the overwhleming majority of scientists. Duhh.
Do the percentages below sound correct to you?
Yet another non-seqitur. How about you answer the questions I asked
you first, before I waste any time on your nonsense? The issue was
established science not popular opinion, and moving the goalposts will
not save you from your ignorance.
The Theory of Evolution is accepted by the ovewhelming majority of
scientists and has 150 years worth of accumulated supportive scientific
evidence published in peer-reviewed journals the world over by people
of all *faiths* and all *nationalties*.
That's why it's the accepted position.
And please take that provincial cross off your back before you hurt
yourself. Theory of Evolution is not American, it's global. In case
you and the other IDiots haven't noticed, there's the rest of the
planet outside of the US borders and they don't agree with you and your
statistics.
Here are the questions you (and every other creationist on the planet)
are running from:
1. Define the Biblical "kind" as used in the story of Noah
2. Define the mechanism which prevents one of these "kinds" from
evolving into another "kind".
Competently address those and I might give you the time of day.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't the easily observable evolution of bacteria and virusesevidence enough for skeptics? |
31 Oct 2005 08:23:27 AM |
|
|
Budikka wrote:
david ford wrote:
Budikka wrote:
david ford wrote:
"Believe" whatever you like.
I believe you ran away from the thread: "Re: In the news: Scientists
condemn 'intelligent design'", a thread that you began and then ran
from when I challenged you to a debate.
That's me, always on the run.
At least you have the decency to admit to it.
[snip idiotic blather and *****]
Are you able to refute that "*****"?
Or is snipping the best you can do?
What is "the accepted scientific position"?
"Accepted" by whom?
By the overwhleming majority of scientists. Duhh.
Do the percentages below sound correct to you?
Yet another non-seqitur. How about you answer the questions I asked
you first, before I waste any time on your nonsense? The issue was
established science not popular opinion, and moving the goalposts will
not save you from your ignorance.
"The issue was established [by] science not popular opinion"
Dallas Willard: "science says nothing. It is not the kind of thing
that can say anything. Only scientists say things...."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407260437.2d8959da%40posting.google.com
The Theory of Evolution is accepted by the ovewhelming majority of
scientists and has 150 years worth of accumulated supportive scientific
evidence published in peer-reviewed journals the world over by people
of all *faiths* and all *nationalties*.
You stated this:
The definition of evolution is essentially
a change in allele frequency in a population.
Ref:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0312010039330.22520-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu
You state above:
The Theory of Evolution is accepted
by the ovewhelming majority of scientists....
Is "the Theory of Evolution" the 'theory of changes in allele
frequencies in populations'?
Dobzhansky's 1937 redefinition of "evolution"; Radl in English in 1930
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981011235608.19729A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
1985 Robert G.B. Reid on "received aphorisms"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980613224255.8353A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Where should I go to see evidence of "evolution," where
"evolution" is defined using Sagan's definition:
"Only nine percent of Americans accept the central finding of
modern biology that human beings (and all the other species)
have slowly evolved by natural processes from a succession
of more ancient beings with no divine intervention needed
along the way."
Should I go to a museum? If so, which ones?
Should I go read peer-reviewed/ refereed papers that appear
in the scientific literature? If so, which ones?
Should I go read a book? If so, which ones?
(Before you reply "Darwin's _Origin_," note that _Origin_
closes with the speculation that an intelligence created the
first lifeforms, and further note that if an intelligence(s) created
the first lifeforms in a manner such that those first lifeforms
would develop into all of biology, then that doesn't constitute
"evolution" as Sagan defined it.
And it is "evolution" in the sense of Sagan's definition that I'm
inquiring about.)
The Sagan quote citation is in
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking
Views
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
That's why it's the accepted position.
Do you disagree with any of this Leigh?:
Leigh, Jr, Egbert Giles. 1999. "The modern synthesis, Ronald
Fisher and creationism" _Trends in Ecology and Evolution_ 14:
495-498. Leigh is at the Smithsonian Tropical Research
Institute, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. The
abstract:
The 'modern evolutionary synthesis' convinced most
biologists that natural selection was the only directive
influence on adaptive evolution. Today, however,
dissatisfaction with the synthesis is widespread, and
creationists and antidarwinians are multiplying. The
central problem with the synthesis is its failure to show (or
to provide distinct signs) that natural selection of random
mutations could account for observed levels of adaptation.
And please take that provincial cross off your back before you hurt
yourself. Theory of Evolution is not American, it's global.
Do you grant that [Sagan]"only nine percent of Americans accept" the
claim that [Sagan]"human beings (and all the other species) have slowly
evolved by natural processes from a succession of more ancient beings
with no divine intervention needed along the way"?
In case
you and the other IDiots haven't noticed, there's the rest of the
planet outside of the US borders and they don't agree with you and your
statistics.
"the rest of the planet outside of the US borders... they don't agree
with you and your statistics."
So you think these U.S. "statistics" erroneously characterize positions
in the U.S.?:
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Sagan, Carl. 1996. _The Demon-Haunted World: Science
as a Candle in the Dark_ (New York: Random House), 327.
Cited in Phillip E. Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism by
Opening Minds_ (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 131pp.,
47.
I meet many people who are offended by evolution, who
passionately prefer to be the personal handicraft of God
than to arise by blind physical and chemical forces over
aeons from slime. They also tend to be less than
assiduous in exposing themselves to the evidence.
Evidence has little to do with it. What they wish to be
true, they believe is true. Only nine percent of
Americans accept the central finding of modern biology
that human beings (and all the other species) have
slowly evolved by natural processes from a succession
of more ancient beings with no divine intervention
needed along the way.
Huba, Stephen. 22 Aug 1998. "Americans lead industrial
world in belief of creationism" _The Washington Times_, C5:
Citing Gallup and other public opinion polls since the early 1980s,
Mr. [George] Bishop said [in the Aug/Sept _Public Perspective_]
about 45 percent of Americans believe that God created man "pretty
much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."
Another 40 percent believe that man developed over millions of
years from less advanced forms of life but that God guided this
process--what Mr. Bishop calls "theistic evolution." And 10
percent of Americans hold the Darwinist evolution position that man
developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life
but that God had no part in the process. .... Only 5 percent of
American natural and physical scientists believe in the biblical
creationist view, according to one survey. Fifty-five percent
endorse the Darwinist position, and 40 percent accept theistic
evolution.
In short,
10% of the American general public accepts the blindwatchmaking
position.
55% of American scientists accept the blindwatchmaking position.
45% of American scientists accept the seeingwatchmaking position.
85% of the American general public accepts the seeingwatchmaking
position.
Here are the questions you (and every other creationist on the planet)
are running from:
1. Define the Biblical "kind" as used in the story of Noah
Do you disagree with any of these comments by Ward, Ehrlich & Holm,
Ehrlich & Ehrlich, and Gould on the word "species"?:
Credentials. Peter Douglas Ward is Professor of Geological Sciences
and
Curator of Invertebrates, Thomas Burke Museum at the University of
Washington, and wrote _In Search of Nautilus_ and _The Natural History
of the Nautilus_.
Ward, Peter Douglas. _On Methuselah's Trail: Living Fossils and the
Great Extinctions_ (NY: W.H. Freeman, 1992), 212pp. Foreword by Steven
M. Stanley. On 5:
....one {definition} advanced in 1942 by the great biologist Ernst
Mayr: "Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding
populations [of organisms] {Ward's bracketing-df} which are
reproductively isolated from other such groups." The key point is
that species are distinguished by the ability to breed successfully
from generation to generation.
This definition, although admirable {actually it's not, as Ehrlich
& Holm demonstrate in their article} for currently living
organisms, is obviously useless to anyone who is studying fossils.
Though the fossil record yields many insights into the mode of life
of extinct organisms, it simply doesn't tell us the juicy details
of who was sleeping with whom back in the Mesozoic. Nevertheless,
paleontologists refer to their fossils as belonging to species, and
in doing so are implying that the various individuals they place
within their species could, when alive, breed successfully. But
the truth is that fossils are grouped in species solely because of
morphological similarity. In other words, they are similar in form
and structure.
Credentials. According to their _The Process of Evolution_ (1963),
Paul
Ehrlich and Richard Holm were associate professors in the division of
systematic biology, dept of biological sciences, Stanford University.
According to Paul & Ann Ehrlich's _Extinction: The Causes and
Consequences of the Disappearance of Species_ (1981), Paul Ehrlich is a
professor of biological sciences and Bing Professor of Population
Studies at Stanford U.; as an evolution and ecology expert, he wrote
100+ scientific papers, a series of textbooks, some popular books, and
many articles.
Ehrlich, Paul R. and Richard W. Holm. "Patterns and Populations"
_Science_ 137: 652-7 (1962). On 653:
Many concepts in population biology have low information content
and little or no operational meaning. In this category we should
place such concepts as "competition," "niche," "community,"
"climax," "species," "population fitness," and to some extent
"population" itself. .... As we shall demonstrate, the concept of
genetic (or "biological") species, the idea of the community as a
unit, and many other concepts currently in subdisciplines of
population biology have much in common with the idea of absolute
time.
On 654:
One of the most widely accepted ideas of population biology is that
higher animals tend to occur in rather well-defined clusters called
species. Various theoretical definitions of species have been
attempted, and most of those accepted by modern evolutionists make
some statement about reproductive isolation between, but not
within, the clusters. In older definitions, assumptions concerning
the occurrence or non-occurrence of interbreeding are implicit.
.... It seems clear {from the preceding discussion; get the
article} that the biological-species definition never has been
operational and never will be.
On 655:
The term _species_ should be retained only in its original, less
restrictive sense of "kind." There seems to be no reason why
quantitative methods should not be used to study phenetic
relationships (those based on similarity rather than imagined
phylogeny) at what we now loosely call the species level.
This is not on the topic at hand, but I found it interesting. On 656:
Few nonevolutionists realize that the term _adaptation_ is one of
the least understood and most misused in population biology.
In the sentence in question, Ehrlich & Ehrlich use the word "species"
in the sense of "kind"-- they aren't using the "a reproductively-
isolated population" definition.
Ehrlich, Paul and Anne Ehrlich. 1981. _Extinction: The Causes and
Consequences of the Disappearance of Species_ (NY: Ballantine Books),
384pp. On 22-3, three paragraphs:
For a very long period-- well over 100 million years-- the
mammals were an obscure group of small animals living in terror
of carnivorous dinosaurs which preyed upon them in long-ago
twilights. But then at the end of the Mesozoic era, about 65
million years ago, the dinosaurs suddenly disappeared. The time
of the mammals had arrived, and a relatively few species of our
obscure ancestors proliferated into a group that is represented
today by over 4,000 species and include such diverse forms as
kangaroos, opossums, whales, anteaters, aardvarks, bats, seals,
dogs, tigers, bears, skunks, armadillos, horses, antelopes, deer,
goats, cattle, mice, rabbits, platypuses, gorillas, and people.
This process involved not only changes within a single line but
also, obviously, the splitting of lines-- that is, _speciation_.
The exact mechanisms of speciation are not fully understood, in
part because speciation tends to be a very slow process [their
talk of slowness is a bow toward gradualism].
Some aspects of the process of speciation can be observed both in
present-day living systems and in the fossil record. The fossil
record indicates [sic]-- and observations of living species
confirm-- that, relative to a human lifespan, the process of
speciation is a gradual one. In some groups of organisms and at
some times, there may be "bursts" of differentiation that take
place in thousands or even hundreds of years. But in most cases,
speciation seems to take tens of thousands or even millions of
years. It has been more than a century since Charles Darwin
started biologists thinking about speciation, and the production
of a new animal species in nature has yet to be documented.
Biologists have not been able to observe the entire sequence of
one animal species being transformed into two or more. (Note
that we carefully limit these examples to animals. The situation
in plants is much more complicated, but in ways not germane to
this book.) Biologists _have_ been able to observe innumerable
examples of animal and plant species that appear to be in various
stages of splitting. [this last 'species' appears to be closer
to 'a reproductively-isolated population' than to 'a kind'] But
in the vast majority of cases, the rate of change is so slow that
it has not even been possible to detect an increase in the amount
of differentiation over the decades that have been available for
observation.
It would be incorrect to claim that there exists a pattern of graduated
similarities
among living things that makes it impossible to classify organisms as
such
things as "dogs", "cats", and "quahogs." I quote Gould using a
different
definition of "species" than the interbreeding definition:
==== begin quote ====
Common sense dictates that the world of familiar, macroscopic organisms
presents itself to us in "packages" called species. All bird watchers
and
butterfly netters know that they can divide the specimens of any local
area into discrete units blessed with those Latin binomials that
befuddle
the uninitiated. Occasionally, to be sure, a package may become
unraveled
and even seem to coalesce with another. But such cases are noted for
their
rarity. The birds of Massachusetts and the bugs in my backyard are
unambiguous members of species recognized in the same way by all
experienced observers.
==== end quote ====
Interestingly, Gould continues by observing that "This notion of
species
as 'natural kinds' fit splendidly with creationist tenets of a
pre-Darwinian age." See the essay "A Quahog is a Quahog" in Gould's
_The
Panda's Thumb_ (1980).
2. Define the mechanism which prevents one of these "kinds" from
evolving into another "kind".
There is no "mechanism which prevents one of these 'kinds' from
evolving into another 'kind'":
Scientists breeding dogs can turn a dog population into a cat
population.
Scientists breeding humans can turn a human population into a
Nietzschean superman population.
2004 Kater
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1126752603.953619.262940%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Himmler, a former chicken farmer..., was ruled by very
strong beliefs regarding the application of breeding
theories to humans-- by way of positive selection for the
"Aryans" and negative selection for their natural enemies,
the Slavs, Gypsies, and Jews.
Hitler's human breeding plan using selection + mutations
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124684179.251743.95950%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124731489.829229.220700%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Competently address those and I might give you the time of day.
I'd prefer the time of night.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't the easily observable evolution of bacteria and virusesevidence enough for skeptics? |
31 Oct 2005 07:21:12 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Are you able to refute that "*****"?
Or is snipping the best you can do?
I refuted enough to show it was *****. It's not worth more time
than that. Now about that debate you ran away from....
Yet another non-seqitur. How about you answer the questions I asked
you first, before I waste any time on your nonsense? The issue was
established science not popular opinion, and moving the goalposts will
not save you from your ignorance.
"The issue was established [by] science not popular opinion"
Is that supposed to represent an intelligent response? Look up
"intelligent" in a good dictionary will you? Science is not done by
popular vote but by what the evidence will support and what a good
theory explains. It really is that simple. Look up "scientific
method" in a good dictionary will you? Now about that debate you ran
away from....
You stated this:
The definition of evolution is essentially
a change in allele frequency in a population.
Ref:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0312010039330.22520-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu
You state above:
The Theory of Evolution is accepted
by the ovewhelming majority of scientists....
Is "the Theory of Evolution" the 'theory of changes in allele
frequencies in populations'?
When you have something intellgient to say, I'll respond. But if you
can't tell the difference between the Theory of Evolutioon and a
definition of the word "evolution" then you've already admitted you're
out of your league. Now about that debate you ran away from....
Where should I go to see evidence of "evolution,"
150 years of peer-reviewed papers published in refereed science
journals published the world over by people of all faiths and
nationalities, dumbass.
[Rest of juvenile assininity flushed where it belongs.]
When you think you're ready for a debate, get back to me. Until then,
get a clue.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't the easily observable evolution of bacteria and virusesevidence enough for skeptics? |
31 Oct 2005 10:15:02 PM |
|
|
Budikka wrote:
david ford wrote:
Are you able to refute that "*****"?
Or is snipping the best you can do?
I refuted enough to show it was *****. It's not worth more time
than that. Now about that debate you ran away from....
You're the one that asked for a definition of the biblical 'kind,' I
supplied what you asked for, and then you totally snipped what I
supplied. You're the person "that... ran away from" "that debate."
Do you consider the textbook claims seen below of the
[Scott]"celebrated author" to be "*****"?
Scott, Andrew. 1986. _The Creation of Life: Past, Future,
Alien_ (Basil Blackwell), 211pp. Paragraphs on 89-90:
Despite the fact that scoring points like this is an
imprecise little game, it does serve to illustrate a major
gulf which remains to be bridged if we are to provide a
satisfactory explanation for the way in which molecules
could have given rise to mankind. It is a gulf presented
by the origin of the first replicators and the origin of the
gene-protein link. Scientists interested in the origins of
life are well aware of this gulf-- they think and talk and
write at great length about the problems of the origin of
replication and of the gene-protein link. Unfortunately,
little of their puzzlement percolates through (or is
allowed to percolate through) to the public at large, who
generally remain happy to believe that science knows
the answer to the mystery of the origin of life on earth.
Now that I have introduced you to the gulf separating
the facts from that fantasy, we should go to the edge and
look into it.
*Replicators, replicators...*
What has actually been achieved by the many attempts
to re-create the formation of the first replicators--
assuming for the moment that they were composed of
nucleic acids or something very similar.[sic] Sadly,
very little has been achieved. Many introductory
biology texts will confidently tell you that simple
nucleic acids have been shown to form and replicate
themselves under prebiotic conditions, but such reports
are simply wrong.
When challenged on this point, one celebrated author
agreed with me that his confident assertion that
under conditions resembling those on the prebiotic
earth simple organic molecules actually form from
elementary constituents ... and assemble
themselves into self-replicating nucleic acids which
mutate and are altered in frequency by natural
selection, all in the laboratory.
was completely mistaken. Endless similar assertions
can be found throughout the literature of biology. They
are all based on a great exaggeration of, and often
misunderstanding of, the little that actually has been
achieved. I can only presume that such false dogmatic
assertions themselves become replicated, from textbook
to textbook, because the authors so dearly want to
believe that they are true.
On 90:
Getting bases, sugars and phosphate groups to join
together into nucleotides, _under plausible prebiotic
conditions_, has itself proved extremely difficult.
....
The problem with this [just-described] neat idea, as with
so many 'plausible' proposals about the origins of life, is
that so far nobody has been able to get it to work under
reasonable prebiotic conditions.
Paragraphs on 93:
I am not trying to convince you that the spontaneous
origin of self-replicating nucleic acids on earth must
have been impossible-- it may have happened just as so
many of the textbooks suppose; but as yet there is no
hard experimental evidence to back that supposition up.
The lesson provided so far by the many attempts to get
nucleic acids to form and replicate spontaneously, is that
it may be a very difficult process to get going.
In some ways the attempts to re-create the process so far
provide good evidence _against_ the idea of the
spontaneous origin of self-replicating nucleic acids; and
yet they are frequently presented as providing
'incomplete but significant' evidence supporting that
idea. Most scientists assume that the failure experienced
to date simply tells us that we have not yet hit on the
right system, or the right conditions; or that they simply
cannot be expected to re-create in a few weeks in a
laboratory chemical processes that perhaps took millions
of years. One or all of these excuses may well be valid,
but it must also be possible that they have failed because
they have been trying to re-create something which did
not happen, and never could have.
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith, 1986 Andrew Scott, 1999 Freeman Dyson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33bltcF3rgbovU1%40individual.net
some 1915-1999 doses of reality
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33arf3F3vjdggU1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
Yet another non-seqitur. How about you answer the questions I asked
you first, before I waste any time on your nonsense? The issue was
established science not popular opinion, and moving the goalposts will
not save you from your ignorance.
"The issue was established [by] science not popular opinion"
Is that supposed to represent an intelligent response? Look up
"intelligent" in a good dictionary will you? Science is not done by
popular vote but by what the evidence will support and what a good
theory explains. It really is that simple. Look up "scientific
method" in a good dictionary will you? Now about that debate you ran
away from....
"Science is... done by... what the evidence will support"
Do you think "the evidence" supports the belief Sagan shares with a
miniscule 9% of the American public?
Sagan, Carl. 1996. _The Demon-Haunted World: Science
as a Candle in the Dark_ (New York: Random House), 327.
Cited in Phillip E. Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism by
Opening Minds_ (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 131pp.,
47.
I meet many people who are offended by evolution, who
passionately prefer to be the personal handicraft of God
than to arise by blind physical and chemical forces over
aeons from slime. They also tend to be less than
assiduous in exposing themselves to the evidence.
Evidence has little to do with it. What they wish to be
true, they believe is true. Only nine percent of
Americans accept the central finding of modern biology
that human beings (and all the other species) have
slowly evolved by natural processes from a succession
of more ancient beings with no divine intervention
needed along the way.
You stated this:
The definition of evolution is essentially
a change in allele frequency in a population.
Ref:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0312010039330.22520-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu
You state above:
The Theory of Evolution is accepted
by the ovewhelming majority of scientists....
Is "the Theory of Evolution" the 'theory of changes in allele
frequencies in populations'?
When you have something intellgient to say, I'll respond. But if you
can't tell the difference between the Theory of Evolutioon and a
definition of the word "evolution" then you've already admitted you're
out of your league. Now about that debate you ran away from....
What exactly is the "Theory of Evolutioon"?
Is it described in Sagan's above remarks?
If so, it's accepted by a miniscule 9% of the American public.
Where should I go to see evidence of "evolution,"
150 years of peer-reviewed papers published in refereed science
journals published the world over by people of all faiths and
nationalities, dumbass.
[Rest of juvenile assininity flushed where it belongs.]
When you think you're ready for a debate, get back to me. Until then,
get a clue.
Is Gould & Eldredge's 1977 paper one of those "peer-reviewed papers
published in refereed science journals" that provide evidence for
'evolution' in the sense that Sagan uses the concept above?
_Paleobiology_ 3: 134 (1977) testimony by paleontologists Gould &
Eldredge:
In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has
been favorable. We are especially pleased that several
paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence a
conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing ('all
these years of work and I haven't found any evolution').
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Gould's 1980 "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406040941.7de39c48%40posting.google.com
historical background to rise and fall of the Synthetic Euphoria; 1936
A. Franklin Shull
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403271329.1e569adf%40posting.google.com
Suggestion: when your claims are getting clobbered by an IDiot, don't
use the line
[B]"Now about that debate you ran away from...."
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't the easily observable evolution of bacteria and virusesevidence enough for skeptics? |
01 Nov 2005 11:09:50 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Budikka wrote:
david ford wrote:
Are you able to refute that "*****"?
Or is snipping the best you can do?
I refuted enough to show it was *****. It's not worth more time
than that. Now about that debate you ran away from....
You're the one that asked for a definition of the biblical 'kind,' I
supplied what you asked for, and then you totally snipped what I
supplied. You're the person "that... ran away from" "that debate."
Do you consider the textbook claims seen below of the
[Scott]"celebrated author" to be "*****"?
Scott, Andrew. 1986. _The Creation of Life: Past, Future,
Alien_ (Basil Blackwell), 211pp. Paragraphs on 89-90:
Despite the fact that scoring points like this is an
imprecise little game, it does serve to illustrate a major
gulf which remains to be bridged if we are to provide a
satisfactory explanation for the way in which molecules
could have given rise to mankind. It is a gulf presented
by the origin of the first replicators and the origin of the
gene-protein link. Scientists interested in the origins of
life are well aware of this gulf-- they think and talk and
write at great length about the problems of the origin of
replication and of the gene-protein link. Unfortunately,
little of their puzzlement percolates through (or is
allowed to percolate through) to the public at large, who
generally remain happy to believe that science knows
the answer to the mystery of the origin of life on earth.
Now that I have introduced you to the gulf separating
the facts from that fantasy, we should go to the edge and
look into it.
*Replicators, replicators...*
What has actually been achieved by the many attempts
to re-create the formation of the first replicators--
assuming for the moment that they were composed of
nucleic acids or something very similar.[sic] Sadly,
very little has been achieved. Many introductory
biology texts will confidently tell you that simple
nucleic acids have been shown to form and replicate
themselves under prebiotic conditions, but such reports
are simply wrong.
When challenged on this point, one celebrated author
agreed with me that his confident assertion that
under conditions resembling those on the prebiotic
earth simple organic molecules actually form from
elementary constituents ... and assemble
themselves into self-replicating nucleic acids which
mutate and are altered in frequency by natural
selection, all in the laboratory.
was completely mistaken. Endless similar assertions
can be found throughout the literature of biology. They
are all based on a great exaggeration of, and often
misunderstanding of, the little that actually has been
achieved. I can only presume that such false dogmatic
assertions themselves become replicated, from textbook
to textbook, because the authors so dearly want to
believe that they are true.
On 90:
Getting bases, sugars and phosphate groups to join
together into nucleotides, _under plausible prebiotic
conditions_, has itself proved extremely difficult.
....
The problem with this [just-described] neat idea, as with
so many 'plausible' proposals about the origins of life, is
that so far nobody has been able to get it to work under
reasonable prebiotic conditions.
Paragraphs on 93:
I am not trying to convince you that the spontaneous
origin of self-replicating nucleic acids on earth must
have been impossible-- it may have happened just as so
many of the textbooks suppose; but as yet there is no
hard experimental evidence to back that supposition up.
The lesson provided so far by the many attempts to get
nucleic acids to form and replicate spontaneously, is that
it may be a very difficult process to get going.
In some ways the attempts to re-create the process so far
provide good evidence _against_ the idea of the
spontaneous origin of self-replicating nucleic acids; and
yet they are frequently presented as providing
'incomplete but significant' evidence supporting that
idea. Most scientists assume that the failure experienced
to date simply tells us that we have not yet hit on the
right system, or the right conditions; or that they simply
cannot be expected to re-create in a few weeks in a
laboratory chemical processes that perhaps took millions
of years. One or all of these excuses may well be valid,
but it must also be possible that they have failed because
they have been trying to re-create something which did
not happen, and never could have.
You'll note that this is an excerpt from twenty years ago.
Interestingly, some work has been accomplished since then. :)
A more recent biology book (see, for example, Freeman, Biological
Science, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall) notes *recent* research where a number
of these "missing links" have been found. In fact, polymerization does
happen quite readily in the presence of the right catalysts, which were
admittedly missing in the initial "prebiotic soup" experiments but were
abundant in nature. See especially the importance of mud as a catalyst
for the condensation reactions required for long-chain polymerization.
This is not to say that all "missing links" have been found. So then
the question becomes, does a theory only get taught when all the
missing links have been found?
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith, 1986 Andrew Scott, 1999 Freeman Dyson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33bltcF3rgbovU1%40individual.net
What exactly is the "Theory of Evolutioon"?
Is it described in Sagan's above remarks?
If so, it's accepted by a miniscule 9% of the American public.
There was a time not so long ago when special relativity was accepted
by a miniscule (<<1%) percentage of the American public. Is it your
contention that there should be a popular concensus about a theory
before it is taught in schools? What is the basis for that policy?
Would it have been your position that in the Middle Ages, only a
flat-earth model should be taught in schools because only a minority of
the European population believed otherwise?
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't the easily observable evolution of bacteria and virusesevidence enough for skeptics? |
01 Nov 2005 08:46:32 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
david ford wrote:
Budikka wrote:
david ford wrote:
Are you able to refute that "*****"?
Or is snipping the best you can do?
I refuted enough to show it was *****. It's not worth more time
than that. Now about that debate you ran away from....
You're the one that asked for a definition of the biblical 'kind,' I
supplied what you asked for, and then you totally snipped what I
supplied. You're the person "that... ran away from" "that debate."
Do you consider the textbook claims seen below of the
[Scott]"celebrated author" to be "*****"?
Scott, Andrew. 1986. _The Creation of Life: Past, Future,
Alien_ (Basil Blackwell), 211pp. Paragraphs on 89-90:
Despite the fact that scoring points like this is an
imprecise little game, it does serve to illustrate a major
gulf which remains to be bridged if we are to provide a
satisfactory explanation for the way in which molecules
could have given rise to mankind. It is a gulf presented
by the origin of the first replicators and the origin of the
gene-protein link. Scientists interested in the origins of
life are well aware of this gulf-- they think and talk and
write at great length about the problems of the origin of
replication and of the gene-protein link. Unfortunately,
little of their puzzlement percolates through (or is
allowed to percolate through) to the public at large, who
generally remain happy to believe that science knows
the answer to the mystery of the origin of life on earth.
Now that I have introduced you to the gulf separating
the facts from that fantasy, we should go to the edge and
look into it.
*Replicators, replicators...*
What has actually been achieved by the many attempts
to re-create the formation of the first replicators--
assuming for the moment that they were composed of
nucleic acids or something very similar.[sic] Sadly,
very little has been achieved. Many introductory
biology texts will confidently tell you that simple
nucleic acids have been shown to form and replicate
themselves under prebiotic conditions, but such reports
are simply wrong.
When challenged on this point, one celebrated author
agreed with me that his confident assertion that
under conditions resembling those on the prebiotic
earth simple organic molecules actually form from
elementary constituents ... and assemble
themselves into self-replicating nucleic acids which
mutate and are altered in frequency by natural
selection, all in the laboratory.
was completely mistaken. Endless similar assertions
can be found throughout the literature of biology. They
are all based on a great exaggeration of, and often
misunderstanding of, the little that actually has been
achieved. I can only presume that such false dogmatic
assertions themselves become replicated, from textbook
to textbook, because the authors so dearly want to
believe that they are true.
On 90:
Getting bases, sugars and phosphate groups to join
together into nucleotides, _under plausible prebiotic
conditions_, has itself proved extremely difficult.
....
The problem with this [just-described] neat idea, as with
so many 'plausible' proposals about the origins of life, is
that so far nobody has been able to get it to work under
reasonable prebiotic conditions.
Paragraphs on 93:
I am not trying to convince you that the spontaneous
origin of self-replicating nucleic acids on earth must
have been impossible-- it may have happened just as so
many of the textbooks suppose; but as yet there is no
hard experimental evidence to back that supposition up.
The lesson provided so far by the many attempts to get
nucleic acids to form and replicate spontaneously, is that
it may be a very difficult process to get going.
In some ways the attempts to re-create the process so far
provide good evidence _against_ the idea of the
spontaneous origin of self-replicating nucleic acids; and
yet they are frequently presented as providing
'incomplete but significant' evidence supporting that
idea. Most scientists assume that the failure experienced
to date simply tells us that we have not yet hit on the
right system, or the right conditions; or that they simply
cannot be expected to re-create in a few weeks in a
laboratory chemical processes that perhaps took millions
of years. One or all of these excuses may well be valid,
but it must also be possible that they have failed because
they have been trying to re-create something which did
not happen, and never could have.
You'll note that this is an excerpt from twenty years ago.
Interestingly, some work has been accomplished since then. :)
Such as that discussed in
A 1999 "abiogenesis" paper
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=7kh4g1%244jn%241%40alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu
A more recent biology book (see, for example, Freeman, Biological
Science, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall) notes *recent* research where a number
of these "missing links" have been found. In fact, polymerization does
happen quite readily in the presence of the right catalysts, which were
admittedly missing in the initial "prebiotic soup" experiments but were
abundant in nature.
"polymerization" of what?
What are these "right catalysts"?
"were abundant in nature" when?
See especially the importance of mud as a catalyst
for the condensation reactions required for long-chain polymerization.
This is not to say that all "missing links" have been found. So then
the question becomes, does a theory only get taught when all the
missing links have been found?
Where are we talking about--
the U.S.?
the atheocracy of China?
Are you talking about a particular "theory"? If so, what's it called--
the blindwatchmaker theory?
the seeingwatchmaker/ intelligent design theory?
the theory of spontaneous generation?
Belief in spontaneous generation, blindwatchmaking, and mental
spoon-bending is scientific.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401291120.41a6d843%40posting.google.com
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith, 1986 Andrew Scott, 1999 Freeman Dyson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33bltcF3rgbovU1%40individual.net
What exactly is the "Theory of Evolutioon"?
Is it described in Sagan's above remarks?
If so, it's accepted by a miniscule 9% of the American public.
There was a time not so long ago when special relativity was accepted
by a miniscule (<<1%) percentage of the American public.
How "long ago"?
Is it your
contention that there should be a popular concensus about a theory
before it is taught in schools? What is the basis for that policy?
"popular concensus" is worthless.
Secularist judges, not popularly-elected school board members, should
decide what does and what doesn't get taught in taxpayer-supported
schools.
What matters is what elite judges having a secular religion say.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3aenpiF69fl4rU1%40individual.net
Would it have been your position that in the Middle Ages, only a
flat-earth model should be taught in schools because only a minority of
the European population believed otherwise?
I decline to answer: there are enough things from current times to use
as examples for discussion purposes.
A mere 9% of the American public accepts this claim:
[Sagan]"human beings (and all the other species) have slowly evolved by
natural processes from a succession of more ancient beings with no
divine intervention needed along the way."
Therefore, secularist judges need to decree that this Sagan view be
taught in taxpayer-supported schools, and overrule any disagreeing
taxpayer-elected school boards.
Sagan, Carl. 1996. _The Demon-Haunted World: Science
as a Candle in the Dark_ (New York: Random House), 327.
Cited in Phillip E. Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism by
Opening Minds_ (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 131pp.,
47.
I meet many people who are offended by evolution, who
passionately prefer to be the personal handicraft of God
than to arise by blind physical and chemical forces over
aeons from slime. They also tend to be less than
assiduous in exposing themselves to the evidence.
Evidence has little to do with it. What they wish to be
true, they believe is true. Only nine percent of
Americans accept the central finding of modern biology
that human beings (and all the other species) have
slowly evolved by natural processes from a succession
of more ancient beings with no divine intervention
needed along the way.
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking
Views
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't the easily observable evolution of bacteria and virusesevidence enough for skeptics? |
02 Nov 2005 08:28:17 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
PD wrote:
david ford wrote:
Budikka wrote:
david ford wrote:
Are you able to refute that "*****"?
Or is snipping the best you can do?
I refuted enough to show it was *****. It's not worth more time
than that. Now about that debate you ran away from....
You're the one that asked for a definition of the biblical 'kind,' I
supplied what you asked for, and then you totally snipped what I
supplied. You're the person "that... ran away from" "that debate."
Do you consider the textbook claims seen below of the
[Scott]"celebrated author" to be "*****"?
Scott, Andrew. 1986. _The Creation of Life: Past, Future,
Alien_ (Basil Blackwell), 211pp. Paragraphs on 89-90:
Despite the fact that scoring points like this is an
imprecise little game, it does serve to illustrate a major
gulf which remains to be bridged if we are to provide a
satisfactory explanation for the way in which molecules
could have given rise to mankind. It is a gulf presented
by the origin of the first replicators and the origin of the
gene-protein link. Scientists interested in the origins of
life are well aware of this gulf-- they think and talk and
write at great length about the problems of the origin of
replication and of the gene-protein link. Unfortunately,
little of their puzzlement percolates through (or is
allowed to percolate through) to the public at large, who
generally remain happy to believe that science knows
the answer to the mystery of the origin of life on earth.
Now that I have introduced you to the gulf separating
the facts from that fantasy, we should go to the edge and
look into it.
*Replicators, replicators...*
What has actually been achieved by the many attempts
to re-create the formation of the first replicators--
assuming for the moment that they were composed of
nucleic acids or something very similar.[sic] Sadly,
very little has been achieved. Many introductory
biology texts will confidently tell you that simple
nucleic acids have been shown to form and replicate
themselves under prebiotic conditions, but such reports
are simply wrong.
When challenged on this point, one celebrated author
agreed with me that his confident assertion that
under conditions resembling those on the prebiotic
earth simple organic molecules actually form from
elementary constituents ... and assemble
themselves into self-replicating nucleic acids which
mutate and are altered in frequency by natural
selection, all in the laboratory.
was completely mistaken. Endless similar assertions
can be found throughout the literature of biology. They
are all based on a great exaggeration of, and often
misunderstanding of, the little that actually has been
achieved. I can only presume that such false dogmatic
assertions themselves become replicated, from textbook
to textbook, because the authors so dearly want to
believe that they are true.
On 90:
Getting bases, sugars and phosphate groups to join
together into nucleotides, _under plausible prebiotic
conditions_, has itself proved extremely difficult.
....
The problem with this [just-described] neat idea, as with
so many 'plausible' proposals about the origins of life, is
that so far nobody has been able to get it to work under
reasonable prebiotic conditions.
Paragraphs on 93:
I am not trying to convince you that the spontaneous
origin of self-replicating nucleic acids on earth must
have been impossible-- it may have happened just as so
many of the textbooks suppose; but as yet there is no
hard experimental evidence to back that supposition up.
The lesson provided so far by the many attempts to get
nucleic acids to form and replicate spontaneously, is that
it may be a very difficult process to get going.
In some ways the attempts to re-create the process so far
provide good evidence _against_ the idea of the
spontaneous origin of self-replicating nucleic acids; and
yet they are frequently presented as providing
'incomplete but significant' evidence supporting that
idea. Most scientists assume that the failure experienced
to date simply tells us that we have not yet hit on the
right system, or the right conditions; or that they simply
cannot be expected to re-create in a few weeks in a
laboratory chemical processes that perhaps took millions
of years. One or all of these excuses may well be valid,
but it must also be possible that they have failed because
they have been trying to re-create something which did
not happen, and never could have.
You'll note that this is an excerpt from twenty years ago.
Interestingly, some work has been accomplished since then. :)
Such as that discussed in
A 1999 "abiogenesis" paper
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=7kh4g1%244jn%241%40alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu
A more recent biology book (see, for example, Freeman, Biological
Science, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall) notes *recent* research where a number
of these "missing links" have been found. In fact, polymerization does
happen quite readily in the presence of the right catalysts, which were
admittedly missing in the initial "prebiotic soup" experiments but were
abundant in nature.
"polymerization" of what?
What are these "right catalysts"?
"were abundant in nature" when?
Well, if you would like to read the first several chapters of Freeman,
that is fleshed out for you.
See especially the importance of mud as a catalyst
for the condensation reactions required for long-chain polymerization.
This is not to say that all "missing links" have been found. So then
the question becomes, does a theory only get taught when all the
missing links have been found?
Where are we talking about--
the U.S.?
the atheocracy of China?
I'm sorry, what does political structure have to do with it?
Are you talking about a particular "theory"? If so, what's it called--
the blindwatchmaker theory?
the seeingwatchmaker/ intelligent design theory?
the theory of spontaneous generation?
I'm not sure why it needs labels. There are names of people who have
contributed significantly to the advancements. Would that help make it
more concrete for you?
Belief in spontaneous generation, blindwatchmaking, and mental
spoon-bending is scientific.
By what standards?
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401291120.41a6d843%40posting.google.com
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith, 1986 Andrew Scott, 1999 Freeman Dyson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33bltcF3rgbovU1%40individual.net
What exactly is the "Theory of Evolutioon"?
Is it described in Sagan's above remarks?
If so, it's accepted by a miniscule 9% of the American public.
There was a time not so long ago when special relativity was accepted
by a miniscule (<<1%) percentage of the American public.
How "long ago"?
Say, 1906.
Is it your
contention that there should be a popular concensus about a theory
before it is taught in schools? What is the basis for that policy?
"popular concensus" is worthless.
Secularist judges, not popularly-elected school board members, should
decide what does and what doesn't get taught in taxpayer-supported
schools.
Why on earth should judges decide what gets taught in schools? I can
understand why judges should decide what should be taught in *law
school*, because -- after all -- they are experts on law. But I would
think that experts in the subject area, science in this case, would be
the ones to determine what gets taught in that subject area. The reason
why schools are taxpayer-supported is an (approximately) equitable
sharing of resources, not because we place the trust in government
officials to determine what content should be taught. Quite the
opposite.
What matters is what elite judges having a secular religion say.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3aenpiF69fl4rU1%40individual.net
Would it have been your position that in the Middle Ages, only a
flat-earth model should be taught in schools because only a minority of
the European population believed otherwise?
I decline to answer: there are enough things from current times to use
as examples for discussion purposes.
OK, would it have been your position that today, only classical
mechanics and not quantum mechanics should be taught in schools because
only a minority of the American population believe in quantum
mechanics? (Despite the fact that quantum mechanics is instrumental to
the operation of the computer you're using at this instant.)
A mere 9% of the American public accepts this claim:
[Sagan]"human beings (and all the other species) have slowly evolved by
natural processes from a succession of more ancient beings with no
divine intervention needed along the way."
Therefore, secularist judges need to decree that this Sagan view be
taught in taxpayer-supported schools, and overrule any disagreeing
taxpayer-elected school boards.
Neither judges nor politicians are in a position to evaluate scientific
content.
Sagan, Carl. 1996. _The Demon-Haunted World: Science
as a Candle in the Dark_ (New York: Random House), 327.
Cited in Phillip E. Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism by
Opening Minds_ (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 131pp.,
47.
I meet many people who are offended by evolution, who
passionately prefer to be the personal handicraft of God
than to arise by blind physical and chemical forces over
aeons from slime. They also tend to be less than
assiduous in exposing themselves to the evidence.
Evidence has little to do with it. What they wish to be
true, they believe is true. Only nine percent of
Americans accept the central finding of modern biology
that human beings (and all the other species) have
slowly evolved by natural processes from a succession
of more ancient beings with no divine intervention
needed along the way.
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking
Views
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't the easily observable evolution of bacteria and virusesevidence enough for skeptics? |
02 Nov 2005 01:13:19 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
david ford wrote:
PD wrote:
david ford wrote:
Budikka wrote:
david ford wrote:
Are you able to refute that "*****"?
Or is snipping the best you can do?
I refuted enough to show it was *****. It's not worth more time
than that. Now about that debate you ran away from....
You're the one that asked for a definition of the biblical 'kind,' I
supplied what you asked for, and then you totally snipped what I
supplied. You're the person "that... ran away from" "that debate."
Do you consider the textbook claims seen below of the
[Scott]"celebrated author" to be "*****"?
Scott, Andrew. 1986. _The Creation of Life: Past, Future,
Alien_ (Basil Blackwell), 211pp. Paragraphs on 89-90:
Despite the fact that scoring points like this is an
imprecise little game, it does serve to illustrate a major
gulf which remains to be bridged if we are to provide a
satisfactory explanation for the way in which molecules
could have given rise to mankind. It is a gulf presented
by the origin of the first replicators and the origin of the
gene-protein link. Scientists interested in the origins of
life are well aware of this gulf-- they think and talk and
write at great length about the problems of the origin of
replication and of the gene-protein link. Unfortunately,
little of their puzzlement percolates through (or is
allowed to percolate through) to the public at large, who
generally remain happy to believe that science knows
the answer to the mystery of the origin of life on earth.
Now that I have introduced you to the gulf separating
the facts from that fantasy, we should go to the edge and
look into it.
*Replicators, replicators...*
What has actually been achieved by the many attempts
to re-create the formation of the first replicators--
assuming for the moment that they were composed of
nucleic acids or something very similar.[sic] Sadly,
very little has been achieved. Many introductory
biology texts will confidently tell you that simple
nucleic acids have been shown to form and replicate
themselves under prebiotic conditions, but such reports
are simply wrong.
When challenged on this point, one celebrated author
agreed with me that his confident assertion that
under conditions resembling those on the prebiotic
earth simple organic molecules actually form from
elementary constituents ... and assemble
themselves into self-replicating nucleic acids which
mutate and are altered in frequency by natural
selection, all in the laboratory.
was completely mistaken. Endless similar assertions
can be found throughout the literature of biology. They
are all based on a great exaggeration of, and often
misunderstanding of, the little that actually has been
achieved. I can only presume that such false dogmatic
assertions themselves become replicated, from textbook
to textbook, because the authors so dearly want to
believe that they are true.
On 90:
Getting bases, sugars and phosphate groups to join
together into nucleotides, _under plausible prebiotic
conditions_, has itself proved extremely difficult.
....
The problem with this [just-described] neat idea, as with
so many 'plausible' proposals about the origins of life, is
that so far nobody has been able to get it to work under
reasonable prebiotic conditions.
Paragraphs on 93:
I am not trying to convince you that the spontaneous
origin of self-replicating nucleic acids on earth must
have been impossible-- it may have happened just as so
many of the textbooks suppose; but as yet there is no
hard experimental evidence to back that supposition up.
The lesson provided so far by the many attempts to get
nucleic acids to form and replicate spontaneously, is that
it may be a very difficult process to get going.
In some ways the attempts to re-create the process so far
provide good evidence _against_ the idea of the
spontaneous origin of self-replicating nucleic acids; and
yet they are frequently presented as providing
'incomplete but significant' evidence supporting that
idea. Most scientists assume that the failure experienced
to date simply tells us that we have not yet hit on the
right system, or the right conditions; or that they simply
cannot be expected to re-create in a few weeks in a
laboratory chemical processes that perhaps took millions
of years. One or all of these excuses may well be valid,
but it must also be possible that they have failed because
they have been trying to re-create something which did
not happen, and never could have.
You'll note that this is an excerpt from twenty years ago.
Interestingly, some work has been accomplished since then. :)
Such as that discussed in
A 1999 "abiogenesis" paper
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=7kh4g1%244jn%241%40alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu
A more recent biology book (see, for example, Freeman, Biological
Science, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall) notes *recent* research where a number
of these "missing links" have been found. In fact, polymerization does
happen quite readily in the presence of the right catalysts, which were
admittedly missing in the initial "prebiotic soup" experiments but were
abundant in nature.
"polymerization" of what?
What are these "right catalysts"?
"were abundant in nature" when?
Well, if you would like to read the first several chapters of Freeman,
that is fleshed out for you.
I don't have "the first several chapters of Freeman," while you
apparently do, plus you brought it up.
"polymerization" of what?
What are these "right catalysts"?
"were abundant in nature" when?
Dyson, Freeman. 1999. _Origins of Life_, revised edition
(Cambridge University Press), 100pp. On 25-26:
And finally, the correctly formed nucleotides are
unstable in solution and tend to hydrolyze back into
their components. We cannot assume that nucleotides
continued to accumulate in primitive ponds for
thousands of years. The rate of synthesis of nucleotides
must be high to keep pace with the rate of hydrolysis.
The nucleotides in our bodies are stable only because
they are packaged in double helices that protect them
from hydrolysis. The nucleotides on the primitive earth
would have been rare birds, difficult to synthesize and
easy to dissociate. Nobody has yet discovered a way to
make them out of their components rapidly enough so
that they would have a reasonable chance of finding
each other and combining into stable helices before they
hydrolyzed.
The results of thirty years of intensive chemical
experimentation have shown that the prebiotic synthesis
of amino acids is easy to simulate in a reducing
environment, but the prebiotic synthesis of nucleotides
is difficult in all environments. We cannot say that the
prebiotic synthesis of nucleotides is impossible. We
know only that, if it happened, it happened by some
process that none of [our? I hole-punched a short word
out] chemists has been clever enough to reproduce.
See especially the importance of mud as a catalyst
for the condensation reactions required for long-chain polymerization.
This is not to say that all "missing links" have been found. So then
the question becomes, does a theory only get taught when all the
missing links have been found?
Where are we talking about--
the U.S.?
the atheocracy of China?
I'm sorry, what does political structure have to do with it?
Different countries have different things taught in them.
Where are we talking about--
the U.S.?
atheocratic China?
Pennsylvania?
Are you talking about a particular "theory"? If so, what's it called--
the blindwatchmaker theory?
the seeingwatchmaker/ intelligent design theory?
the theory of spontaneous generation?
I'm not sure why it needs labels. There are names of people who have
contributed significantly to the advancements. Would that help make it
more concrete for you?
Yes: what are some of the "names of people who have contributed
significantly to" the theories you spoke of?
Belief in spontaneous generation, blindwatchmaking, and mental
spoon-bending is scientific.
By what standards?
The best: mine.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401291120.41a6d843%40posting.google.com
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith, 1986 Andrew Scott, 1999 Freeman Dyson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33bltcF3rgbovU1%40individual.net
What exactly is the "Theory of Evolutioon"?
Is it described in Sagan's above remarks?
If so, it's accepted by a miniscule 9% of the American public.
There was a time not so long ago when special relativity was accepted
by a miniscule (<<1%) percentage of the American public.
How "long ago"?
Say, 1906.
How come "special relativity was accepted by a miniscule (<<1%)
percentage of the American public" in "1906"?
Is it your
contention that there should be a popular concensus about a theory
before it is taught in schools? What is the basis for that policy?
"popular concensus" is worthless.
Secularist judges, not popularly-elected school board members, should
decide what does and what doesn't get taught in taxpayer-supported
schools.
Why on earth should judges decide what gets taught in schools?
Because they are the final arbiters of disputes.
I can
understand why judges should decide what should be taught in *law
school*, because -- after all -- they are experts on law. But I would
think that experts in the subject area, science in this case, would be
the ones to determine what gets taught in that subject area. The reason
why schools are taxpayer-supported is an (approximately) equitable
sharing of resources, not because we place the trust in government
officials to determine what content should be taught. Quite the
opposite.
_I_ "place... trust in government officials"-- specifically secularist
judges-- "to determine what content should be taught."
What matters is what elite judges having a secular religion say.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3aenpiF69fl4rU1%40individual.net
Would it have been your position that in the Middle Ages, only a
flat-earth model should be taught in schools because only a minority of
the European population believed otherwise?
I decline to answer: there are enough things from current times to use
as examples for discussion purposes.
OK, would it have been your position that today, only classical
mechanics and not quantum mechanics should be taught in schools because
only a minority of the American population believe in quantum
mechanics? (Despite the fact that quantum mechanics is instrumental to
the operation of the computer you're using at this instant.)
"only a minority of the American population believe in quantum
mechanics"
Ref?
What percentage of the adult "American population" have reviewed the
experimental evidence for QM?
A mere 9% of the American public accepts this claim:
[Sagan]"human beings (and all the other species) have slowly evolved by
natural processes from a succession of more ancient beings with no
divine intervention needed along the way."
Therefore, secularist judges need to decree that this Sagan view be
taught in taxpayer-supported schools, and overrule any disagreeing
taxpayer-elected school boards.
Neither judges nor politicians are in a position to evaluate scientific
content.
Both "judges" and "politicians are in a position to evaluate scientific
content," provided that atheism-adherents such as Sagan, Dawkins,
Dennett, Pinker, and Singer inform them of what the truth is.
Sagan, Carl. 1996. _The Demon-Haunted World: Science
as a Candle in the Dark_ (New York: Random House), 327.
Cited in Phillip E. Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism by
Opening Minds_ (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 131pp.,
47.
I meet many people who are offended by evolution, who
passionately prefer to be the personal handicraft of God
than to arise by blind physical and chemical forces over
aeons from slime. They also tend to be less than
assiduous in exposing themselves to the evidence.
Evidence has little to do with it. What they wish to be
true, they believe is true. Only nine percent of
Americans accept the central finding of modern biology
that human beings (and all the other species) have
slowly evolved by natural processes from a succession
of more ancient beings with no divine intervention
needed along the way.
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking
Views
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Why isn't the easily observable evolution of bacteria and virusesevidence enough for skeptics? |
03 Nov 2005 02:43:12 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
PD wrote:
david ford wrote:
PD wrote:
david ford wrote:
Budikka wrote:
david ford wrote:
Are you able to refute that "*****"?
Or is snipping the best you can do?
I refuted enough to show it was *****. It's not worth more time
than that. Now about that debate you ran away from....
You're the one that asked for a definition of the biblical 'kind,' I
supplied what you asked for, and then you totally snipped what I
supplied. You're the person "that... ran away from" "that debate."
Do you consider the textbook claims seen below of the
[Scott]"celebrated author" to be "*****"?
Scott, Andrew. 1986. _The Creation of Life: Past, Future,
Alien_ (Basil Blackwell), 211pp. Paragraphs on 89-90:
Despite the fact that scoring points like this is an
imprecise little game, it does serve to illustrate a major
gulf which remains to be bridged if we are to provide a
satisfactory explanation for the way in which molecules
could have given rise to mankind. It is a gulf presented
by the origin of the first replicators and the origin of the
gene-protein link. Scientists interested in the origins of
life are well aware of this gulf-- they think and talk and
write at great length about the problems of the origin of
replication and of the gene-protein link. Unfortunately,
little of their puzzlement percolates through (or is
allowed to percolate through) to the public at large, who
generally remain happy to believe that science knows
the answer to the mystery of the origin of life on earth.
Now that I have introduced you to the gulf separating
the facts from that fantasy, we should go to the edge and
look into it.
*Replicators, replicators...*
What has actually been achieved by the many attempts
to re-create the formation of the first replicators--
assuming for the moment that they were composed of
nucleic acids or something very similar.[sic] Sadly,
very little has been achieved. Many introductory
biology texts will confidently tell you that simple
nucleic acids have been shown to form and replicate
themselves under prebiotic conditions, but such reports
are simply wrong.
When challenged on this point, one celebrated author
agreed with me that his confident assertion that
under conditions resembling those on the prebiotic
earth simple organic molecules actually form from
elementary constituents ... and assemble
themselves into self-replicating nucleic acids which
mutate and are altered in frequency by natural
selection, all in the laboratory.
was completely mistaken. Endless similar assertions
can be found throughout the literature of biology. They
are all based on a great exaggeration of, and often
misunderstanding of, the little that actually has been
achieved. I can only presume that such false dogmatic
assertions themselves become replicated, from textbook
to textbook, because the authors so dearly want to
believe that they are true.
On 90:
Getting bases, sugars and phosphate groups to join
together into nucleotides, _under plausible prebiotic
conditions_, has itself proved extremely difficult.
....
The problem with this [just-described] neat idea, as with
so many 'plausible' proposals about the origins of life, is
that so far nobody has been able to get it to work under
reasonable prebiotic conditions.
Paragraphs on 93:
I am not trying to convince you that the spontaneous
origin of self-replicating nucleic acids on earth must
have been impossible-- it may have happened just as so
many of the textbooks suppose; but as yet there is no
hard experimental evidence to back that supposition up.
The lesson provided so far by the many attempts to get
nucleic acids to form and replicate spontaneously, is that
it may be a very difficult process to get going.
In some ways the attempts to re-create the process so far
provide good evidence _against_ the idea of the
spontaneous origin of self-replicating nucleic acids; and
yet they are frequently presented as providing
'incomplete but significant' evidence supporting that
idea. Most scientists assume that the failure experienced
to date simply tells us that we have not yet hit on the
right system, or the right conditions; or that they simply
cannot be expected to re-create in a few weeks in a
laboratory chemical processes that perhaps took millions
of years. One or all of these excuses may well be valid,
but it must also be possible that they have failed because
they have been trying to re-create something which did
not happen, and never could have.
You'll note that this is an excerpt from twenty years ago.
Interestingly, some work has been accomplished since th | | | | | | | | | |
