Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution Major Vanishes From Approved Federal List
New York Times ^ | August 24, 2006 | Cornelia Dean

Posted on 08/23/2006 11:09:23 PM PDT by balch3

Evolutionary biology has vanished from the list of acceptable fields of study for recipients of a federal education grant for low-income college students.

The omission is inadvertent, said Katherine McLane, a spokeswoman for the Department of Education, which administers the grants. “There is no explanation for it being left off the list,” Ms. McLane said. “It has always been an eligible major.”

Another spokeswoman, Samara Yudof, said evolutionary biology would be restored to the list, but as of last night it was still missing.

If a major is not on the list, students in that major cannot get grants unless they declare another major, said Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Mr. Nassirian said students seeking the grants went first to their college registrar, who determined whether they were full-time students majoring in an eligible field.

“If a field is missing, that student would not even get into the process,” he said.

That the omission occurred at all is worrying scientists concerned about threats to the teaching of evolution.

One of them, Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University, said he learned about it from someone at the Department of Education, who got in touch with him after his essay on the necessity of teaching evolution appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 15. Dr. Krauss would not name his source, who he said was concerned about being publicly identified as having drawn attention to the matter.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: anothercervothread; creationistfanatics; crevolist; darwinism; enoughalready; evoboors; fakefield; federalspending; genesis1; grants; id; idisjunkscience; intelligentdesign; jerklist; keywordwars; makeitstop; pavlovian; pseudoscience; thewordistruth; usualsuspects; whyareyouscared
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-207 next last
To: andysandmikesmom

"Frauds, in whatever venue, should be exposed, for they do not represent the true nature of that venue...and once exposed, they should no longer be trusted."

Certainly, I'm just tired of "scientists" saying that we must believe everything they say because they are "scientists".

We have these people in the educational system who consider themselves elite because they are professors or because they have been career college students.


151 posted on 08/26/2006 12:18:16 PM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
"Please tell us which of Coyoteman's (CP) skulls are false and provide evidence thereof."
nonsense, I'm not the one presenting them as proof.

The proof has been presented. The onus is on you to disprove them now. Or do you know as little about forensics as you do about science?

"Individual frauds do not mean much. They mean that the scientific method works and keeps (or miimizes) bad data."

Then why do you bring up cold fusion?

The Cold Fusion experiment result was found to be unreplicatabale. As a result, it was rejected by the Science community. Physics as a science was not. By your method, a single fraud is sufficient reason to reject an entire body of science.

"Individual frauds do not mean much. They mean that the scientific method works and keeps (or miimizes) bad data."

Then it should be easy for you to prove. But you can't without making huge assumptions which are based on other huge assumptions.

Again please show which of the skulls presented in the post to you by Coyoteman have assumptions built in. Your layperson's say-so doesn't cut much muster.

I once again suggest, as a friendly gesture, that you stop making a fool of yourself by showing how little you understand science or the scientific method.

It is painful to watch.

152 posted on 08/26/2006 12:42:19 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (I LIKE you! When I am Ruler of Earth, yours will be a quick and painless death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Certainly, I'm just tired of "scientists" saying that we must believe everything they say because they are "scientists".

Science has systems in place to evaluate and expose frauds.

Moreso than any other field of study.

Feel free to show me others that have more (and don't waste your time with SOX -- I could run rings around a SOX audit in my sleep).

I am sure Creationism has double blind studies and peer review in its aresenal of ensuring accuracy, right?

153 posted on 08/26/2006 12:45:27 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (I LIKE you! When I am Ruler of Earth, yours will be a quick and painless death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

"Science has systems in place to evaluate and expose frauds."

Doesn't seem to work all that well in some fields.

"Moreso than any other field of study."

Oh really? Thats a pretty darn bold statement.

"I am sure Creationism has double blind studies and peer review in its aresenal of ensuring accuracy, right?"

I dunno, the number of scholars involved with revising the bible to make the language more modern was in the hundreds.

And that was just one round.


154 posted on 08/26/2006 1:13:41 PM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

If science could take place apart from philosophical underpinnings you might have a point.


155 posted on 08/26/2006 1:15:08 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Doesn't seem to work all that well in some fields.

Name one.

Oh really? Thats a pretty darn bold statement.

Name one.

I dunno, the number of scholars involved with revising the bible to make the language more modern was in the hundreds.

And how many checked the accuracy? Anyone go to Jesus' tomb and double blind verify the Resurrection?

Purpetuating myth is not double-blind studies (and for reference, I am a Christian and believe that myth. But I recognize pure faith for what it is and isn't).

And that was just one round.

And you lost. Big time.

156 posted on 08/26/2006 1:44:04 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (I LIKE you! When I am Ruler of Earth, yours will be a quick and painless death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
If science could take place apart from philosophical underpinnings you might have a point.

It does -- but thanks for your always amusing sophomoric musing.

157 posted on 08/26/2006 1:44:50 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (I LIKE you! When I am Ruler of Earth, yours will be a quick and painless death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: FreedomProtector; jennyp

I enjoyed your post. I learned a bit from it.

I also enjoyed the following post that had an interesting link which I guess was a rebuke of some sort.

It seemed to me that the first post was actually typed because of a few typos in there. It appears to not be copy/pasted.

That would be a lot of work in my opinion, especially if I were the one typing it.


158 posted on 08/26/2006 2:16:08 PM PDT by Radix (Law was made for Man, and Man was not made for the Law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

"Name one."

hmmm well cloning, climate, aids research, global warming, population, lets see I'm sure theres more.


"And how many checked the accuracy? Anyone go to Jesus' tomb and double blind verify the Resurrection?"

Are you aware of the wealth of information from that time period?

Science has become a religion in this country. Don't dare to question the "findings" or you will be branded a heretic.


159 posted on 08/26/2006 2:27:34 PM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
hmmm well cloning, climate, aids research, global warming, population, lets see I'm sure theres more.

Those are political movements not scientific studies.

Are you aware of the wealth of information from that time period?

But none you can cite.

Science has become a religion in this country. Don't dare to question the "findings" or you will be branded a heretic.

No, just willfully ignorant or perhaps stupid.

160 posted on 08/26/2006 3:02:47 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (I LIKE you! When I am Ruler of Earth, yours will be a quick and painless death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

"hmmm well cloning, climate, aids research, global warming, population, lets see I'm sure theres more.

Those are political movements not scientific studies."

Cloning is a political movement? better tell that to Dolly the sheep.

"Science has become a religion in this country. Don't dare to question the "findings" or you will be branded a heretic.

No, just willfully ignorant or perhaps stupid."

See and the attacks begin because I don't accept "science" as this pure and without sin field.


161 posted on 08/26/2006 3:16:56 PM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Cloning is a political movement? better tell that to Dolly the sheep.

OK, so is it science or a fake? You list it as a fake.

See and the attacks begin because I don't accept "science" as this pure and without sin field.

Is there an alternative? Philosophy is fun but it won't make your computer work.

162 posted on 08/26/2006 3:19:00 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (I LIKE you! When I am Ruler of Earth, yours will be a quick and painless death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

"OK, so is it science or a fake? You list it as a fake."

No I listed those disciplines as examples where scientists are not following your supposed scientific process. In those fields scientists have commited fraud, are committing fraud, or are twisting their findings to support a predetermined agenda. How many scientific "studies" do we hear about that surprisingly support the cause of the people who paid for the study?

"Is there an alternative? Philosophy is fun but it won't make your computer work."

Science is fine, but scientists are just people and as such are no better or no worse than anyone else. And just like other people they rarely admit to their biases. If you don't buy their "results" hook line and sinker then you are branded as a heretic, "willfully ignorant", or "just plain stupid".


163 posted on 08/26/2006 3:31:25 PM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
No I listed those disciplines as examples where scientists are not following your supposed scientific process. In those fields scientists have commited fraud, are committing fraud, or are twisting their findings to support a predetermined agenda. How many scientific "studies" do we hear about that surprisingly support the cause of the people who paid for the study?

As I said, they are politics. You have yet to provide evidence of TToE practitioners doing anything less than following the letter of true scientific methods.

Science is fine, but scientists are just people and as such are no better or no worse than anyone else. And just like other people they rarely admit to their biases. If you don't buy their "results" hook line and sinker then you are branded as a heretic, "willfully ignorant", or "just plain stupid".

Well at least you get to to choose, since you provide no proof of an alternative.

164 posted on 08/26/2006 3:36:42 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (I LIKE you! When I am Ruler of Earth, yours will be a quick and painless death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Science is fine, but scientists are just people and as such are no better or no worse than anyone else. And just like other people they rarely admit to their biases. If you don't buy their "results" hook line and sinker then you are branded as a heretic, "willfully ignorant", or "just plain stupid".

This is why scientists don't publish nonsense in peer reviewed journals. You've inadvertently, blindly, and likely with continuing befuddlement, stumbled on why science has a really great track record.

165 posted on 08/26/2006 3:41:45 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

"As I said, they are politics. You have yet to provide evidence of TToE practitioners doing anything less than following the letter of true scientific methods."

You're evading. Cloning, climatology, population studies are all fields which have scientists studying things. Sure there are politics involved and that makes my point. Thank you


166 posted on 08/26/2006 3:42:42 PM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

"This is why scientists don't publish nonsense in peer reviewed journals. You've inadvertently, blindly, and likely with continuing befuddlement, stumbled on why science has a really great track record."

Once again with the insults. Is that scientific as well? Now we understand why certain scientists were jailed 500 years ago for their new scientific ideas.


167 posted on 08/26/2006 3:45:15 PM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

Time to abandon thread.


168 posted on 08/26/2006 3:54:32 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (The universe is made for life, therefore ID. Life can't arise naturally, therefore ID.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Once again with the insults. Is that scientific as well? Now we understand why certain scientists were jailed 500 years ago for their new scientific ideas.

First, where's the insult? Did you take offense at the 'continuing befuddlement' phrase. If so, sorry, but I've been following the thread and I've concluded you don't understand the scientific process. Second, why the 'again' comment?

In any case, you are not addressing the point of my post, which is that the process requires scientists to submit their data, hypothesis, and conclusions to peer review, and the track record of this process has been outstanding and without precedent successful in human history.

169 posted on 08/26/2006 3:55:15 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Most likely a wise course. I'll probably do the same.


170 posted on 08/26/2006 3:58:29 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Your replies are what constitute sophomoric musing (if they even rise to such a level). You've not supplied any form of scientific hypothesis to determine the distinction between natural and supernatural, but assert the distinction as necessary to science. You've also failed to give a single reason why intelligent design should be considered supernatural when you continually and "naturally" employ the same.


171 posted on 08/26/2006 3:59:09 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Your replies are what constitute sophomoric musing (if they even rise to such a level). You've not supplied any form of scientific hypothesis to determine the distinction between natural and supernatural, but assert the distinction as necessary to science. You've also failed to give a single reason why intelligent design should be considered supernatural when you continually and "naturally" employ the same.

LOLOL! You're killing me here. Fester! A "scientific hypothesis to determine the distinction between natural and supernatural!" ROTFLMAO! You're killing me!

Have (yet) another beer on me.

172 posted on 08/26/2006 4:03:02 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (I LIKE you! When I am Ruler of Earth, yours will be a quick and painless death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: ml1954; PatrickHenry

Me, too (abandoning)

But it was funny before it degenerated.


173 posted on 08/26/2006 4:04:08 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (I LIKE you! When I am Ruler of Earth, yours will be a quick and painless death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

You're the one who has the pure handle on "what is science." If figured at least you'd be able scientifically to define its terms. The only thing forthcoming has been acerbic ridicule.

Time once again to follow your lead cheerleader and abandon thread. You know: quit while you're behind.


174 posted on 08/26/2006 4:14:59 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Troll-a-rama placemarker
175 posted on 08/26/2006 4:18:29 PM PDT by longshadow (FReeper #405, entering his ninth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: highlander_UW; freedumb2003
...The only thing an evolution major can do is work as an adviser on a dinosaur movie telling them they know for a fact what sounds some dinosaur made. ...

Some of them (the proper term is paleontologists) recently used the Theory of Evolution to determine what to look for in an amphibian-like fish transitional, and also where to look for it. They found Tiktaalik.

176 posted on 08/26/2006 7:28:45 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
They found Tiktaalik.

There's some shots that'll cure that.

177 posted on 08/26/2006 8:05:01 PM PDT by highlander_UW (I don't know what my future holds, but I know Who holds my future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: highlander_UW; balch3
It's odd that about the only use for a degree is evolution is to propagate it's teaching...

As opposed to a degree in Biblical or Koranic studies.

178 posted on 08/26/2006 8:46:56 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
It's odd that about the only use for a degree is [sic] evolution is to propagate it's teaching...

Who digs up all those neat fossils? Who analyzes and publishes on the finds? Who does the museum exhibits?

179 posted on 08/26/2006 8:49:48 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
As opposed to a degree in Biblical or Koranic studies.

Well, you've rightly compared an evolution degree with a religious one.

180 posted on 08/26/2006 9:22:40 PM PDT by highlander_UW (I don't know what my future holds, but I know Who holds my future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: FreedomProtector
Gravity is observable and therefore empiriacally verifiable. Evolution is not.

Give me a break. MICRO-gravity is observable when you drop a book. MACRO-gravity, ie the theory that something is strong enough to move the earth, is not observable. You can't reproduce it in a laboratory. In fact, the Bible specifically tells us that nothing can move the earth. The apparent motion of the planets and the sun is merely the hand of God moving them. We can call this theory Intelligent Pushing.

Also, you might want to fix the formatting in your post. Anyone who gets to the end will be confused by statements such as 41000 million = 10 600 million.

181 posted on 08/27/2006 7:16:11 AM PDT by Thalos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom
I do appreciate the candor of your question, and I would note that no interpretation of the scriptures in circulation today is in the script. I can however say that there is one exact, and precise meaning, and or interpretation. Though I would not say that I have a plenary understanding of every individual passage within the scriptures, nor does anyone alive today, I will say that there are several passages of the scriptures that need no "interpretation, nor explanation" for the most part, the Bible is very straight forward, and it never, I repeat never contradicts itself. Though several different "Christian" groups may indeed debate over the interpretation or theology surrounding certain passages, there is an absolute truth, as well as absolute morals. Anyone who denies this denies the very foundation of the scriptures. The word Gospel is interpreted as being truth, since the Bible refers to itself as the Gospel, then if there is just one lie within it, then it negates the claim to being the truth. Hence the Bible is either 100% true, or it is in it's entirety a lie.
182 posted on 08/27/2006 8:48:34 PM PDT by whispering out loud (the bible is either 100% true, or in it's very nature it is 100% a lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: whispering out loud

Thank you for your thoughtful response...perhaps the better question would have been then, 'Who has the absolute truth?'...from what I have seen in the religion forum on FR, and what I have experienced in my real life, each different Christian religion seems to believe that their interpretation is the 'absolute truth'...and again, we come to the fact, that different Christian religions cannot all have the absolute truth of a matter, when they are in complete disagreement as to what that absolute truth is...so if we grant, that the Bible contains the absolute truth, the question will still remain, as to which Christian religion has the absolute truth....

The most explicit example I can think of relating to this is about the perpetual virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus...Catholics believe that she never had sex with Joseph during their marriage, never had any other children besides Jesus, and remained a virgin all of her life...most non-Catholic Christians seem to believe, that after Jesus was born, Mary did have sex with Joseph during their marriage and she bore many children...now, there can be only one truth here...either she remained a perpetual virgin or she did not...either she had sex with Joseph or she did not...either she had other children or she did not...there is only one absolute truth of this matter...yet who has it, this absolute truth about Marys state of virginity?...Its been hotly contested for a long time on FR....on this matter someone is right, and someone is wrong...both contenders cannot be right...and both sides of this matter, use Biblical scriptures to support their own particular beliefs...

And so it goes for so many matters concerning the Bible...so even tho we may grant that there is an absolute truth from the whole of the Bible, who indeed has this absolute truth? Truthfully, I dont think anyone here can answer that, to anyone elses satisfaction...because each particular Christian religion believes that they have the absolute truth, and will back it up with Biblical scriptures, and a different Christian religion will use those very same scriptures, and come to a completely different conclusion...

And so the question remains, 'Who has the absolute truth?' and that question remains unanswered....



183 posted on 08/27/2006 11:18:20 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Except that 'science' is constantly advanced as a criterion that must be met in the natural vs supernatural debate.

This is simply irrational as you can't answer that question by willfully ignoring potential explanations (like creation) in favor of only natural explanations.

If you are, in fact, looking at a supernaturally-created biology and universe, you will never get the correct answer with such 'a priori' limitations.


184 posted on 08/28/2006 5:52:01 AM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
" 'Evolutionists start with the presupposition that evolution is “scientific fact”. This results in conclusions which are often times contradictory to the observed world. Evolutionists frequently refuse to come to rational conclusions, or even follow evidence where it leads on the basis that to do so would result in a contradiction of their previous metaphysical beliefs.'

Please provide evidence to support these claims."


I. Evolutionists start with the presupposition that evolution a fact

“Evolution is a fact, not a theory.”
Carl Sagan

“The first point to make about Darwin’s theory is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact…”
Julian Huxley

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

…The term THEORY is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain HOW life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p.434

Professor of Genetics, Dr. Whitten, University of Melbourne:
“Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.”
Professor Whitten, 1980 Assembly Week address, University of Melbourne.



There are many examples of presuppostion of 'evolution is a fact' resulting in conclusions which are contradictory to the observed world. One example of this is the evolution's belief in spontaneous generation despite overwelling mathematical improbability.

II. Evolutionists belief in Abiogenesis/Spontaneous Generation despite overwelling mathematical improbabilty because it fits their presupposition that 'Evolution is a fact, not a theory'


a) Calculations of Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe for random generation of a simple enzyme and calculations for a single celled bacterium.

Although he is an evolutionist, and an atheist, Hoyle sees the mathematical statistical difficulty in producing a single bacterium like E. coli. In his calculations of the probability of life emerging from chance interactions with chemicals, Hoyle assumed that the first living cell was much simpler than today’s bacteria. However, his calculation for the likelihood of even one very simple enzyme arising at the right time in the right place was only chance in 10^(20). Because there are thousands of different enzymes with different functions, to produce the simplest living cell, Hoyle calculated that about 2,000 enzymes were needed with each one performing a specific task to form a single bacterium lie E coli.

No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have a random beginning….there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^2000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court….the enormous information content of even the simplest living systems….cannot in out view be generated by what are often called “natural” processes, …For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly…There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago.
-Hoyle & Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981).

Chandra Wickramasinghe adds:
“The chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747.”

b) Calculations of Hubert Yockey for random generation of a single molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c protein.

He assigned the responsibility of amino acid selection and their polymerizing to form proteins to three Fates, acting as dei ex machina in a Greek drama. Lachesis was the caster of 110 icosahedral dice; Clotho, the spinner of the thread of life, polymerized them; and Atropos cut the thread when Lachesis assigned an amino acid to a non functionality equivalent site. Yockey asked the question: what is the probability that Lachesis and Clotho will build a chain of 110 amino acids of the iso-1-cytochrome c without Atropos cutting it?

Yockey calculated the probability was 2 x 10-44. Yockey then noted that the realistic odds are much worse what would have to form in the prebiotic soup…..

“In so far as chance plays a central role, the probability that even a very short protein, not withstanding a genome, could emerge from the primeval soup, if it ever existed, even with the help of a deus ex machina for 109 years is so small that the faith of Job is required to believe it….”
Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology, p 279
“Let us remind ourselves that we have calculated the probability if the generation of only a single molecule of iso-1 cytochrome c. Of course, very many copies of each molecule must be generated to form the protobiont…I am using probability as a measure of degree of belief. It is clear that the belief that a molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c or any other protein could appear by chance is based on faith. And so we see that even if we believe that the “building blocks” are available, they do not spontaneously make proteins, at least not by chance. The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability.”
Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology, p 257

c) Calculations of Bradley and Thaxton for random production of a single protein.

Walter L. Bradley and Charles B. Thaxton calculated the probability of a random formation of amino acids into a protein to be 4.9 x 10-191. They began with the assumption that the probability of starting with an L-amino acid was .5, and the probability of starting with an L-amino acid was .5, and the probability of two L-amino acids joining with a peptide bond was also .5. They assumed that the twenty necessary amino acids existed in equal concentration in the prebiotic soup so that the probability of the right amino acid in the required position was .05.
Bradley and Thaxton were also generous towards the proponents of random processes when they also assumed that all of the chemical reactions would be with amino acids, ignoring the high probability of reactions with non-amino acid chemicals. They calculated the probability of the necessary placement of one amino acid to be .5 x .5 x .05 or .125. This, of coarse, meant that the probability of assembling N such amino acids would be .0125 x .0125 for N terms. Assuming a protein with 100 amino acids (.0125 x .0125 for 100 terms ), the mathematically impossible probability would be 4.9 x 10-191.
Bradley and Thaxton noted their agreement with Hubert P. Yockey and concluded that even assuming that all the carbon on earth existed in the form of amino acids and reacted at the greatest possible rate of 1012/s for one billion years (when actually only 130 million years were available), the mathematically impossible probability for the formation of one functional protein would be 10^-65.

Walter L. Bradley and Charles B. Thaxton, “Information and the Origin of Life” in The Creation Hypothesis, ed. J. P. Moreland (Downers Grove, Il : InterVarsity Press, 1994), p. 190

d) Calculations of Harold Morowitz for single celled bacterium developing from accidental or chance processes.

The difficulties in producing a protein from the mythical prebiotic soup are very large, but more difficult still is the probability of random processes producing the simplest living cell which represents an overwhelming in crease in complexity. Harold Morowitz calculated the probability of broken chemical bonds in a single celled bacterium reassembling under ideal chemical conditions. He assumed that only constructive chemical processes were acting ( under natural conditions 50 percent of chemical processes are destructive ) and that all of the amino acids were bioactive ( in the natural environment 75 percent of amino acids are not bioactive ). Morowitz computed the odds against the cell reassembling eot be one in 10100,000,000,000. He summarized his computation:

“…no amount of ordinary manipulation or arguing about the age of the universe or the size of the system can suffice to make it plausible that such a fluctuation would have occurred in an equilibrium system. It is always possible to argue that any unique event would have occurred. This is outside the range of probabilistic considerations, and really, outside of science. We may sum up stating that on energy considerations alone, the possibility of a living cell occurring in an equilibrium ensemble is vanishingly small. It is important to reiterate this point as a number of authors on the origin of life have missed the significance of vanishingly small probabilities. They have assumed that the final possibility will be reasonably large by virtue of the size and age of the system. The previous paragragh shows that is not so: calculate clause of the probability of spontaneous origin are so low that the final probabilities are still vanishingly small.”

-Harold J. Morowitz, Energy Flow in Biology (Woodbridge, Conn.: Ox Bow Press, 1979), p. 12.


Morowitz also calculated the increase in chemical bonding energy required in forming an E coli bacterium and the probability of such a bacterium forming spontaneously anywhere in the entire universe over a period of five billion years under equilibrium conditions. In computing the odds to be one in 1010(110), Morowitz wrote:

“What is very clear … is that if equilibrium processes alone were at work, the largest possible fluctuation in the history of the universe id likely to have been no larger than a small peptide. Again, we stress in a very firm quantitative way, the impossibility of life originating as a fluctuation in an equilibrium ensemble.”
-Morowitz, Energy Flow in Biology, p. 68.


e) Calculations of Bernd-Olaf Kuppers for the random generation of the sequence of a bacterium.

Proceeding from the realistic assumption that all sequence alternatives of a nucleic-acid molecule are physically equivalent, Bernd-Olaf Kuppers concluded that the unguided, random formation of a predefined sequence ( such as the specific sequence of the nucleotides in the DNA molecule ) is reciprocally proportional to the number of all possible combinations of possible sequences. Kuppers noted that Michael Polanyi correctly emphasized that if the reverse assumption were true and the sequence of a nucleic-acid acid molecule would not have the capability to store information necessary to replicate living matter.

In calculating the expectation probability for the nucleotide sequence of a bacterium, Kuppers demonstrated the reason mathematicians have severe problems in accepting the assumptions of random origins:

“The human genome consists of about 109 nucleotides, and the number of combinatorially possible sequences attains the unimaginable size of 4^(1000 million) = 10^(600 million). Even in the simple case of a bacterium, the genome consists of some 4.106 nucleotides, and the number of combinatorially possible sequences is 4^(4million) = 10^(2.4 million). The expectation probability for the nucleotide sequence of a bacterium is thus so slight that not even the entire space of the universe would be enough to make the random synthesis of a bacterial genome probable. For example, the entire mass of the universe, expressed as a multiple of the mass of the hydrogen atom, amounts to about 10^80 units. Even if all the matter in space consisted of DNA molecules of the structural complexity of the bacterial genome, with random sequence, then the chances of finding among them a bacterial genome or something resembling one would still be completely negligible.”
Brand-Olaf Kuppers, Information and the Origin of Life ( Cambridge, Mass:: The MIT Press, 1990 ), pp 59-60.





There are well documented unnatural assumptions and with the Oparin-Halane hypothesis. The Miller-Urey experiments uncovered even more difficulties in life arising from non-life.


The following assumptions were adapted from material presented in Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, 2nd ed. by Percival Davis & Dean H. Kenyon (Dallas: Haughton Publishing, 1993)

a) Assumption 1: Reducing Atmosphere.
The earth’s early atmosphere contained little or no oxygen. It was composed of methane (CH4), ethane (C2H6), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen, (H2) and water vapor (H2O), but no oxygen.

If oxygen had been present in the earth’s early atmosphere (even 1% by volume compared to 21% today), it would have been impossible for organic compounds to have accumulated the way they did in Miller’s experiments. Such compounds would not have formed at all or would have been quickly destroyed by observation.

O2 + 2H2 = 2H2O (explosion) It is almost humorous when one reads analysis of the Miller-Urey experiments…if oxygen had been present, the spark would have caused an explosion.

Photodissociation of Water Vapor creates O2

2H2O + ultraviolet light energy = 2H2 + O2

“Support for large amounts of O2 is found in data from Apollo 16—data which suggest that a large amount of free oxygen does result from upper atmosphere photodissociation of water vapor. …if a small amount of O2 were present, important precursor molecules would have been destroyed (oxidized) or their formation prevented in the first place.”

Charles B Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger L. Olsen. The Mystery of Life’s Origin Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984) p. 80, 81

Oxidation of Geological Rock is circumstantial evidence that no reducing atmosphere ever existed.


Even if oxygen was not present in the early earth’s atmosphere, the absence of oxygen would present obstacles to the formation of life. Oxygen is required for the ozone layer, which protects the surface of the earth from deadly ultraviolet radiation. Without oxygen this radiation would break down organic compound as soon as they formed. This lethal ultraviolet flux is part of the Catch-22 against abiogenesis.

Michael Denton notes:
“What we have is a sort of catch-22 situation. If we don’t have oxygen we have no organic compounds, but if we don’t have oxygen we have none either. There is another twist to the problem of the ultraviolet flux. Nucleic acid molecules, which form the genetic material of all modern organisms, happen to be stron absorbers of ultraviolet light and are consequently particularly sensitive to ultraviolet-induced radiation damage and mutation. As Sagan points out, typical contemporary organisms subjected to the same intense ultraviolet flux which would have reached the Earth’s surface in an oxygen-free atmosphere acquire a mean lethal dose of radiation in 0.3 seconds…The level of ultraviolet radiation penetrating a primeval oxygen-free atmosphere would quite likely have been lethal to any proto-organism possessing a genetic apparatus remotely resembling that of modern organisms.”

-Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, (Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler, 1986), p. 262.



b) Assumption 2: Organic Compound Preservation
Simple organic compounds formed in the soup were somehow preserved, so that the energy that caused them to form did not also destroy them

Problem: Energy is like a two-edged sword which cuts both ways. On one hand, it builds up complex molecules out of simpler parts; however, that same energy breaks up developing molecules
The Miller-Urey didn’t match “prebiotic conditions”
In the Miller-Urey experiment amino acids and other simple compounds accumulated in a trap, where they were preserved from the destructive effects of electrical discharges. If the amino acids and other products had been continuously exposed to the early earth, they would have been destroyed as they were being formed and Miller could not have detected them.

c) Assumption 3: Reservation
Enough biological compounds were reserved for combination with the “right” molecules (rather than being tied up by reacting with useless molecules) to form the large molecules useful to life. ( obvious problem )


d) Assumption 4: Uniform Orientation
Inefficacy of random distribution of left and right handed molecules as building blocks for life.
Only “left-handed” or L-amino acids combined to produce the proteins of life, and only the “right-handed” or D-sugars reacted to produce polysaccharides, or nucleotides.

Problem: Miller and Urey’s experiment produced a random distribution of left and right handed molecules. Amino acids are in one of two forms: L-amino acids (left-handed molecules) or D-amino acids ( right-handed molecules), each a mirror image of the other. Only left-handed amino acids (L-amino acids) are contained in biologically functional proteins. None of the acids produced in the experiment combined with each other in any way. For protein functions amino acids must combine in a sophisticated sequence. This sequence is not easy to obtain by random processes, because L-amino acids and D-amino acids bond without distinction, and D-amino acids and L-amino acids are equally present in the physical world. Forming a sequence of only L-amino acids is necessary for the formation of a protein with enzymatic functions necessary for life.

e) Assumption 5: Simultaneous Origins
The genetic machinery that tells the cell how to produce protein and the protein required to build that genetic machinery both originated gradually and were present and functioning in the first reproducing protocells.

Note: In living cells, both DNA and protein depend on each other for existence.
f) Dilution in the “prebiotic soup” and the prevention of formation of polypeptides

Even if polypeptides had formed in the primordial soup, hydrolysis would have broken them up and destroyed most amino acids. Organic compounds such as amino acids, tend to break down when dissolved in water. The higher the temperature, the faster this breakdown occurs. Michael J. Behe (Darwin’s Black Box) comments on the effect of hydrolysis in presenting the formation of polypeptides:

…joining many amino acids together to form a protein with a useful biological activity is a much more difficult problem than forming amino acids in the first place. The major problem in hooking amino acids together is that, chemically, it involves the removal of a molecule of water for each amino acid joined to the growing protein chain. Conversely, the presence of water strongly inhibits amino acids from forming proteins…..




Despite overwelling mathematical improbability evolutionists still cling to the belief in spontaneous generation arising from prebiotic soup (the oooooooze according to Carl Sagan) because it fits their presupposition that “Evolution is a fact, not a theory.”.
185 posted on 08/28/2006 7:01:47 AM PDT by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Thalos

Regarding the superscript/subscript formatting....to borrow from jock vernacular: "my bad"...

41000 million = 10 600 million

should be

4^(1000 million) = 10^(600 million)


fixed superscripting/subscripting here...there still may be a couple of typos...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1689062/posts?page=185#185


186 posted on 08/28/2006 7:20:33 AM PDT by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: FreedomProtector
Your mined quotes do not demonstrate that the claim of evolution being fact is a "presuppositon".

Professor of Genetics, Dr. Whitten, University of Melbourne: “Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.” Professor Whitten, 1980 Assembly Week address, University of Melbourne.

Note that no evidence is given for Professor Whitten's claim.

Hoyle's caluclations are -- like many such calculations -- based upon completely unjustified premises. He calculates the odds of the chemcial components of life assembling all at once, but there is no reason to believe that the genesis of life involved such an evet happening all at once. Moreover, abiogenesis is not a part of the theory of evolution, and thus odds for or against it are not relevant to a discussion of evolution.
187 posted on 08/28/2006 8:12:53 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
<> Humans didn't evolve from apes. Humans still ARE apes.
188 posted on 08/29/2006 1:14:14 PM PDT by LiberalGunNut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

LOL. Thanks for telling me what I should and shouldn't believe. How long have you been in the Taliban? I don't really need an answer; the question is rhetorical.


189 posted on 08/30/2006 6:29:48 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"Moreover, abiogenesis is not a part of the theory of evolution, and thus odds for or against it are not relevant to a discussion of evolution."

Spontaneous Generation/abiogenesis is central/vitally important to the belief of evolution. If one starts with the presupposition, Carl Sagan's unverifiable assertion, that "matter is all there is." or "The Cosmos is all there is, all there has been and all there ever will be.", one has to believe that life came from matter because "that is all that there is".

Life in all of its beauty, complexity and order had to come from somewhere, either it came from matter because "that is all there is", or it come from something external to matter because it is mathematically vastly improbable to arrive from just matter.

Oh, but wait, that doesn't fit our original presupposition that "that matter is all there is", so we must must try to explain the mathematically vastly improbable so we must believe and explain via "prebiotic soup", "primordial oooze"....

Are you willing to put your faith in something vastly mathematically improbable, because you don't want to change your original presupposition that "matter is all there is". Perhaps it may be time for you to consider the possibility that there may be something external to matter....an intelligent Designer...i.e.God
190 posted on 08/30/2006 9:05:35 AM PDT by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: FreedomProtector
Spontaneous Generation/abiogenesis is central/vitally important to the belief of evolution. If one starts with the presupposition, Carl Sagan's unverifiable assertion, that "matter is all there is." or "The Cosmos is all there is, all there has been and all there ever will be.", one has to believe that life came from matter because "that is all that there is".

Carl Sagan's statement is not a part of the theory of evolution, and need not be true for the theory of evolution to be true.

Perhaps it may be time for you to consider the possibility that there may be something external to matter....an intelligent Designer...i.e.God

What evidence have you for such an entity?
191 posted on 08/30/2006 10:02:38 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
What evidence have you for such an entity?

Evidence for a designing entity can't even be collected until some basic attributes are established. When and how does it act, for starters. Since the one and only atribute that is claimed is deliberate, intelligent purpose, it is fair to ask about motives an purpose, particularly in regard to the bacterial flagellum, which seems particularly well designed to kill young children.

What was the designer thinking about?

192 posted on 08/30/2006 10:08:14 AM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
While I would agree that abiogenesis is not the foundation upon which the theory of evolution rests, your question to the poster begs the obvious ...

Perhaps it may be time for you to consider the possibility that there may be something external to matter....an intelligent Designer...i.e.God

To which you responded, "What evidence have you for such an entity?" The entire of the post at #185 is evidence that chance did not bring life into being, thus the necessity for a designer of some sort is the obvious default conclusion.

193 posted on 09/20/2006 8:07:57 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
To which you responded, "What evidence have you for such an entity?" The entire of the post at #185 is evidence that chance did not bring life into being, thus the necessity for a designer of some sort is the obvious default conclusion.

No, the default conclusion is, we don't know. Your default conclusion has been the default conclusion on every question science has ever faced, without exception.

That is what makes science different.

194 posted on 09/20/2006 8:11:04 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"Since the one and only atribute that is claimed is deliberate, intelligent purpose, it is fair to ask about motives and purpose, particularly in regard to the bacterial flagellum, which seems particularly well designed to kill young children. ... What was the designer thinking about?" Your query is just a strawman, since you posed the unspoken assumption that the designer made flagellum TO kill children, or the designer made flagellum stupidly because flagellum do occasionally kill children. The randomness of evolutionary process can be just as culpable in the divergence from first intents as this 'dumb' designer you seem to pose. That you or I cannot see back through every step, to the origin of the flagellum in relation to the life then extant does not mean a mistake may have been made. Just as throwing out the workable theory of evolution just because we cannot see back through every step prior to our advent would be poor reasoning.
195 posted on 09/20/2006 8:16:22 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
The randomness of evolutionary process can be just as culpable in the divergence from first intents as this 'dumb' designer you seem to pose.

ID advocates say the flagellum is nearly unique among life structures in that there is no way to reach its functionality through a series of step mutations. That is the cornerstone, the poster child of the ID movement. Behe testified under oath that the designer of the flagellum is God.

I merely find it odd that the Signature of God is something that lives in feces and kills children. My observation isn't scientific; it's an expression of curiosity.

196 posted on 09/20/2006 8:32:54 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: js1138
And a most intriguing observation. May I address it again, as I tried to do with the thoughts about cause, and time lapse for random change, and effect?
197 posted on 09/20/2006 8:49:53 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

You may do whatever pleases you, but I find your post rather cryptic.


198 posted on 09/20/2006 8:57:41 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
To which you responded, "What evidence have you for such an entity?" The entire of the post at #185 is evidence that chance did not bring life into being, thus the necessity for a designer of some sort is the obvious default conclusion.

Even if the arguments in post #185 are valid, they could only logically lead to the conclusion that there exists insufficient information to answer specific questions in the field of biology. That alone does not demonstrate the existence of a "designer", divine or otherwise. You must supply positive evidence of design or of a designer to support your claim.
199 posted on 09/20/2006 9:12:02 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"Even if the arguments in post #185 are valid, they could only logically lead to the conclusion that there exists insufficient information to answer specific questions in the field of biology. [Precisely why the impossibility of one explanation ought be cause to abandon abiogenesis in favor of some other explanation. But what other?] That alone does not demonstrate the existence of a "designer", divine or otherwise. You must supply positive evidence of design or of a designer to support your claim." ... Why must I provide evidence? I was only addressing the impossibility of abiogenesis as defined. I personally choose to believe there is therefore a designer. You believe whatever you choose, but abiogenesis is out as a viable explanation due to the overwhelming statistical improbability ... that's why I asserted designer for the advent of life as the default conclusion.
200 posted on 09/20/2006 9:34:18 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-207 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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