Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | May 26, 2012 | FRANK ELTMAN

Posted on 05/26/2012 9:47:00 PM PDT by eekitsagreek

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-267 next last
To: hopespringseternal
So you know Behe is a charlatan but you aren't familiar enough with his work to have a clue what I am talking about in reference to his work?

For anyone who is well-trained in science, recognizing a charlatan is as easy as recognizing a non-native speaker of English. The fact is that Behe has published very little in the way of genuine scientific articles, and the little he has published is narrowly focused on chemical reactions. Well, there was a letter to the Genetics journal where he tried to criticize some evolutionary mathematics, but it was rebutted immediately. He has limited his career by excluding any topic that requires evolutionary considerations--which includes most topics in the life sciences. His background does not mark him as an expert in evolutionary biology, nor does it suggest that he knows anything about the subject. He is the perfect example of a scientist who clings to dogmatic belief despite all evidence, and ends up not accomplishing much as a result.

I am unclear, are you attacking personal profit, or Behe's charge?

It is Behe and his ilk that I am attacking. I have nothing against someone earning a profit honestly.

I am not talking about research, I am talking about "The God Delusion", for example. Of course I would rather judge the ideas in a book, as opposed to its specific publishing arrangement with the author.

Is "The God Delusion" a book explaining someone's opinion? I had not heard of it before; I googled it just now. Since the existence of God is neither scientifically provable nor disprovable, no book on that subject can be a scientific book. For a scientist to make money from writing pro-evolution pieces, they would have to be able to publish writing based solely on science, and get paid for it. Some scientists have successfully marketed science to the lay public; if they make money from doing so, it has the virtue of being honestly earned.

So anyone who disagrees with you is an immoral anti-scientist out for profit? To you this is a scientific argument?

There are a number of anti-science efforts out there, and they are all immoral. This has nothing to do with whether someone agrees with me or not. I detest country music; I don't think country music fans are immoral. But people who lie about science as a means of separating people from their money are thoroughly immoral. People die because of anti-science; I can't think of a single redeeming aspect to it.

101 posted on 05/27/2012 10:00:58 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

I figured that neither you nor anybody else could fill the massive holes in the theory of evolution that cause educated people like myself to doubt it.

That is some theory that can’t connect the dots between some 55 million year old ancestor of a horse and the predecessor fish that supposedly came from the primordial swamp.

Where you see an ironclad theory because you want to, I see massive assumptions that have to be made to believe this theory. It is definitely plausible, but goodness sake, you can drive a truck through any part of it, there is so much you have to simply take on faith.

To that extent, it is nearly like the theory of man made global warming. That you can’t trace a known fossil lineage of any animal on the planet makes the theory very weak. It takes a massive leap of faith to assume that because we know the horse evolved over the past 55 million years, than it must have evolved over the preceding 500 million years.

I’m just asking you to provide some evidence and you can’t. I didn’t expect you to. There isn’t any evidence. Nor for the tiger nor for the wolf. That’s my point.

So in the end, if you want to believe in the theory of evolution, which again it may be plausible, there is so much needed evidence missing, you can only believe it with a massive leap of faith on the scale that is needed to believe in man made global warming.

Sorry, but that is the fact of it. I’m not asking you to not believe it. I’m saying that the supporting evidence is extremely weak, so don’t tell me to accept it as fact when there is 500 million years of evidence we need to find before we can even hope to treat the theory seriously. Until then, we just don’t know what happened in that intervening 500 million years from fish to ancestor of horse do we?

I’ll be shocked if you can admit the fact that we can’t know what happened during this interval and that the theory of evolution could be completely wrong in explaining the rise of modern animals.


102 posted on 05/27/2012 11:35:16 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
In theory, phylogenetic trees can be constructed to include every organism from single cells up to modern multicellular organisms, but in practice, such a tree would contain so much information and have so many branches that it would be unreadable.

These people tried. It's a PDF, so you can zoom in and in and in--the fuzz you start to see around the edge after a few zooms is actually the names of species.

http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/staff/rgrenyer-supertree.pdf

103 posted on 05/28/2012 12:11:18 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
"....Yet another hadrosaur has been described by UK scientists as "absolutely gobsmacking."8 Its tissues were "extremely well preserved" and contained "soft-tissue replacement structures and associated organic compounds."9...."

Just a tip: don't rely on Brian Thomas for your scientific facts. For example, in that story, he says "soft, squishy tissues have been discovered inside fossilized dinosaur bones." No, they haven't. They may be soft (in the sense of flexible), but they're nothing like "squishy." And the story he quotes doesn't say the tissues were well preserved, it says the dinosaur was well preserved, which could just mean the bones were mostly intact. And what was "gobsmacking" was that "You're looking at cell-like structures." "Cell-like structures"--does that sound like soft tissue to you?

Thomas is a propagandist and, yes, an anti-science charlatan. I call him that not because he disagrees with me, but because even though he has (or claims to have) a science degree, he distorts facts and quote mines to intentionally give people the wrong impression.

104 posted on 05/28/2012 12:19:36 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: abclily
Since Africa is the richest continent in terms of resources, why aren’t they the most developed?

Bush's fault.

105 posted on 05/28/2012 2:02:54 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: varmintman; Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
"....Yet another hadrosaur has been described by UK scientists as "absolutely gobsmacking."8 Its tissues were "extremely well preserved" and contained "soft-tissue replacement structures and associated organic compounds."9...."

Just a tip: don't rely on Brian Thomas for your scientific facts. For example, in that story, he says "soft, squishy tissues have been discovered inside fossilized dinosaur bones." No, they haven't. They may be soft (in the sense of flexible), but they're nothing like "squishy." And the story he quotes doesn't say the tissues were well preserved, it says the dinosaur was well preserved, which could just mean the bones were mostly intact. And what was "gobsmacking" was that "You're looking at cell-like structures." "Cell-like structures"--does that sound like soft tissue to you?

It should also be mentioned that the very tiny tissue fragments appear to resemble collagen rather than “red juicy squishy meat”; that may or may not be even be dinosaur tissues (to date no DNA has been found that could confirm or refute) and could be modern biofilms that recently invaded the fossilized bone as some scientists believe and which have already been confirmed are found in some fossilized bone, were extracted from deep inside fossilized bone after being soaked in acids. It is not, contrary to what young earth creationists like Brian Thomas claim or attempt to infer by quote mining and distorting actual scientific papers, as if the dinosaur fossils were dug up with red meat still clinging to the bones as if they had died just last week or a few thousand years ago.

And it should also be noted that Dr. Mary Schweitzer who first made the claim that she had found remnants of dinosaur tissues after having dissolved fossilized bones in acids, herself being an evangelical Christian, is not a young earth creationist and believes that the dinos lived and went extinct some 65 million years ago not in the last couple of thousand years ago. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”

Thomas is a propagandist and, yes, an anti-science charlatan. I call him that not because he disagrees with me, but because even though he has (or claims to have) a science degree, he distorts facts and quote mines to intentionally give people the wrong impression.

BTW - Brian Thomas does have a BS in Biology 1989-1993 and an MS in Biotechnology 1997-1999 from Stephen F. Austin State University Nacogdoches, Texas, (a real Texas state school although a school that specializes in being a teacher’s college and agricultural school and what would be basically on par with a community college), but seems to have spent his pre and post grad career after obtaining a Texas State Teaching License in Secondary Biology from the Creation Research Graduate School, Dallas, Texas, in 1994, teaching at a various small Christian primary and secondary schools such as spending one year as a 7th Grade Teacher at the small Angelina Christian School, Lufkin, Texas and teaching at Dallas Baptist University, a school who’s Mission Statement in biology states: “The biology program at Dallas Baptist University is designed to produce knowledgeable individuals who have an understanding of the basic biological tenets of God's creation. The academic information is presented in a Christian context to enhance the students' ability to become responsible, caring citizens in society.” From 2008 on his full time job has been writing blogs and distorting the findings of real scientists for the Institute for Creation Research.

Citing Brian Thomas as a “boneified” and unbiased expert in paleontology and in advanced biology and field research (and one should also note that with his CC teaching degree and experience as a school teacher in Biology, he also claims to be an expert in the fields of Astronomy, Physics and Geology in his ICR blog posts) is akin to citing Paul Krugman and the NYT as an unbiased expert in the workings of free market economies. ; ),

106 posted on 05/28/2012 4:50:34 AM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Wow, that phylogenetic tree is truly amazing, although it looks like it includes only mammals. It’s also a little much for my poor computer to handle. :(


107 posted on 05/28/2012 4:56:13 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free
I figured that neither you nor anybody else could fill the massive holes in the theory of evolution that cause educated people like myself to doubt it.

By your criteria, it appears that there is no legitimate science. No matter what scientific discipline you choose, the gaps where knowledge is unknown and probably unknowable are far greater than the known and documented facts. Should we throw out medicine, because of the double whammy against it--not only do we still not know most of what could be known about the human body, but what we *do* know was discovered by biological investigation informed by the theory of evolution.

A theory is not meant to be an all-encompassing encyclopedia. It is meant to be a framework that coherently links all of the known facts, and gives the ability to predict where and how more facts may be discovered. Theories can be revised as necessary to refine their ability to encompass all of the known facts and predict new facts. Science is an iterative process.

Just because we can't pick a horse at random and trace its family tree, individual by individual, back to the original multicellular organism that gave rise to all mammals does not mean we can't deduce the most likely chain of events that led from there to here. Just like if you were to tell me that you drove across the US on I-80, I wouldn't need to specifically know which gas stations where you bought gas to deduce that you did stop and buy gas along the way. Even if there wasn't a single gas receipt in your car, and you paid cash every time so there was no paper record of those purchases, I would *still* be 100% sure that you bought gas. That is because there is no other plausible explanation for your ability to drive 3,000 miles.

I suppose you could claim that Hyracotherium, Orohippus, Hipparion, Plesippus, etc., were all more-or-less horselike animals created by God 6,000 years ago, and that Noah only brought horses, zebras, and donkeys aboard the ark and let the rest of them drown... there just isn't any scientific evidence to support such a belief. The scientific evidence supports an evolutionary process tying these animals together.

108 posted on 05/28/2012 5:37:24 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek

Evolution is a bizarre self-entertainment.


109 posted on 05/28/2012 5:59:43 AM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA; Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
They've found proteins in some of the trex remains and those proteins are all but identical to those found in chickens, i.e. the trex was basically a big chicken with sharp teeth. Nobody has come up with an explanation as to how trex remains in Montana were "contaminated" by chickens...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/health/12iht-web0412-dino.5261850.html

110 posted on 05/28/2012 6:20:52 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA
BBC take on the hadrasaur with intact skin cells (non ICR source):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8124098.stm

" You slice through this and you're looking at the cell structure of dinosaur skin. That is absolutely gobsmacking..."

Phil Manning, University of Manchester

This was all over the news when it happened, I simply posted the first reference which turned up yesterday. A Google search on 'hadrosaur' and 'skin cells' will turn up no shortage of articles, including no shortage of articles which do not involve evangelical Christians for the benefit of those here who view anything which Christians ever touch as fatally contaminated/tainted. I personally view anything which evolosers touch as tainted, but that's just me...

111 posted on 05/28/2012 6:29:29 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
Liberal atheists believe the universe and all life happend spontaneously, and evolved on it’s own. But suddenly, NOW, every living thing, up to and including Earth, must be micromanaged for the betterment of all.

Wow.

112 posted on 05/28/2012 6:33:16 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
People eventually will (and mostly have) accepted evolution, the way they accepted the heliocentric view of the solar system, or the Galilean version of gravity.

Anyone who has studied statistics, probability and higher level mathematics, which I have, cannot take the theory of evolution seriously. Most liberals eschew those subjects and fall prey to things like globull warming and evolution. Nobody is saying the natural selection doesn't alter species over time, but that cannot explain the origins of species.

I am always suspicious of Free Republic posters that have their old democratic past in their name. Deep down there is an air of superiority in that " I was a democrat so I was cool once but now I am like you". That bothers me. If I was an ex dem I would hide that fact out of shame.

113 posted on 05/28/2012 6:43:32 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek
Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist ....

Stop right there. This makes two Kenyan born idiots we don't need to listen to.

114 posted on 05/28/2012 6:46:57 AM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
Imagine that the beneficial mutation in question is so good, that all 99,998 other die out immediately (from jealousy), and that the pair with the beneficial mutation has 100,000 kids and thus replenishes the herd.

If evolution theory were true all men would be hung like John Holmes.

But seriously, evolution of mammals seem to be a step function, with a lot of "suddenly appearing" phrases in the evos literature. The evos best trick is to claim the non-evos think the earth is 5000 years old. It is their last card in the deck.

115 posted on 05/28/2012 7:04:38 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Anyone who has studied statistics, probability and higher level mathematics, which I have, cannot take the theory of evolution seriously.


That's what I've been saying. Evolution/evoloserism is basically not compatible with modern mathematics, probability theory, information theory or anything like that at all.

In fact no real science theory would survive five years worth of the history of disproofs which is involved in the theory of evolution. Evolution survives on pure inertia and quasi-religious belief.

116 posted on 05/28/2012 7:09:47 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: varmintman; exDemMom

Lets look at this human species graph from a mathematical perspective. At the tail end we have genus homo, showing h.erectus and h.heidlebeurgenus ending and h.neandertal and h.sapiens "suddenly appearing" in a short period of time. I have no problem with this. What I do have a problem with is trying to explain this as being caused by natural selection. No cross over species have been found, it is a step function by their own admission all are independent separate species. This is laughable on face value. Believe me, if any cross over species had been found it would have been MAJOR news.

No probability that a mutation occurred in a few thousand years that changed h.erectus into h.sapiens. No linear progression, are evos blind they will not see?

117 posted on 05/28/2012 7:27:57 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Right on target. I must say it was the study of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics that first raised my suspicions about evolution, but it was probability theory that drove the final nail in the coffin for me and information theory that pitched the last shovel of dirt on the grave. Evolutionists resist any intrusion by the real sciences into their totalitarian fantasy world.
118 posted on 05/28/2012 7:29:20 AM PDT by trubolotta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek

Bump for later.


119 posted on 05/28/2012 7:38:34 AM PDT by Sans-Culotte ( Pray for Obama- Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Anyone who has studied statistics, probability and higher level mathematics, which I have, cannot take the theory of evolution seriously. Most liberals eschew those subjects and fall prey to things like globull warming and evolution. Nobody is saying the natural selection doesn't alter species over time, but that cannot explain the origins of species.

Really? I've studied statistics, and math up through college calculus. A strong math background was required in order to get an undergraduate degree in biochemistry and molecular biology, and was a prerequisite for applying to graduate school (PhD, same majors). Mathematical and statistical analysis is a requirement for publishing in any scientific journal. How anyone could think that mathematics and statistics are not applicable to the study of evolutionary biology--which encompasses most life sciences disciplines--is beyond me.

Feel free to enlighten me by providing links to the original research reports, and post the statistical analyses which demonstrate that the observations and analyses in the reports are mistaken.

I am always suspicious of Free Republic posters that have their old democratic past in their name. Deep down there is an air of superiority in that " I was a democrat so I was cool once but now I am like you". That bothers me. If I was an ex dem I would hide that fact out of shame.

Why? As a child, I had no choice about the fact that I was being raised in a family of far-left lunatics, and that I was thoroughly steeped in far-left attitudes and ideology. Being able to overcome that by critically thinking about and rejecting the attitudes of entitlement, victimhood, envy and resentment that are taught to poor liberals is a true accomplishment--most people raised that way remain steeped in those losing attitudes and usually never achieve anything. I never would have been able to go to college and eventually earn a PhD had I held on to those liberal beliefs. I'm proud of the fact that I overcame my background.

120 posted on 05/28/2012 7:43:11 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
For anyone who is well-trained in science, recognizing a charlatan is as easy as recognizing a non-native speaker of English.

I have spent far too much time working in a university with scientists to buy this shamanistic crap. If he is a charlatan you have to be able to explain why.

Behe makes a very specific claim concerning evolutionary science: There is almost nothing in the field on the specific evolutionary path of just about every complex biochemical system. You talk about evolution working on the scale of individual DNA blocks but when you talk about the evolutionary path you pull out to the 10,000 foot level. There is a whole in the middle.

How did the various protein mechanisms in the cell evolve? Your fish paper makes the point for Behe. I see nothing in it explaining how fish A turned into fish B biochemically.

He is the perfect example of a scientist who clings to dogmatic belief despite all evidence, and ends up not accomplishing much as a result.

Please explain. Elaborate on his dogmatic belief that you can't explain how the protein mechanisms in the cell evolve.

121 posted on 05/28/2012 7:47:44 AM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: All
The big problem along these lines which politicians face at present is how to deal with the Chris Mathewses of the world...

The basic act goes like this: Mathews, an evil scowl on his face, appears on television and in a stern voice asks:

"Are you actually enough of a ****4brains, inbred, triple-chromosome dufeless ******-****** that YOU don't believe in evolution?? ANSWER ME!!!! Yes or no??"

And the poor politician, who has never made enough of a study of this sort of thing to have any sort of a good answer ready to hand just sort of sits there with a sort of a cowed look on his face:

"Well, uh, gee Mr. Mathews, if you say so..."

Here's the right answer and the answer which he need to TEACH our own pols:

[laughter...] "You know, that's really a sort of a cute act you have there Mr. Mathews, but it kind of indicates that your own education in science topics must have stopped somewhere before 1970...

Are you aware of the abject failure of the fruit fly experiments which were designed to prove macroevolution or that prominent scientists had denounced evolution because of those experiments? Do you even understand the difference between microevolution and macroevolution?

Are you aware of the concept of irreducible complexity and the problem that presents for evolutionists?

Are you aware of the extent of the analogy between RNA/DNA cell biology and modern computers and information theory? Have you read Dr. Don Johnson's "Programming of Life"?

Are you aware that evolution requires an infinite series of probabilistic miracles and outright zero probability events, and belief in things happening despite probabilities which look like one divided by a number which looks like one folloowed by tens of thousands of zeros ?

Are you aware of the Haldane dilemma and the impossible amounts of time it takes to spread ANY sort of a genetic change entirely through some species of animals? Are you also aware of the fact that researchers are finding proteins and soft tissue in dinosaur remains, strongly indicating that those animals died a few thousand or at most a few tens of thousands of years ago?

Are you aware that in our present internet age, nobody can hide that sort of information any more or bury it any more?

Are you aware that growing numbers of Americans can now see through this little scowling act of yours, and that the act itself makes you look like an ignoramus??

It might also help if every GOP pol had a copy of Don Johnson's book in his pocket:

and could speak on the subject when the Mathews inquisition comes up.

122 posted on 05/28/2012 7:51:27 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Feel free to enlighten me by providing links to the original research reports, and post the statistical analyses which demonstrate that the observations and analyses in the reports are mistaken.

I will explain this like you were a 3 year old. Turn off all the bullcrap you learned in university for one minute. And listen to me. You are not the only person who has studied math and science around here. You are not special. The fact that the evolutionists identify specific species both extinct and living disproves the theory of evolution. THe theory is self destroying. What I am saying is that evolution thru natural selection should be a smooth linear process and identifying specific species through genetics should be theoretically impossible. The genetic code for a species should be unidentifiable say to the family level as all species are in continual evolution, right? And no I don't think the earth is 5,000 years old so don't go their. Your mind has been closed by your "education".

123 posted on 05/28/2012 7:54:17 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: eekitsagreek

So .... We’re all Kenyan?


124 posted on 05/28/2012 7:56:47 AM PDT by airborne (Paratroopers! Good to the last drop!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

I case you are a diction Nazi I meant to say “don’t go there” not “don’t go their”. My bad.


125 posted on 05/28/2012 7:59:37 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
College calculus? All of the engineers and scientists I attended classes with didn't stop their math education until they reached PDEs. That's a huge gap in the study of mathematics between calculus and PDEs.

The ability to plug data into spread sheets or programs for statistical analysis does not qualify a person as having an understanding of higher mathematics. That doesn't cut it.

If I recall, it was evolutionist Julian Huxley that pointed out that evolution theory had a huge flaw from a purely probabilistic viewpoint, though he remained a believer. Others have added to and reinforced his work.

126 posted on 05/28/2012 8:01:08 AM PDT by trubolotta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: central_va
There's one thing basically wrong with your graph and the understanding involved is very recent, and that is that even the Neanderthal does not belong in the same genus or whatever you want to call it as us:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2860792/posts

Basically, the Neanderthal has been ruled out as a plausible ancestor for modern man precisely because the genetic gap is too wide, and all other hominids were at least morphologically as far removed from us as the Neanderthal. That basically means that there is nothing on this planet which we could be descended from via any process resembling evolution.

127 posted on 05/28/2012 8:05:04 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Really? I've studied statistics, and math up through college calculus.

Calc? You quit at the beginning, you had a long way to go.

128 posted on 05/28/2012 8:27:24 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: central_va
But seriously, evolution of mammals seem to be a step function, with a lot of "suddenly appearing" phrases in the evos literature. The evos best trick is to claim the non-evos think the earth is 5000 years old. It is their last card in the deck.

No scientist claims that any species "suddenly appeared". That, I'm afraid, is the literal young-earth creationist claim.

129 posted on 05/28/2012 8:35:16 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: central_va; exDemMom

I was a math major in school but the basic reality is that the most major thing a person should take away from that is a firm grasp of logic, and that’s all anybody should really need to reject evolution and evoloserism.


130 posted on 05/28/2012 8:36:32 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
No scientist claims that any species "suddenly appeared".

Sorry, but that's dead wrong. ALL species appeared suddenly.

131 posted on 05/28/2012 8:38:18 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
In fact no real science theory would survive five years worth of the history of disproofs which is involved in the theory of evolution. Evolution survives on pure inertia and quasi-religious belief.

What, exactly, are these "disproofs"? As far as I can tell, the theory of evolution is still the unifying theory of biology--so far, no one has provided any evidence that it isn't.

132 posted on 05/28/2012 8:39:02 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Lets look at this human species graph from a mathematical perspective. At the tail end we have genus homo, showing h.erectus and h.heidlebeurgenus ending and h.neandertal and h.sapiens "suddenly appearing" in a short period of time. I have no problem with this. What I do have a problem with is trying to explain this as being caused by natural selection. No cross over species have been found, it is a step function by their own admission all are independent separate species. This is laughable on face value. Believe me, if any cross over species had been found it would have been MAJOR news.

No probability that a mutation occurred in a few thousand years that changed h.erectus into h.sapiens. No linear progression, are evos blind they will not see?

You're making an error in assuming that current species, homo sapiens in particular, were the goals of the evolutionary process all along, and then looking backward and remarking that it was so improbable that these particular mutations would happen randomly so as to result in the existence of homo sapiens. Trying to get to a planned goal through a random process *is* pretty unlikely--it's like planning to win the lottery. But if you realize that homo sapiens is only one of many possibilities, it's like realizing that someone will win the lottery--you can't predict a winner before the lottery, even though it becomes fait accompli the second after the drawing.

The evolution of h. sapiens from h. erectus was not the result of a single key mutation. It was the result of an accumulation of mutations that made h. sapiens sufficiently different from h. erectus to be called a different species.

133 posted on 05/28/2012 8:53:52 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

“The evolution of h. sapiens from h. erectus was not the result of a single key mutation. It was the result of an accumulation of mutations that made h. sapiens sufficiently different from h. erectus to be called a different species. “

There must have been great numbers of transitional skeletons left along that journey. Where could I view some?


134 posted on 05/28/2012 9:04:13 AM PDT by eartrumpet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
I have spent far too much time working in a university with scientists to buy this shamanistic crap. If he is a charlatan you have to be able to explain why.

It is not "shamanistic crap" to be able to say that I can quickly recognize whether someone is an expert in my field or whether they're trying to pass a bunch of nonsense. I *did* explain why Behe is a charlatan: while he is trying to pass himself off as an expert in evolution, his publishing and academic history indicates that he actively avoids the subject, and avoids any line of research even remotely related to it. That makes him NOT an expert. It also makes him not a very well-rounded scientist.

Behe makes a very specific claim concerning evolutionary science: There is almost nothing in the field on the specific evolutionary path of just about every complex biochemical system. You talk about evolution working on the scale of individual DNA blocks but when you talk about the evolutionary path you pull out to the 10,000 foot level. There is a whole in the middle.

As I pointed out above, in his professional career, Behe actively avoids any area of research that even touches on the subject of evolution. That means he is incredibly limited as a scientist; it also means he does not have very detailed knowledge of actual evolutionary processes. He can make any claim he wants about evolution, but he simply is not credible.

When I talk about evolution at the level of DNA, that's because that is the level at which evolution occurs. Everything that happens at the level of the organism, happens because it was encoded in the DNA first. Every genetic engineering project I've done involves altering the DNA, even though the end product is an altered protein.

How did the various protein mechanisms in the cell evolve? Your fish paper makes the point for Behe. I see nothing in it explaining how fish A turned into fish B biochemically.

The proteins evolved because the DNA mutated. I did not link that paper to show the process of the fish developing that particular trait; I linked it to show the level of mathematical/statistical analysis that goes into the evaluation of even a small fragment of evolutionary research.

It is not the purpose of most scientific papers to give the "big picture" of the topic they are addressing: most scientific papers only provide enough background to place that particular bit of research into context for those who are already familiar with the topic. If you want to know how the fish developed that one particular trait (not how "fish A became fish B"), you will have to pull up and read all of the references in that paper--and then the references contained in those references--and so forth, so that maybe in a few months, you'll have a good understanding of the actual DNA changes that led to the expression of that single trait.

"He is the perfect example of a scientist who clings to dogmatic belief despite all evidence, and ends up not accomplishing much as a result."

Please explain. Elaborate on his dogmatic belief that you can't explain how the protein mechanisms in the cell evolve.

The dogmatic belief that I was refering to is Behe's belief that the book of Genesis is a literal account of how the earth and all life came into existence, presumably 6,000 years ago. That dogmatic belief has greatly hampered his scientific career. His assertion that the evolution of protein mechanisms in the cell defies explanation is a direct consequence of his avoidance of any scientific topic that touches on evolution--by avoiding molecular biology, he doesn't have even a basic understanding of how changes in DNA result in changes to the organism. I'm rather amazed that he managed to earn a PhD while avoiding that subject...

135 posted on 05/28/2012 9:40:36 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
They've found proteins in some of the trex remains and those proteins are all but identical to those found in chickens,

You say "all but identical," the Times report says "Three of the seven reconstructed protein sequences were closely related to chickens....Two others appeared possibly elated to living creatures, a frog and a newt."

Is that you, Brian?

136 posted on 05/28/2012 9:47:24 AM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: central_va
I will explain this like you were a 3 year old. Turn off all the bullcrap you learned in university for one minute. And listen to me. You are not the only person who has studied math and science around here. You are not special. The fact that the evolutionists identify specific species both extinct and living disproves the theory of evolution. THe theory is self destroying. What I am saying is that evolution thru natural selection should be a smooth linear process and identifying specific species through genetics should be theoretically impossible. The genetic code for a species should be unidentifiable say to the family level as all species are in continual evolution, right? And no I don't think the earth is 5,000 years old so don't go their. Your mind has been closed by your "education".

Sorry, but majoring in math or statistics does not qualify anyone as an expert in any life science. Therefore, claiming that such a background makes one as qualified to speak about such a topic as someone who studied life sciences exclusively for several years is unjustified.

Do you have any idea of the natural spontaneous mutation rate of DNA? Any idea of how often the repair enzymes fail to correctly repair those spontaneous mutations? How does the incorrect repair rate compare between humans, bacteria, yeast, viruses, etc.? Are those topics even mentioned in statistics courses? How many times have you downloaded the DNA sequence for a specific protein and compared it across dozens of species to generate a phylogenetic tree that tells you about the evolutionary relationships between the different species? Is that a function of the SPSS software used by many statisticians? You don't specify exactly how the fact that evidence of both extinct and living species negates the theory of evolution, nor explained how the theory is "self-destroying". Nor did you specify why I shouldn't expect to be able to identify a species through genetic sequences. If you're going to make such assertions, you need to back them up with some sort of logical/factual explanations.

137 posted on 05/28/2012 9:57:20 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
I *did* explain why Behe is a charlatan: while he is trying to pass himself off as an expert in evolution, his publishing and academic history indicates that he actively avoids the subject, and avoids any line of research even remotely related to it.

So unless Behe promotes evolution, he is a charlatan? Nice little circular argument you have there. You still have not gone into any detail as to why his argument is illegitimate. That anything he published did not cross the borders of your narrow little world has no bearing on the validity of his argument. Publishing arrangements do not count.

When I talk about evolution at the level of DNA, that's because that is the level at which evolution occurs. Everything that happens at the level of the organism, happens because it was encoded in the DNA first. Every genetic engineering project I've done involves altering the DNA, even though the end product is an altered protein.

But you haven't been able to explain how those systems of proteins evolved.

If you want to know how the fish developed that one particular trait (not how "fish A became fish B"), you will have to pull up and read all of the references in that paper--and then the references contained in those references--and so forth, so that maybe in a few months, you'll have a good understanding of the actual DNA changes that led to the expression of that single trait.

More handwaving. Behe's charge has been out there for years. If you could refute it then you wouldn't need to resort to veiled references and insinuate the problem is just too complicated to explain to the rest of us rubes or try to use Behe's financial arrangement with his publisher to discredit him. Since you brought up his name, you should at least have some clue what the man's argument is.

It is clear that you are simply thinking what you have been told to think with regards to Behe. All you really know is that he is one of "them", and so you are pulling out your multipurpose talking points to use against him.

138 posted on 05/28/2012 10:09:00 AM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
Sorry, but that's dead wrong. ALL species appeared suddenly.

The sudden appearance of all species is based in religious belief, and is unsupported by scientific evidence.

139 posted on 05/28/2012 10:11:57 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
So unless Behe promotes evolution, he is a charlatan? Nice little circular argument you have there. You still have not gone into any detail as to why his argument is illegitimate. That anything he published did not cross the borders of your narrow little world has no bearing on the validity of his argument. Publishing arrangements do not count.

Unless he uses actual scientific evidence to support his claims, he is a charlatan. I presume you are refering to the claim you mentioned earlier, "Behe makes a very specific claim concerning evolutionary science: There is almost nothing in the field on the specific evolutionary path of just about every complex biochemical system." That claim is so false that it hardly even merits mention. Choose a complex system, go to www.PubMed.org, search for evolution of that system: voilà, thousands of references pop up. When I discussed Behe's publishing history, that was his history publishing as a scientist, which is very limited. He may have 500 books published through some literal creationist publisher, but those are not scientific documents.

But you haven't been able to explain how those systems of proteins evolved.

As I have already pointed out, proteins evolve through DNA mutations. I believe I have also pointed out many types of DNA mutation that occur. If you want to know how a specific pathway evolved (which I'm going to assume is what you mean by "those systems of proteins"), then you need to specify which pathway. And once you've decided on a specific pathway whose evolution you'd like to understand more fully, you can start searching over at www.PubMed.org for the research articles detailing everything known so far about the evolution of that pathway.

More handwaving. Behe's charge has been out there for years. If you could refute it then you wouldn't need to resort to veiled references and insinuate the problem is just too complicated to explain to the rest of us rubes or try to use Behe's financial arrangement with his publisher to discredit him. Since you brought up his name, you should at least have some clue what the man's argument is.

Well, no offense, but it *is* complicated. You're basically challenging me to put several PhD dissertations' worth of material into a single forum post, and it can't be done. Again, no offense, but I am sorry that you do not have the scientific background to understand that I already did refute Behe's "charge" at least twice, and again above.

It is clear that you are simply thinking what you have been told to think with regards to Behe. All you really know is that he is one of "them", and so you are pulling out your multipurpose talking points to use against him.

Told by whom, exactly? I am not familiar with most of the charlatans who sell literal creationism; he happens to be one I *am* familiar with, and so I mentioned him, along with the others I have heard of. Oh, and where did my supposed "talking points" come from, anyway?

140 posted on 05/28/2012 10:51:18 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
The evolution of h. sapiens from h. erectus was not the result of a single key mutation. It was the result of an accumulation of mutations that made h. sapiens sufficiently different from h. erectus to be called a different species.

BS. There are no fossils of hybrid homo sapiens, it was another "suddenly appeared" phenomenon Homo sapiens are a distinct species with a beginning point.

141 posted on 05/28/2012 10:58:01 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Sorry, but majoring in math or statistics does not qualify anyone as an expert in any life science. Therefore, claiming that such a background makes one as qualified to speak about such a topic as someone who studied life sciences exclusively for several years is unjustified.

You should continue past calculus. Just sayin'. You have your ridiculous beliefs and I have mine, Mine makes sense from a probability mathematical point of view and well yours don't.

Question: Should evolutionary processes be described as an analog system or a discrete system? If you don't understand my question then I rest my case. Evolution is nothing but conjecture and speculation and quite frankly ridiculous.

142 posted on 05/28/2012 11:03:58 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: eartrumpet
There must have been great numbers of transitional skeletons left along that journey. Where could I view some?

I wanna see, me too me too!

143 posted on 05/28/2012 11:07:11 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
You're making an error in assuming that current species, homo sapiens in particular, were the goals of the evolutionary process all along,

I have reread central va's post several times now and see no such assumption. Looks to me like he is questioning natural selection as an adequate explanation. Your lottery example is another argument to knock down a straw man of your own creation. You seem to have a habit of doing that, hand picking your inferences and definitions to create an argument that no one is making. You do it repeatedly as if any argument against evolution is an argument for creationism. I call it blowing smoke.

There is no theory of science that requires that a challenge of the theory must offer an alternative theory, yet you persist in attacking an alternative of your choice as if its either a choice between evolution or the alternative. I may have missed one or two, but I haven't seen any posting questioning evolution on the basis of some other theory. Most of the challenges are based on mathematics, information theory and a sprinkling of good old common sense. If one branch of science is inconsistent with another, only one can be right and I have lot more faith in the integrity of mathematics and information theory than evolution. It seems to be your belief that if someone believes in a different theory to explain the origin of species, that disqualifies from making any criticism of evolution and worse, makes their motives immoral. Wow! When does the heretic burning start?

Behe's work raises serious questions about the viability of evolution just as a mathematician's would, yet you dismiss them as somehow unqualified because they don't have your understanding, or shall we say belief, in evolution or training in the life sciences. And of course, you use math, and that is supposed to cover the mathematical objections to evolution?

By the way, I did a lot more reading about horse evolution and found most of the disputes are within the evolutionist community. How many times do species need to be reclassified, trees redrawn and pictures arranged to fix what was supposed to be "settled?" It has become so ludicrous that even species names are changed to fit the evolutionary model. Eohippus is a great example of name tampering that may eventually backfire anyway. At least there are some evolutionists with enough integrity to admit the answers are missing or there are some major problems to be solved.

I don't have a degree in the life sciences, thank God, or I might be in that universe of small minds that defend their theories by devious and disingenuous means. Shall I dare say such behavior is that of a charlatan?

144 posted on 05/28/2012 11:08:30 AM PDT by trubolotta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
Sorry, but that's dead wrong. ALL species appeared suddenly.

I don't agree with that either. I think Homo Sapiens did suddenly appear 250,000 years ago and I have no idea why. It was divine? I don't know, but it was no evolutionary process.

145 posted on 05/28/2012 11:11:25 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
The sudden appearance of all species is based in religious belief, and is unsupported by scientific evidence.

So you view Steve Gould as an idiot, along with Eldridge, Myer, and everybody else involved in the Punc-eek movement?

146 posted on 05/28/2012 11:23:26 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: trubolotta
College calculus? All of the engineers and scientists I attended classes with didn't stop their math education until they reached PDEs. That's a huge gap in the study of mathematics between calculus and PDEs.

People majoring in science typically take the mathematics courses that are most relevant to their discipline. Most biological functions that I am familiar with can be described by a logarithmic/exponential function, and I am completely capable of deriving equations as I need them. The only benefit to having taken calculus is that I can follow equations in discussions of biophysics. In any case, I believe I adequately refuted the assertion that life sciences are completely devoid of mathematics, even if my math background did not prepare me for a career in aerospatial engineering.

The ability to plug data into spread sheets or programs for statistical analysis does not qualify a person as having an understanding of higher mathematics. That doesn't cut it.

In practice, you have to understand the mathmatics before you can plug the numbers into Excel or SPSS. Otherwise, you can plug numbers in all day, but you'll never know whether your results are valid or even close to plausible. I should mention that during the time I shared an office with a statistician, I never once (in several years) saw her calculate statistical functions by hand. She always plugged the numbers into some program (usually SPSS).

If I recall, it was evolutionist Julian Huxley that pointed out that evolution theory had a huge flaw from a purely probabilistic viewpoint, though he remained a believer. Others have added to and reinforced his work.

The "probabilistic flaw" is only an artifact resulting from the assumption that the "endpoint" was the intended goal of evolution all along. When you consider it from a more scientific point of view--that any species can fill a particular niche as long as it has certain characteristics, then the evolution of a species to fill a niche is almost inevitable. For evolution to occur, it is only necessary for DNA to mutate, for the DNA repair systems to fail to repair the DNA, and for the mutation to be neutral or to confer an advantage. These events happen rather frequently.

147 posted on 05/28/2012 11:28:59 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: central_va
I don't agree with that either. I think Homo Sapiens did suddenly appear 250,000 years ago and I have no idea why. It was divine? I don't know, but it was no evolutionary process.

The general concensus is that Cro Magnon, the first form of homo sapiens, appeared around 45K years ago and he appeared with his technologies and artwork fully formed from day one.

Now, you could either believe that God created Cro Magnon man here on Earth at that time, or you could go looking for saltation theories which I don't really want to get into here other than to note that no saltation theory (man from elsewhere) does anything for evolution since the laws of mathematics and probability work the same way everywhere else in the universe as they do here.

But the hell of it is this. If you want to believe in saltations, then you need at least two of them, i.e. for Cro Magnons, and then again for the Bible antediluvians. The two groups were genetically and biologically the same or close enough to neglect any differences, but the cultures and technologies were totally different. Adam and Eve and their relatives were metal technology people from day one while some of the Cro Magnon descendants went on using stone tools until very recently when they were forced out of it by neighboring peoples.

148 posted on 05/28/2012 11:31:33 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
People majoring in science typically take the mathematics courses that are most relevant to their discipline.

Everything except logic apparently, which is the most valuable thing you'd get as a math major. A firm grasp of logic is generally enough to prevent people from becoming evolosers.

149 posted on 05/28/2012 11:34:16 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Evolution study/theory is really a subset of genetics and genome mapping which is arguably pure mathematics.


150 posted on 05/28/2012 11:40:34 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-267 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson