“As a scientist, I’d like to say that the currently accepted scientific theory is evolution. But, some competing ideas have been proposed, such as ID and FSMism, and discussion to include one should include the other, as these ideas are equally valid.“
– Mark Zurbuchen, Ph.D.
“As a medical practitioner and scientist, I wholeheartedly believe that every theory and hypothesis needs full consideration and explanation with formal ratification by peer review. We have a duty to inform our schools and presumably pasta should form a staple part of our educational diet.“
– Dr. A. Macintyre (UK)
“Letting the religious right teach ID in schools is like letting the Marines teach poetry in advanced combat training. As a scientist, I see these the relevancy between the two sets to be equal. If Kansas is going to mess up like this, the least it can do is not be hypocritical and allow equal time for other alternative “theories” like FSMism, which is by far the tastier choice.”
– J. Simon, PhD
“One of the hardest things to do as a scientist is to put my personal beliefs aside when discussing matters of science. So as a professional, I have to say that both forms of Intelligent Design - ID and ID-FSM are equally valid and if intelligent design is taught in schools, equal time should be given to the FSM theory and the non-FSM theory. But, speaking personally now, it seems to me the FSM theory is MUCH more plausable than the non-FSM ID theory, because it is the only one of the two that takes into account all the discrepancies between ID and measureable objective reality.”
– Professor Douglas Shaw, Ph.D
“In discussing competing theories, if one is to present ID then it is only fair and logical to teach other theories with commensurate evidence. Based on Mr. Henderson’s letter, it is clear that the FSM theory has evidence comparable in weight to ID. As a scientist and professor, it is often difficult to present differing opinions in an unbiased way. However, it is important to the student to be exposed to these ideas to form their own opinions. This comes right out of the handbook of the ID purporters: present the different “theories” and let the listener decide. If those in favor of ID are so convinced, then they should not be concerned that the presentation of the FSM theory would serve to undermine the credibility of ID. “
– Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer, PhD
“At one time, I believed as the Aztecs did, that the universe was created by two gods, Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca who attacked and ripped apart Hungry Woman to create the universe. Then I believed, as the Moriori do, that the universe was created when Papa and her husband Rangi hugged and bore children, and were subsequently separated by their son Tane who let light shine between them. However, my views have been swayed by the substantial evidence that the earth and universe was actually created relatively recently by the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM). I am firmly convinced that the evidence supporting this depiction of the origins of life, the universe, and everything has many of the trappings of science, and I therefore support the inclusion of FSM creation evidence in the Kansas science curriculum and standards.“
– Sebastian Wren, Ph.D
“ One of the most exciting developments in fundamental physics in the last twenty years has been the development of so-called “String Theory.” In String Theory, all fundamental sub-atomic particles are visualized and described mathematically as microscopic vibrating strings. Although as yet unproven, many physicists believe that String Theory has the potential to become the long-sought “Theory of Everything,” through which the fundamental physical nature of all matter and forces will become understood.
Obviously String Theory IS correct, although misnamed (a secular humanist conspiracy perhaps?). As NOODLE Theory clearly unambiguously reveals, He has created the fundamental subatomic particles that form all matter in this universe in His own quivering image! You, me, the Earth, the stars…everything in the universe…are all built of trillions of tiny jiggling noodles, microscopic copies of our Divine Saucy Maker. Truly He is everywhere and in all things!
Boy-oh-Boyardi and Ramen!“
–Steve Lawrence, PhD
“As a scientist I believe that when presented with a new idea every possibility should be considered so we can eventually find the truth. It would be very biased if the only possibilities presented would be regulated by some authority. As a scientist I am biased towards the theory of evolution, but this does not mean that everyone should be forced to only learn this and believe this. Putting this aside, I feel if the government feels the need to regulate what students need to learn, then all ideas should be taught in school. Not only Intelligent Design (ID) should be taught, but the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) should also be taught. In my scientific opinion when comparing the two theories, FSM theory seems to be more valid then the classic ID theory. There is more data to back FSM then I have ever seen for ID. The graph which was presented should alone more convincing then anything ID has ever presented. I endorse the FSM theory.“
–Afshin Beheshti, PhD
“As a scienctist, I think that ID is a form of pseudoscience–nothing more, nothing less. Pseudosciences lack the well-designed and carefully-interpreted experiments which characterize the true sciences. ID is popular because it provides the general public with an easily understood “answer” to nature’s complexity. Why is it human nature to try to fill the gaps in science with some form of a deity? Nobel laureate Richard Feynman, in his response the Challenger disaster, wrote, “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.” It is too bad that many in the USA have fallen into the ID trap, and are making emotional rather than logical decisions.
That being said, and the more I consider ID and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) theory, the FSM theory has a lot going for it. First, it should satisfy even the most ardent ID detractors. Secondly, since everyone needs to eat and to believe in something, the FSM theory fulfills these desires. Finally, FSM neatly ties together the many ideas about the creation of the universe. I plan on exposing my students to the FSM theory over a pasta dinner. “
–Elizabeth Cowles, PhD
Continue to Academic Endorsements - page 2
# 949
“DNA is the information on how to exactly replicate any given life form. This is information correct? ”
First up, let’s be clear on the way you are defining your terms, a fundamental pre-requisite in genuine scientific discussion :) I’m assuming you mean functional DNA as opposed to “junk” DNA right?
Junk in Your Genome
Transposable Elements: (44% junk)*
DNA transposons: 3%
retrotransposons: 8%
L1 LINES: 16%
other LINES: 4%
SINES: 13%
Pseudogenes (from protein-encoding genes): 1.2% junk
Ribosomal RNA genes: essential 0.05% junk 0.09%
Protein-encoding genes:
transcribed region: essential 1.8% junk (not included above) 7.4%
regulatory sequences: essential 0.6%
Repetitive DNA
α satellite DNA (centromeres)
essential 2.0%
non-essential 1.0%%
telomeres
essential (
Let’s have everybody read Southern Ptarmigan’s comment at the bottom of the comment section of this link. We’ll see that at least some Christian Evangelists have their act together. If we can get a few more of our hate mailers and uneducated trolls to read this, it may make our work easier:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=letters-may-2009&sc=DD_20090508
RAmen
@ RSW
#945-946
I think you for your apology, but it, and your claims of having read my post carefully, would carry more weight if you had not followed it with a post that ignored my post completely. I used the USSR as a specific example of a regime that killed because it was nationalistic not because it was secular, and you ignored that entirely. If you are free to claim that the people killed by the USSR were killed by Atheism, we are free to claim that anyone killed by any non-secular nation were killed by religion - this would include the Roman Empire (before and after Constantine), all of Europe until basically this past century, and the vast majority of the Middle East even now - sorry, but the numbers don’t add up in your favor.
#948
Once again, you bias manifests itself. First of all, not every religion has the same set of morals, nor are they interpreted constantly. For example, you cite slavery as an example of a behavior that may spring from Atheism because of some “majority rules” philosophy, when several religions (including Christianity) have been used to justify that behavior - this is the place where you claim that people who did this were not real Christians, but you are wrong - a Christian is anyone who is “a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity”, these people may have not been the same brand of Christian as you, but you cannot claim that they were not Christians anymore than I can claim that Stalin was not an Atheist (and if you had actually read my previous post, you would see that I never did that, even though he beliefs on many other matters were very different than mine).
You say that Bible teaches great morality because it teaches against rape, slavery, etc., but actually it tells people that it is better to offer your daughters up for rape to keep men from raping other men (like heterosexual rape is somehow better then homosexual rape, even though homosexual rape cannot produce illegitimate children) and that slaves should patiently endure their condition instead of rebelling. The fact is that morality from religion is just as foggy and subjective as morality from any other source, but with two added pitfalls: it encourages people to obey without question, so it is very difficult detect mistakes; and it makes people feel absolutely secure in their opinions, so it is very difficult to correct mistakes (e.g. it can’t be bad for me to beat my child, the Bible tells me it will spoil him if I don’t, and I don’t care what your stupid psychology studies say).
As for your example of why the Athenian view of morality through logic is incorrect, why does that very same argument not apply to every time a Christian society made a poor decision? What about the Catholic Church’s decision to cover up child molestation by Priests? I never said Atheism always leads to the best decision that can be made in a given situation, but the fact is that religion doesn’t either, with the two added pitfalls I mentioned earlier. Additionally, logic is not the only factor to take into consideration in a moral decision - empiricism is equally important. Does this behavior benefit society or harm it? We thought the logic was on our side, but oh wait, the rate of teenage suicide and sexually transmitted diseases have increased substantially, maybe it’s not a good idea to allow this behavior.
And that bring me to my next argument - I agree that Atheism means that morality is not absolute, but that dies not mean there is no morality. “Does this action, in this situation, hurt more people that it helps?” That is the kind of moral question an Atheist can ask his/herself instead of “Does God want me to do this?”. You say the only moral claims we atheists have against rape, murder, etc.. are that we, personally, don’t like it - you are incorrect. We can measure the rate of sexually transmitted diseases, the teen birth rate, and yes, ultimately, the average level on happiness and contentment in the people of the world; just because morality is not absolute, does not mean it cannot be objective.
It comes down to this: we, Pastafarians, are largely scientists. We like to test and measure things. When the measurements we come up with are different than what we expected, we have to be prepared to say that our expectations were wrong –this allows us to progressively get closer and closer to the truth. I’m not saying we don’t make mistakes, we’re humans, so of course we do, but we have a system in place to help us detect out mistakes, and hopefully correct them. A religion based purely on faith does not allow this – when the measurements (if they are even taken in the fist place) disagree with the expectations, the measurements need to be either ignored or explained away. You can argue all you want that you like it that way, that it makes you and others happy to live that way, but at the end of the day, that is not science, and we, as Pastafarians, do not like it because to us it means that any initially incorrect expectations cannot be corrected. Can’t you see why that would bother us?
Your posts on this thread began with supposed scientific evidence in favor of ID over evolution – this supposed evidence was examined and confronted with a mass of contradictory evidence, which you ignored. You then resorted to saying that Atheism does not allow for morality, in the process offending me and probably many others, – I answered this claim with evidence that it does (which you admit you already had because you supposedly have perfectly nice friends that are Atheists) and you ignored it. And you’re probably going to ignore the content of this post too – don’t you understand how weak this makes you position look? How paltry it makes your apology to me sound? I don’t think you intended to troll this thread, but that is exactly what you are doing. I’m sick of wasting my time on you – come back when you can actually discuss this subject intelligently.
Ramen,
Sarah
Arrgh…somehow I truncated my #951 post,here’s the rest of it..
Repetitive DNA
telomeres
essential (
OK, I see it was due to the “less than” signs soooo..
Junk in Your Genome (cont.)
telomeres
essential (less than 1000 kb, insignificant)
Total Essential (so far) 4.5%
Total Junk (so far) 54%
* A small percentage (less than 1%) of all transposable elements have acquired a function in the human genome.
(NB lifted from Biochemistry Professor, Larry Moran’s informative “Sandwalk” blog, but this info is given in most reputable biochem, molec bio, genetics and even biology textbooks)
—
“I am going to make a point based on this assumption, but lets deal with this assumption first and allow people to comment on this.”
Maybe wanting to throw in a bit of Dembski’s “CSI” gooblygook and perhaps try and steer everyone toward some creationist “information theory” ? Away from past failures? The water runs deep here RSW, and so far you haven’t proved yourself to be a very competent swimmer.
Information Theory and Creationism
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/dembski.html
By the way you still haven’t given us a reference as to where you you got the information for basing your repeated assertions that a basic life form is dependent on “200 odd proteins” coming “together by sheer luck.” Since that was the premise of your many repeated probability posts, you really need to provide a reference. Or will you now admit that all those posts were nothing more than ignorant handwaving?
You also claimed you read the Talk Origins links, but then failed to address any of the information and refutations given there?
RSW,
Nice to see that after asking for a comment on morality and evil you ignore posts directly answering you. Ethics? Altruism? Plenty of godless societies acting in moral or ethical ways through laws which are arrived at through civil discourse, not religious discourse? The logical conclusion that your assertion that godlessness = evil means that 99% of human history and a huge proportion of nations and people today are immoral? What of the hindrances religion has made upon civic progression (gay rights? women’s rights? etc.)? No answer? Or you don’t want to answer?
As an archaeologist I find your particular assertion repugnant and at odds with the diversity of human history. I have also learnt from my partner who is trained as a psychologist of numerous experiments concerning altruism (especially in children) and morals. I cannot help but note that your views seem to be very much at odds with a humanist ethic as well the human sciences.
Lastly I would add that your questions relate to origins of life rather than evolution. Here’s a quick wikipedia quote:
“In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time.”
Despite your honest attempts to make this a civil discussion (which I can very much appreciate), you are failing to acknowledge some very important and basic corrections. This tells me you are not in reality open to an honest debate.
I hope you read the link that Plumberbob has supplied, as it is a fine example of what someone who is both a skeptic and a christian is capable of - faith and reason. This is the kind of theologian which I doubt anyone here would have a problem with and who many agnostics and perhaps even atheists will actually respect. Another fine example of a theist who doesn’t automatically let his biases blind him is the social psychologist David G. Myers in his ‘A friendly letter to skeptics and atheists’. I consider myself an agnostic or default atheist and I at least could respect this author’s approach and would recommend it to other Atheists (and in fact fundamentalist Christians) looking for a moderate view from the other perspective. I wonder why you seem to refuse to read other rebuttals of ID from the secularist side such as Dawkins’ ‘The Blind Watchmaker’? You cannot claim objectivity when you insist on using tunnel vision.
Are you all filling out your creationist bingo cards?
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/09/bingo-creationi.html
RSW: I cringe every time some creationist comes up with the analogy of a rocket ship (in your case) or a stopwatch needing an inventor. Of course they do, because they are not alive and cannot procreate.
Every time I see an animal or plant, I don’t think “Only magic could have created this thing”! And that’s why ID is NOT science. You can’t pretend to trot out facts and statistics, then say “here’s where the miracle happened”!
P.S. RSW, what are the odds of seeing god make a miracle?
RSW (your posting # 949),
you wrote “Let me ask this question. At the core of self replicating life is DNA. DNA is the information on how to exactly replicate any given life form. This is information correct? as apposed to randomness. We only find this kind of information in the chemical world inside of life forms.”
Nope. All depends on what you wish to call “life”. In fact, we have, from most complex animal bodies to primitive bacterial cells to (lifeless?) viruses to selfish naked, yet infectious, RNA molecules nearly all stages of development from “primitive” naked nucleic acids - like viroids - to most complex cellular beings. As we have all evolutionary stages of the eye, another prominent argument from the creationists.
Please, take the time and google “viroids”!
I will have to slow down here guys and catch up on things. I am a little outnumbered here and there have been a lot of requests for things for me to read and comment on. I like all of you have a full docket, and now have quite a few articles that you have handed me to read. Like I said it will take me a while to read and give you a response. I do appreciate you taking the time to post the articles. I will try to get to them. Though I cannot promise to read every last one.
Nikkie, yes I do not hold a degree in science, if that helps you place my comments, that is fine. To answer your specific question about the 200 number it is an assumption of the data points needed to make up the DNA of a self replicating life form. If you think the assumption is wrong please feel free to comment on how many specific points of information need to be gathered into a DNA molecule of a simple life form. Apologies for not answering earlier. Lots of posts in between. I have been doing my best to keep up with things.
Regarding the moral discussion: Thanks again for all your posts. Let me try and clarify my point. And apologies if I don’t respond to every last point that others are making. I will try and respond in a general way.
Again backing up to the Dawkins statement that there is no such category as evil. Human behavior needs to be put through a different kind of Matrix in the Atheistic world view. Is this not correct? Not a religious one of I have a revealed set of laws from God. Laws that if I transgress I should feel guilt and remorse for and that God will ultimately punish me for. Rather in a system that we do not have God revealed Laws, I will face no final judge, nor do I need to feel guilt or shame for my behavior unless I feel that I should.
In a system without a God people can and have come up with some good laws to follow, as well as some bad laws to follow. Therefore there are atheists that live in ways that a Christian would consider akin to his system.
The point that I am making is that we are using different criteria and should like use different terms to describe these systems. Dawkins is throwing out the evil category. Therefore the gang rapists who as a group decided that rape was OK (not to say that atheists do this, it is just an ethical delema) A Christian would say that their behavior was evil, and that they should feel guilt and face justice. A atheist cannot say this was evil, They could say that this behavior violates their standards or standards for behavior of the majority of society. And then set up some sort of deturent for this to happen, and perhaps try to rehabilitate this person into your standards. There could be reparations for damages as well. But you cannot appeal to rapist and say that this was evil, or that they should feel guilt or shame for what they had done. All you can say that their behavior did not fit the standards of society, therefore it is considered abnormal and undesirable. We should not teach our children, stop that is wrong! We should say stop that it is abnormal, and not to societal standards!
They two different ways of describing and interacting with human behavior. Based on two totally different standards.
Something else I want to flag..
@949 RSW Says:
“DNA is the information on how to exactly replicate any given life form.”
RSW, you really should use alternative terminology as “exactly replicate” is misleading. In fact the infidelity of DNA replication contributes to DNA sequence/genome alterations.
From Molecular Biology of the Cell:
Genome Alterations are Caused by Failures of the Normal Mechanisms for Copying and Maintaining DNA
“…the mechanisms that maintain DNA sequences are remarkably precise—but they are not perfect. For example, because of the elaborate DNA-replication and DNA-repair mechanisms that enable DNA sequences to be inherited with extraordinary fidelity, only about one nucleotide pair in a thousand is randomly changed every 200,000 years. Even so, in a population of 10,000 individuals, every possible nucleotide substitution will have been “tried out” on about 50 occasions in the course of a million years—a short span of time in relation to the evolution of species.
Errors in DNA replication, DNA recombination, or DNA repair can lead either to simple changes in DNA sequence—such as the substitution of one base pair for another—or to large-scale genome rearrangements such as deletions, duplications, inversions, and translocations of DNA from one chromosome to another. It has been argued that the rates of occurrence of these mistakes have themselves been shaped by evolutionary processes to provide an acceptable balance between genome stability and change.
In addition to failures of the replication and repair machinery, the various mobile DNA elements described in Chapter 5 are an important source of genomic change. In particular, transposable DNA elements (transposons) play a major part as parasitic DNA sequences that colonize a genome and can spread within it. In the process, they often disrupt the function or alter the regulation of existing genes; and sometimes they even create altogether novel genes through fusions between transposon sequences and segments of existing genes. Examples of the three major classes of transposons were presented in Table 5-3, p. 287. Over long periods of evolutionary time, these transposons have profoundly affected the structure of genomes.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?highlight=Tree,Life,Genomes,Diversity&rid=mboc4.section.1402#1417
You’ll also find some information on the divergence of human and chimpanzee genomes (referred to in your post at #934) in the very next section: The Genome Sequences of Two Species Differ in Proportion to the Length of Time That They Have Separately Evolved.
Cheers
“The Genome Sequences of Two Species Differ in Proportion to the Length of Time That They Have Separately Evolved.”
Sorry, I meant the section following that one:
The Chromosomes of Humans and Chimpanzees Are Very Similar
@ Noodilicious,
Fantastic! I call BINGO!
@955 - May 10th, 2009 at - Wench Nikkiee Says:
“Maybe wanting to throw in a bit of Dembski’s “CSI” gooblygook and perhaps try and steer everyone toward some creationist “information theory””
By the Sauce of His Noodly Appendage! My pit stop here was no doubt guided by divine intervention by His Holy Prominent Protrusions. I have just now come from Mark Cu Carrol’s Good Math Bad Math blog, after reading an astute rebuttal of Dembski’s latest attempt (an echo of past attempts) to bastardize Information Theory. His latest “paper ” simply repeats for the umpteenth time, (of course ignoring all past contrary, evidence based rebuttals and commentaries), his ineffectual efforts to force a shotgun marriage of Information Theory to his IDiot Design pseudoscience.
As Mark Cu Carrol points out in his, “Dembski’s Latest: “Life’s Conservation Law”, and why it’s stupid”, post at
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2009/05/_so_william_dembski_the.php
“The whole paper is an exercise in circularity. There’s nothing there - which is why this isn’t a paper in a mathematical journal; instead, it’s just a chapter in one of Bill Dembski’s vanity publications.”
RAmen
RSW you should find time to read that post and the following informed comments. Most of your posts do sound like an uncomprehending parroting of the Dr.Dr.Dr. Dembski.
It takes two to tango the Bee dance. Dawkins explains a theory of how the Bee dance came about. He does so in typical serve it up to the masses fashion with big gestures of the hands, and generalizations. Not explain how this behavior chemically happened as it would have to be programmed on a molecular level, one needs to break this down into line by line bits of code. One need to come up with how each line of code is selectable and if it can be done only one line of code at at time, else it would betray a designer. However, the problem is deeper than that, he forgets it takes two to do the bee tango. If there is a code that has been evolved that corresponds to the flight the bee just took, then the de-coding behavior would have to evolve previously. Ergo, one of the two behaviors would be not selectable as it has no function. If the dance behavior evolved in the bee dancer, as is suggested. It also needs to have evolved the decoding sequence of the observing bee. It is a catch 22 the one does not work without the other. What is more what is the chance that random blind mutations would code such behavior as to lead a bee within 1 meter of the place where the dancing bee found the nectar? How can blind chance make up a meaningful code? What is more how can blind chance mutations decode a code that it is blind to see? A real conundrum.
Programming is a complex process. One begins to understand several factors. First you need a programing language. You cannot simply give programming instructions to something and expect it to understand things. This becomes an issue when thinking about evolutionary processes, epecially instructions for using muscular actions, and particularly instincts that we see in the natural world. Many biological apparatus need programming in order to operate. One can foresee some aparati not needing programming in order to work they just run in infinite loop. But if something like a fin that is used to direct an organism evolves that organism needs the programing to use it, as it has multi variables involved not just constant on. The orgnism needs programing in order to properly opperate such an apperatus. If it developes prior to the appeatus than why would natural selection select programming to run something that is not there? If the fin appears but is inoperable why select it? If a proto-eye develops and is light sensitive. It produces data, but if the organism does not have a corresponding program to interpret the data the new devise is useless. There are many such things that function in pairs of apperatus and instinctual programming to use it. What good are legs without a program to use them?
The chicken and the egg.
A chicken must move it’s eggs 3 times a day else they won’t hatch. Which came first the chicken behavior or the eggs? If the behavior came first what would cause it to be selected if it were just a mere random behavior?
Philosophy and Morality
Nature [or reality for that matter] is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel or kind, but simply callous—indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose. …
When the obsession with purpose becomes pathalogical and it is called paranoia—reading malevolent purpose into what is actually random bad luck.
Richard Dawkins (River out of Eden, page 96)
In summation of page 97 of River out of Eden. There is no question of “why” in the modernest Darwinian world only, cold hard facts without any purpose or reasons. Purpose or reasons for things are mere sentimentalities.
So why do you care if I don’t believe in evolution? Why should you care? Why should Dawkins even write this if he really believes it. Who cares? “Why” is meaningless. Evolution is meaningless Creation is menaingless. This conversation is meaningless. Why should we even talk if you believe what Dawkins has to say? What have any of you to say to contribute to ultimate philsophical meaning if you do not believe in meaningfulness!
Even to answer this objection would be to give it significance and to therefore deny your premise that things are meaningless.
From the Talk Origins site My comments:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
If the odds are not so high why haven’t they produced life in a test tube, we could set up thousands and thousands of pounds of amino acids and make up for lost time with millions of tons of the stuff and see if it works?
Claim CC201:
If evolution proceeds via the accumulation of small steps, we should see a smooth continuum of creatures across the fossil record. Instead, we see long periods where species do not change, and there are gaps between the changes.
This is a very week argument and explanation. Fossils are hard to make, they get destroyed ect. We don’t see living micro-transitional forms today.
We will accept this, but as a result should not you back off your dogmatism that these things are science fact since they are not observable? Should you not just state clearly that most transitional forms are merely theoretical in nature and have yet to be observed in any great abundance. If you cannot produce the evidence, why are you making statements of fact. If we say there are very few observable transitional forms in the fossile record this is a fact. This article backs that up.
Claim CB200.1.1: Flagellum argument
Evolutionists propose that irreducibly complex systems can arise by co-option of parts from other existing systems. But approximately thirty of the proteins needed for the bacterial flagellum are unique to it; closely similar proteins are not found in other living systems. Thus, there is apparently no place they could have been co-opted from.
The claim is simply false. Of the twenty proteins in the archetypal Salmonella bacterial flagellum which appear to be required in all bacterial flagella, only two have no known homologies, that is, are “unique”. It is at least plausible that homologies for those will be discovered later. At least nine flagellar proteins are homologous to proteins of the Type-III secretion system (T3SS), suggesting the two evolved from a common ancestor. Regardless, the existence of many homologous proteins shows that the parts of the flagellum can function for purposes other than motility (Pallen and Matzke 2006).
My response: It would be equally plausible that no homologies will be discovered and the original point valid that it has components and more than one that are uniuque to it.
What is more Nature Reviews Microbiology Article states:
“the flagellum community has scarcely began to research how these systems have evolved.” How then can someone claim that this system has definitly evolved? Is this not premature? Additionally, homologous proteins, are proteins that some portions of the amino acid sequence in common, that might, but not necessarily show common decent. Not they are not identical proteins, just similar. The nature article goes on to state: 11 of 38 parts were non homologous and 12 parts were essential to the function of the system. Irregardless if there are 2 or 11 non-homologous proteins this is still 2 proteins that demonstrate a problem. The pieces that I read, again were theoretical models not observable fact. At best we can say that there is a theoretical model that we think explains the emergence of flagella. This theory is still developing and has flaws. It is by no means a “proof” any more than our theory that this is irreducibly complex. We still have legs to stand on with our theory.
Abiogenesis Problems
“The genetic annealing model does not (now) account satisfactorily for the large number of metabolic genes that are shared by the Archaea and Bacteria but not found in the eukaryotes.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/95/12/6854.full
When we get quotes like this from the papers used to “prove beyond the shadow of a doubt” that abiogenesis is possible. I think that this language like it is a fact, is too strong. Perhaps we should say we can make a hypothetical case how abiogenesis might happen, but even our hypothesis at this point has many details that need to be worked out.
I think that the premise that abiogenesis by chance and not by design at this point is far from a forgone conclusion. Indeed, it can never fully be proven, as it was a historical event that happened and is no longer observable. Even if we were able to reproduce these things in a lab, we would only be showing that intelligent beings that already have the answers to the test can figure out what the questions might have been. We do not prove that this was the historical event that happened. We cannot prove, earth conditions or assumptions that were made in order to produce results.
The hypothetical life forms that are suggested as our ancestors in these articles are theoretical beings. Like life on Mars or the moon titan. We can treat them respectfully as one’s attempt to explain a past event but, at this point we should be cautious about making dogmatic claims based on these articles.
In fact my assumption of 200! was a generous one even according to this article. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#r4 They do make the point that this is not a fair representation of their theory. This is fair enough, their theory is more probable than my 200! theory. However their theory is based on assumptions of it’s own, intelligent guesses, indeed backed up with articles and thinking, but never the less, is quite some distance from a certainty. I think that this article does back up my claim that if these (to use there own language) hypothetical UR cells do not exist then abiogenisis is statistically impossible. Unfortunately I don’t think it is possible to even produce a fossil of these hypothetical cells for evidence. We cannot at this point even test to see if this hypothetical cell is even possible, nor do we know for sure under what conditions we should test the hypothesis. Man cannot even synthetically produce one for testing at this point. If our intelligence cannot come up with it. How is random chance to do the job? I don’t think that my claims are beyond the pale of reasonable. I respect your right to have theories, and to explore them. I would ask that you would label them as such—theories. You may chose to do the same with my theories. Even the title of the article “lies damn lies” is a bit inflammatory. Let’s use more accurate language when describing our theories, and just how well baked they are.
Those are my thoughts on a few articles and a few bonus things I threw in. I am sorry if I cannot respond to all of your comments. I do appreciate them and I do hope that you enjoy dialoging with one another, in my absence for a while. It has been quite time consuming making these comments and researching them to this very modest point. I will check in in about a week.
It takes two to tango the Bee dance. Dawkins explains a theory of how the Bee dance came about. He does so in typical serve it up to the masses fashion with big gestures of the hands, and generalizations. Not explain how this behavior chemically happened as it would have to be programmed on a molecular level, one needs to break this down into line by line bits of code. One need to come up with how each line of code is selectable and if it can be done only one line of code at at time, else it would betray a designer. However, the problem is deeper than that, he forgets it takes two to do the bee tango. If there is a code that has been evolved that corresponds to the flight the bee just took, then the de-coding behavior would have to evolve previously. Ergo, one of the two behaviors would be not selectable as it has no function. If the dance behavior evolved in the bee dancer, as is suggested. It also needs to have evolved the decoding sequence of the observing bee. It is a catch 22 the one does not work without the other. The task is further exacerbated by the colony nature of the bee. The individual that does the dance is not the one mating with the queen, nor is the de-coder for that matter. So, their mutated genes die with him. If the drone that was mating with the queen had the gene why would it be selected in the first place? It has no advantage for him to dance for the queen. What is more what is the chance that random blind mutations would code such behavior as to lead a bee within 1 meter of the place where the dancing bee found the nectar? How can blind chance make up a meaningful code? What is more how can blind chance mutations decode a code that it is blind to see? A real conundrum.
Programming is a complex process. One begins to understand several factors. First you need a programing language. You cannot simply give programming instructions to something and expect it to understand things. This becomes an issue when thinking about evolutionary processes, epecially instructions for using muscular actions, and particularly instincts that we see in the natural world. Many biological apparatus need programming in order to operate. One can foresee some aparati not needing programming in order to work they just run in infinite loop. But if something like a fin that is used to direct an organism evolves that organism needs the programing to use it, as it has multi variables involved not just constant on. The orgnism needs programing in order to properly opperate such an apperatus. If it developes prior to the appeatus than why would natural selection select programming to run something that is not there? If the fin appears but is inoperable why select it? If a proto, eye develops and is light sensitive. It produces data, but if the organism does not have a corresponding program to interpret the data the new devise is useless. There are many such things that function in pairs of apperatus and instinctual programming to use it. What good are legs without a program to use them?
The chicken and the egg.
A chicken must move it’s eggs 3 times a day else they won’t hatch. Which came first the chicken behavior or the eggs? If the behavior came first what would cause it to be selected if it were just a mere random behavior?
Philosophy and Morality
Nature [or reality for that matter] is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel or kind, but simply callous—indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose. …
When the obsession with purpose becomes pathalogical and it is called paranoia—reading malevolent purpose into what is actually random bad luck.
Richard Dawkins (River out of Eden, page 96)
In summation of page 97 of River out of Eden. There is no question of “why” in the modernest Darwinian world only, cold hard facts without any purpose or reasons. Purpose or reasons for things are mere sentimentalities.
So why do you care if I don’t believe in evolution? Why should you care? Why should Dawkins even write this if he really believes it. Who cares? “Why” is meaningless. Evolution is meaningless. This conversation is meaningless. Why should we even talk if you believe what Dawkins has to say? What have any of you to say to contribute to ultimate philsophical meaning if you do not believe in meaningfulness!
From the Talk Origins site My comments:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
If the odds are not so high why haven’t they produced life in a test tube?
Claim CC201:
If evolution proceeds via the accumulation of small steps, we should see a smooth continuum of creatures across the fossil record. Instead, we see long periods where species do not change, and there are gaps between the changes.
This is a very week argument and explanation. Fossils are hard to make, they get destroyed ect. We don’t see living micro-transitional forms today.
We will accept this, but as a result should not we back off our dogmatism that these things are science fact since they are not observable? Should we not just state clearly that most transitional forms are merely theoretical in nature and have yet to be observed in any great abundance. If you cannot produce the evidence, why are you making statements of fact. If we say there are very few observable transitional forms in the fossile record this is a fact. This article backs that up.
Claim CB200.1.1: Flagellum argument
Evolutionists propose that irreducibly complex systems can arise by co-option of parts from other existing systems. But approximately thirty of the proteins needed for the bacterial flagellum are unique to it; closely similar proteins are not found in other living systems. Thus, there is apparently no place they could have been co-opted from.
The claim is simply false. Of the twenty proteins in the archetypal Salmonella bacterial flagellum which appear to be required in all bacterial flagella, only two have no known homologies, that is, are “unique”. It is at least plausible that homologies for those will be discovered later. At least nine flagellar proteins are homologous to proteins of the Type-III secretion system (T3SS), suggesting the two evolved from a common ancestor. Regardless, the existence of many homologous proteins shows that the parts of the flagellum can function for purposes other than motility (Pallen and Matzke 2006).
My response: It would be equally plausible that no homologies will be discovered and the original point valid that it has components and more than one that are uniuque to it.
What is more Nature Reviews Microbiology Article states:
“the flagellum community has scarcely began to research how these systems have evolved.” How then can someone claim that this system has definitly evolved? Is this not premature? Additionally, homologous proteins, are proteins that some portions of the amino acid sequence in common, that might, but not necessarily show common decent. Not they are not identical proteins, just similar. The nature article goes on to state: 11 of 38 parts were non homologous and 12 parts were essential to the function of the system. Irregardless if there are 2 or 11 non-homologous proteins this is still 2 proteins that demonstrate a problem. The pieces that I read, again were theoretical models not observable fact. At best we can say that there is a theoretical model that we think explains the emergence of flagella. This theory is still developing and has flaws. It is by no means a “proof” any more than our theory that this is irreducibly complex. We still have legs to stand on with our theory.
Abiogenesis Problems
“The genetic annealing model does not (now) account satisfactorily for the large number of metabolic genes that are shared by the Archaea and Bacteria but not found in the eukaryotes.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/95/12/6854.full
When we get quotes like this from the papers used to “prove beyond the shadow of a doubt” that abiogenesis is possible. I think that this language like it is a fact, is too strong. Perhaps we should say we can make a hypothetical case how abiogenesis might happen, but even our hypothesis at this point has many details that need to be worked out.
I think that the premise that abiogenesis by chance and not by design at this point is far from a forgone conclusion. Indeed, it can never fully be proven, as it was a historical event that happened and is no longer observable. Even if we were able to reproduce these things in a lab, we would only be showing that intelligent beings that already have the answers to the test can figure out what the questions might have been. We do not prove that this was the historical event that happened. We cannot prove, earth conditions or assumptions that were made in order to produce results.
The hypothetical life forms that are suggested as our ancestors in these articles are theoretical beings. Like life on Mars or the moon titan. We can treat them respectfully as one’s attempt to explain a past event but, at this point we should be cautious about making dogmatic claims based on these articles.
In fact my assumption of 200! was a generous one even according to this article. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#r4 They do make the point that this is not a fair representation of their theory. This is fair enough, their theory is more probable than my 200! theory. However their theory is based on assumptions of it’s own, intelligent guesses, indeed backed up with articles and thinking, but never the less, is quite some distance from a certainty. I think that this article does back up my claim that if these (to use there own language) hypothetical UR cells do not exist then abiogenisis is statistically impossible. Unfortunately I don’t think it is possible to even produce a fossil of these hypothetical cells for evidence. We cannot at this point even test to see if this hypothetical cell is even possible, nor do we know for sure under what conditions we should test the hypothesis. Man cannot even synthetically produce one for testing at this point. If our intelligence cannot come up with it. How is random chance to do the job? I don’t think that my claims are beyond the pale of reasonable. I respect your right to have theories, and to explore them. I would ask that you would label them as such—theories. You may chose to do the same with my theories. Even the title of the article “lies damn lies” is a bit inflammatory. Let’s use more accurate language when describing our theories, and just how well baked they are.
Those are my thoughts on a few articles and a few bonus things I threw in. I am sorry if I cannot respond to all of your comments. I do appreciate them and I do hope that you enjoy dialoging with one another, in my absence for a while. It has been quite time consuming making these comments and researching them to this very modest point. I will check in in about a week.
Nikkiee real quick thanks for your insights on DNA and the useless gene comment. This would fit with your theory well.
RSW
RSW,
As far as I understand you are interested in the possibilities of prebiotic (molecular) self-organization as a pre-requisite of cellular life. Thus, you may be interested in the Nobel laureate Manfred Eigen’s work. Hope you will be able to follow all the math that you will find in there!
From Wikipedia:
“Eigen’s name is linked with the theory of the chemical hypercycle, the cyclic linkage of reaction cycles as an explanation for the self organization of prebiotic systems, which he described with Peter Schuster in 1979.”
Have fun!
OK folks, who wound-up that uneducated troll, RSW again? By his own admission, he knows nothing of mathematics, but he still throws about bits of statistical jargon to impress us. He evidently will read nothing that hasn’t been referenced in “Of Pandas and People”. I’ll risk the wrath of other Pastafarians here by again posting a link that has a good comment by Southern Ptarmigan (ten down in the comments thread). Here’s a Christian Evangelist who has this issue in perspective:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=letters-may-2009&sc=DD_20090508
I wouldn’t expect that this time and space wasting troll would ever spend the effort to understand this Nova program:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
He seems so preprogrammed that he’s a prefect fit into The Authoritarians mold:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
I am not the least concerned by people who ask questions, but the people who scare me are the ones who have The Answer:
http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=why-people-believe-what-they-do-09-04-10&sc=DD_20090413
RAmen
hmph. No understanding of psychology, history, chemistry, biology, or statistics. Seems articulate, but fails to aknowledge any ernest criticisms and continues to argue in a circular fashion without understanding giant flaws in logic. Concludes that anyone without God (of course the christian version) has no basis on which to establish any morals. Concludes that all irreligious political regimes in history were based on evolution. Concludes that evolution is based on ‘chance’ and ‘randomness’ and that it is improbable. Concludes that a magic man in the sky directly guiding every form of life past and present is the most probable solution. Concludes that mountains of evidence for evolution is all wrong. Concludes that occam’s razor is wrong. Concludes that evolution and abiogenesis are the same thing. Concludes that evolution and thus science in general must be a threat to chirstianity. Concludes that most other religions and populations in the world other than fundamental christianity must be wrong to accept evolution.
Verdict: troll. Unlikely to ever change mind or engage in honest debate due to belief structure. Unlikely even to listen to other theists who are supportive of evolution. Likely to continue to use pseudo-science and bad theology to back up arguments in circular fashion. Avoid. Waste of time.
Darwin, let’s add this recent (published today in Nature) research to that paper:
Chemist Shows How RNA Can Be the Starting Point for Life
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14rna.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
Edward @963
Bingo? Yeah that was too easy! I think they should change the rules a little and require prediction of which line will be filled first!
Here’s a bit of a general guide
Creationist’ Tactics
http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/tactics.htm
i am now in the philippines spreading the word. it is hard here due to their devout belief in catholicism but i am happy to report that i have just tonight found my first convert
A wonderful miracle happened tonight!
As I set down in the dinner table, His Noodliness appeared in front of me in all His glory, sitting upon a majestic white disc.
Repent your sins and rejoice as He levitates among us! Spread the word, so every children of His creation may hear it!!!!
I think they’re monitoring us.
“Oh, No! It’s Making Well-Reasoned Arguments Backed With Facts! Run!”
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/oh_no_its_making_well_reasoned