Creationist Ham appearing at Cork + UCD

robindch

Hi -

The creationist Ken Ham of http://www.answersingenesis.org will be appearing at UCD's Astra Hall on Friday 4th and Saturday 5th of March -- see the flyer + promotional material at:

http://www.creation.ie/kendublin.htm

He's also appearing at the appropriately named Moran Hotel in Cork (aka the Silversprings), on the 3rd.

Who's on for heading up to see what this guy's up to?

- robin.

BTW, I picked up two flyers for these events which had been taped to the wall in the Gents at the back of the Buttery Bar in Trinity College last night. These pesky creationists get everywhere, don't they?

Turley

robindch wrote:

Who's on for heading up to see what this guy's up to?

A better question might be who is funding the operation? Ken Ham is in the opinion shaping business. His bio states that he is an "in demand" speaker in a country where information is controlled. It would be interesting to know if Mr. Ham or his parents had a background in military intelligence. His biography lists a teaching degree but most teachers do not take a career path founding organizations with names like "Creative Science Foundation" or "Institute for Creation Research." That is an unusual way support a wife and five children. We might wonder who funds such Institutes and Foundations.

Ham affirms more than a belief in creation. He affirms the war in Iraq, U.S. elections, 9/11-hijackers, and the American "free press." In reality he may be a poor spokesperson for creation.

Why is Ken Ham asking us to choose between evolution and creation? Why not affirm both?

pH

Why is Ken Ham asking us to choose between evolution and creation? Why not affirm both?

Because wrong as these people are, they are at least honest in their beliefs.

One could I suppose invent a religion where God creates the big bang and leaves it go from there, or God creates the first spark of life on the planet and lets it go from there but these are not compatible with Genesis.

- Evolution poses serious problems for a human soul. 1 (or 2) people must have been given a soul that their parents didn't have. Unless everything that ever lived has a soul (again not in the Christian belief).

Basically, if Evolution is true, then an important part of the bible is wrong. If one part of the bible is wrong then in calls into question all of the bible.

None of this in any way has anything to do with the existence or otherwise of God. Evolution in no way 'proves God doesn't exists' - whether God exists is a fairly pointless debate.

A far more intesting debate is with the organised God-botherers who claim to 'Know the Mind of God'. These people in their organised religions believe they have books (and instructions) from God, telling them (and others!) how to behave, how to pray, what God likes and what he doesn't.

Evolution pretty much kills Christianity as a claim to know the mind of God. Now you (or anyone) can invent a new God, a new set of rules, rituals and beliefs that are more compatible with observed scientific fact - but remember you are just making it up as you go along!

robindch

> they are at least honest in their beliefs.

No, they are not; the beliefs may be firmly held, but they are most certainly not honest in their source. Have you ever listened to any baying, trumpeting creationist, decrying the atheism of evolution and science (sorry?), damning the educated people who propagate either and spout endless crap about topics in which their level of knowledge is sub-zero?

Creationists are disingenuous and ignorant concerning the manner and substance of their beliefs -- see almost any creationist text, or indeed, any skeptical reviews of any creationist texts.

> If one part of the bible is wrong then in calls into
> question all of the bible.

Any critical, rather than credulous, analysis of the bible casts severe doubts upon the entire enterprise of any organized religion which uses the bible as a logical base. The bible is a thoroughly inconsistent set of texts from which one can pluck sentences, or clauses, more or less at random, to justify just about any pleasant or unpleasant human behaviour -- see http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com for a taste.

> you are just making it up as you go along!

This is standard practice in the realms of religion, in the few enough cases, of course, where believers don't simply accept what's handed to them on a (collection) plate by their local holymen + spook merchants.

- robin.

Turley

pH wrote:

One could I suppose invent a religion where God creates the big bang and leaves it go from there, or God creates the first spark of life on the planet and lets it go from there but these are not compatible with Genesis.

I don't see the incompatibility with Genesis. A Creator that allows for evolution seems reasonable. The point of Genesis is a Creator, not a Supreme being with a watch or a calendar to know what day it is.
Affirming both a Creator and evolution seems to be s fair solution.

Turley

robindch wrote:

The bible is a thoroughly inconsistent set of texts from which one can pluck sentences, or clauses, more or less at random, to justify just about any pleasant or unpleasant human behaviour

In a way you are correct, as a man may argue in favor of war as in "an eye for and eye" but Jesus said no to that and said "turn the other cheek."

Still another man may argue that when Christ was struck by the guard of the high priest he did not turn his other cheek, therefore war is still justified.

Yet still another man my argue that Christ did more than turn his other cheek, he surrendered his whole body over to be crucified.

Men have used scripture to justify everything from slavery to murder but the fault may be with men and not the scripture.

Christ was either a fool, a liar, or who he said he was.

robindch

> who funds such Institutes and Foundations.

I understand from sources close to Dr Ham's institution(*), that he expects around 800 euro per day for engagements in Europe -- expressed as gifts, mind you, never fees, possibly 'coz fees might be taxable and a gift to god in the US isn't a taxable commodity, no doubt on account of the difficulty of prosecuting god in the event of non-payment.

Your local friendly skeptic understands also that events within the US mainland command a much higher fee which has yet to be confirmed, though we're working on determining this too (hi there ken, if you're watching!). Some indication of the outlay can be had from Ham's events page which quotes a rate of $4,000 - $6,000 for the kickoff costs of what it calls 'Mega Family Conferences' (printing not included) for what looks like eight to ten hours of high-voltage creationism.

Then multiply these costs by the number of events listed in the events listing page (an average of 4.5 events per day at the time of writing) and you might reach some understanding of how much financial clout this guy can bring to the tricky problem of how to damn people far wiser than him.

Seems too that god needs a truckload of cash to stay in business.

- robin.

(*) - these pesky skeptics get everywhere, don't we?

robindch

> Men have used scripture to justify everything from slavery to murder but the fault may be with men and not the scripture.

Or the fault may lie with a proposed god who was unable to get his scribblers to write a coherent book even if the world depended upon it, as it tried to do for 2,000-odd years. Can't say that I think much of an self-professedly omnipotent god who (a) felt it necessary to plagiarize Plato wholesale, except for the intelligent and ironic bits (see particularly The Meno), so missing what Plato actually *meant* and (b) has his adherents believe that he was the ultimate source for around 800,000 words of mostly extraordinarily dull and turgid text containing hardly a sentence upon which any two adherents agree, in the lot.

> Christ was either a fool, a liar, or who he said he was.

A fine example of a disjunctive affirmation. Amongst many other options, JC could also just have been a regular guy unfortunate enough to get himself killed in the right place, at the right time, around the period of the apex of the Roman Empire, whose death managed to coruscate his friends to such an extent that they spent the rest of their lives and energies propagating JC's memes, or at least, what they thought they were (for extra marks, compare + contrast with the hirsute Sai Baba). Have a poke through Gibbon's extraordinary Chapter XV (et seq.) for further details.

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

Can't say that I think much of an self-professedly omnipotent god

You may be right or you may be wrong.

It matters little if we are right or wrong about issues like Uri Geller, men on the moon, Forrestal' "poem", chiropractors, and hypnotism. We can even be wrong about atheism and what difference does it make?

But to be wrong about God could have serious long term implications. If I was going to choose to believe in anything, including: the holocaust, Derren Brown, Dr. Ham, atheism, men on the moon, hypnotism, Forrestal's poem, 19 terrorist hijakers, George Bush, the Labor party, or God. I think belief in God is the only safe bet. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain.

People find sillier things to believe in, including themselves. What do you believe Robin?

davros

Remember the topic: "Creationist Ham"


(mmm....ham....)

robindch

> I think belief in God is the only safe bet.

No doubt you do -- the simplistic verities and circular arguments which religion provides have indeed evolved to appeal to a wide section of humanity, otherwise they wouldn't have propagated. Take a look, for example, at the evolution of creationism itself over the last while, which in many of its more recent and less extreme and more successful manifestations has taken to aping (!) at a very superficial level, some of the forms and language of science, in the expectation that a faintly more scientifically literate populace will be conned by it, as indeed they are, in great number.

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

a faintly more scientifically literate populace will be conned by it, as indeed they are, in great number.

Apparently people are conned by many things.

sliabh

Turley wrote:

You may be right or you may be wrong.
...
But to be wrong about God could have serious long term implications... ...I think belief in God is the only safe bet. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Oooo, anyone up for a critique of Pascals Wager?

robindch

> anyone up for a critique of Pascals Wager?

Pascal biggest mistook in this hoary old chestnut was in applying non-evidence-based beliefs to real-world decision policies; similar means of determination have given us, for example, the Iraq War. The pointlessness of arguing from belief is easier to see if you replace 'god' with something 'there is a mind-control satellite floating over my head', and go on to conclude that a tinfoil hat is a useful fashion accessory. At a game-theoretical level, the logic and conclusion are both fine, but the premises, upon which the conclusion is based, smell to the highest vaults of heaven (should such vaults exist).

So, getting back to my original question, is anybody on for going up with me to check out the redoubtable Ham deliver his fundamentalist cheese? It's €15 euro at the door and, should god exist as claimed, Pascal tells us that it'll be €15 well spent.

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

Pascal biggest mistook in this hoary old chestnut was in applying non-evidence-based beliefs to real-world decision policies; similar means of determination have given us, for example, the Iraq War.

I would not pay €15 euro to hear Dr. Ham. His views are online and confronting him among his followers will not make any difference.

Non-evidence-based beliefs begot the Iraq War and the big bang theory.

robindch

> confronting him among his followers will not make any difference.

It would be excessively brave of me to confront a religious moron on home turf, surrounded by up to 599 braying idiots, all standing, eyes closed, swaying, arms in the air, undergoing the toronto 'blessing', speaking in tongues, and all the rest of it -- I'm just going along to enjoy the show. These religious jamborees are usually great fun, a bit like modern-day Nuremberg Rallies, and remind me, more than anything else, how useful a working brain is, by seeing what banalities one could be reduced to in the absence of one.

BTW, folks, I'm actually being serious here. If you've never seen one of these fruitcake crowds zinged up on god, adrenaline and the lash, I do strongly recommend that you make the effort and pop along, even only for one or two 'talks'; a pass for the five is slightly cheaper than four beers, almost as entertaining, and frightfully more educational. Here's that link again:

http://www.creation.ie/kendublin.htm

> Non-evidence-based beliefs begot [...] the big bang theory.

I think you possibly mean 'begat', but regardless, perhaps you'd care to expand upon this? I hadn't realised that, in addition to your memorable expertises in hand-writing analysis and space-exploration, that you also do subatomic physics and I do look forward with much interest to what you have to offer upon the topic. Feel free to start another thread, if you feel we're moving away from creationism.

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

I think you possibly mean 'begat', but regardless, perhaps you'd care to expand upon this? I hadn't realised that, in addition to your memorable expertises in hand-writing analysis and space-exploration, that you also do subatomic physics...

I am not an expert in handwriting, space exploration, or subatomic physics. I am not an expert at anything. You are the cocksure expert here.
I meant 'begot.'

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

maybe it's just me.. but if it wasn't for the obvious snideness in certain posts, and the fact that they were the only two posting.. I wouldn't have known turley and robin were arguing..

to me, they both seemed to be agreeing over alot of points..

maybe I read this **** wrong..

robindch

> I am not an expert in handwriting

In your previous postings, you did declare that the consensus view upon the suicide notes was wrong, which implies that you believe that you are more knowledgable about the notes, than the people who had access to them. Within standard judicial practice, this makes you an 'expert' in front of a court, which, in a certain sense, is where we both find ourselves. Likewise with the moon-hoax thread, in which you declared that all the consensual views concerning man's visits to the moon were moonshine, setting yourself up as an expert again.

However, it's very rare that anybody outside the small-enough world of physicists bothers to learn enough to be able to express an opinion worth hearing and, as I said, I'd love to hear any that might be on offer here, though I think they're more relevant to a new thread.

> I meant 'begot.'.

I checked this one after posting and it turns out that we're both right -- the KJV exclusively uses 'begat' (what I'm familar with), while the more modern translations of the bible use 'begot', and I thought you were being intentionally archaic, but just misspelling it. 'pologies about this -- I was wrong to suggest that this might have been a misspelling.

- robin.

davros

robindch wrote:

So, getting back to my original question, is anybody on for going up with me to check out the redoubtable Ham deliver his fundamentalist cheese? It's €15 euro at the door...

Can't quite bring myself to donate €15 to the cause. Though it probably would be an eye-opener. A year ago, I would have said there was hardly a person in this country that subscribed to Creationism (among the Irish Catholic population anyway). But a few of them stood up to be counted at the ISS lecture on the topic. It would be quite dispiriting to see a whole hall full of them.

robindch

> Can't quite bring myself to donate €15 to the cause.

Am having difficulty justifying it myself, but as he may well be having to pay for the hall, probably a hotel, flights and the rest and therefore contributing to the world's economy in a positive way, I am fondly, if rather optimistically, hoping that the cash won't end up funding some odious venture such as his $25 million creation museum. BTW, you can buy some pretty kookie books there, for example, a leather-bound limited edition of our old friend Ussher's 'Annals of the World', the on-again/off-again 'Arguments Creationists Should NOT Use', and my own personal favorite, 'Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection', a book which uncovers the "'intergalactic' battle over the history of life in the universe" and claims that the UFO community themselves are involved in a cover-up -- the conspiracy theorists themselves accused of conspiracies -- way cool, guys!)

BTW, Ham turned up this week on the BBC news website, pursuant to a school in Pennsylvania voting to teach biblically-mandated biology alongside modern biology. See the local school's announcement which concludes with the disgracefully disingenuous phrase '[...]religion is neither inhibited nor promoted.'.

> Though it probably would be an eye-opener

As I said earlier, if you've not been to one of these gatherings before, it's worth going along to see what we're up against, the better to know how to counter its slack-jawed, facile appeal.

> I would have said there was hardly a person in this
> country that subscribed to Creationism (among the
> Irish Catholic population anyway).

In my experience, it's confined exclusively to the charismatic/evangelical outlets in the country and hasn't yet begun to infect the catholic religious in any degree. However, I suspect that at least half of that, and probably far more, is the usual rejection by one religious group of the fiercely-held tenets of another; as fine a field-example of Freud's 'narcissism of minor difference' as any non-lethal one I can think of.

> It would be quite dispiriting to see a whole hall full of them.

They've rented a hall which apparently seats 600 and as they're having five talks and, no doubt, linked to the local evangelicals, I imagine they've done their homework and are expecting around this number. Anyhow, if a thoroughly wet spoilsport like Randi can gather 400-odd for an evening of fresh air in Ballsbridge, I can't imagine that a mutton-chopped, raving bible-thumper is going to have much trouble getting together 800 to breathe in his own sulphurous fumings.

Go along, even if only to value your skepticism.

- robin.

bus77

robindch wrote:

In your previous postings, you did declare that the consensus view upon the suicide notes was wrong,

I believe the tally for the evidence was, 2 for/2 against, 1 undecided and 1 no-comment. Within standard judicial practice a statment of "consensus" would come from the foreman of the jury.

robindch wrote:

Within standard judicial practice, this makes you an 'expert' in front of a court, which, in a certain sense, is where we both find ourselves.

By stating your own personal experieance with divergant handwriting you placed yourself in the position of "expert witness" on the evidence presented.
Testimony you seemed to regard as being bulletproof in later posts.

robindch wrote:

Likewise with the moon-hoax thread, in which you declared that all the consensual views concerning man's visits to the moon were moonshine, setting yourself up as an expert again.

Anyone can make declarations. Your first reply in that thread was an attempt to match these up to, in my opinion, dubious documents on human behavior.

An analyst of character?

You also seem to be implying that there is a noticable trend in past behaviour that you wish to bring to the courts attention.(constantly:rolleyes:)

A character witness?

Seeing as the reference documents only seem to contain basic outlines of extreme human behavior, the only available conclusions from such documents would be ultimatly negative to any individual being judged by them.

So what we have here in the court is...A Judge of character who only studys negative characters.
A prosecuter that can morph into a ëxpert witness in order to get around evidence.
And finally. The foreman of the jury who when asked to swear-in on the Bible tried to set it on fire.

Turley

davros wrote:

A year ago, I would have said there was hardly a person in this country that subscribed to Creationism (among the Irish Catholic population anyway). But a few of them stood up to be counted at the ISS lecture on the topic. It would be quite dispiriting to see a whole hall full of them.

I am not a fan of Dr. Ham and I will not spend €15 to atend his event.

My view is the doctrine that ascribes the origin of matter and life to acts of creation by God is not nearly as dispiriting as the alternative. If science supports that there is evolution, I don't see a problem with a creator and evolution co-existing. There is no need for choosing one over the other.

Turley

robindch wrote:

In your previous postings, you did declare that the consensus view upon the suicide notes was wrong, which implies that you believe that you are more knowledgable about the notes, than the people who had access to them.

I remember meeting Reginald Alton and I heard him lecture. We had lunch once and he told me about palaeography. He showed me a forgery of a letter by Shelley. Reggie died a little more than one year ago. http://education.guardian.co.uk/obituary/story/0,12212,1108695,00.html
Regardless of what you think, I know I am not a handwiting expert. I only knew an expert. I also know it does not take an expert when handwriting does not even remotely resemble a forgery.

"The people who had access" to something that was concealed for 55 years? We are the people.

robindch

> My view is the doctrine that ascribes the origin of matter
> and life to acts of creation by God is not nearly as dispiriting
> as the alternative.

You've expressed what I belive is creationism's (and more generally, religion's) core motivation very well with this sentence, simply a belief that there's something out there that gives a human a reason to exist. It seems to me, however, that most people haven't even noticed, much less considered, the more basic question of whether to seek such a reason is a meaningful activity, or can give rise to a meaningful answer, if one feels that one is found. It's Pascal's wager again, morphed slightly.

- robin.

john kavanagh

i'll be going along to the UCD talks - might see some of you guys there?

robindch

> i'll be going along to the UCD talks - might see some of you guys there?

You might, but then again, you might not -- I and whoever of my soon-to-be-(un?)lucky friends will be heading up there incognito, reason and common sense trussed up christmas turkeys. Yiz're more likely to see us undressed at the next skeptics talk on April 6th -- see http://www.irishskeptics.net

Praise the Holy Lord -- Ayyyyyy....MEN!

- robin (waving hands in air, eyes closed, simplicity etched on face)

Turley

robindch wrote:

Praise the Holy Lord -- Ayyyyyy....MEN!

- robin (waving hands in air, eyes closed, simplicity etched on face)

I do not agree with the teachings of Dr. Ham. People can disagree.

Ridiculing the religious beliefs of people, be it Judaism, Shintoism, or Christianity is contemptuous in any case. The posted rules for discussion do not rule out religious bigotry per se, but the moderator is responsible.

It was fitting that Christ should be crucified with the thieves. "The cross itself," St. Augustine wrote, "was a tribunal. In the center was the judge. To the one side a man who believed and was set free, to the other side a scoffer and he was condemned."

Christians intend to meet God. Atheists intend not to meet God.
May they all succeed.

sliabh

Turley wrote:

Christians intend to meet God. Atheists intend not to meet God.

Hey, it's a new form of Pascal's wager. This way the Christian might be right and they might be wrong. But the Aheist will always be right! Unless of course there is a God and he/she has a strange sense of humour and the Atheist is admitted to heaven anyway, whereby the atheist wins again! :-)

robindch

> > - robin (waving hands in air, eyes closed, simplicity etched on face)
>
> Ridiculing the religious beliefs of people [...] is contemptuous [...]

I always rather liked Ambrose Bierce's definition of a cynic, taken from his notoriously witty and devious Devil's Dictionary:

A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.

The dictionary, originally titled 'The Cynic's Word Book', is a classic and widely available on the internet (try here for starters) and last Friday, there were copies in Hodges Figgis on Dawson Street, discounted down to an easily-justified €4.50 -- Fools!, Rush in where Angels fear to tread!

Enjoy

- robin.

J C

I used to be skeptical - now I question everything - including the beliefs of other skeptics!!

I think that I will be a true skeptic and go along and LISTEN respectfully to Ken Ham before making my OWN MIND UP about what he has to say.

I recently discovered that the odds of producing the amino acid sequence for a particular 100 chain protein by accident choosing from the 20 common amino acids at each point on the chain is 10 to the power of minus 130. If we consider that the number of atoms in the known Universe (including Dark Matter) is 10 to the power of 80 I don't fancy the chances of even a useful protein arising spontaneously - never mind life!!!

I haven't seen any life arising spontaneously recently - Have any of you?

I would value your skeptical opinion on the above mathemastical calculation.

I would be even more interested in YOUR explanation for the spontaneous emergence of life - that doesn't involve pure fantasy.

Argot

I believe its Free Admission on Friday evening for student card holders - even at Ten Euro for the day on Saturday - including lunch - is worth it for a day out!

Considering the weather in Dublin - it's bound to be warmer than MY house in the Astra Hall!!

I'll be heading along too. And reserving my judgement until after I give the man an admittedly interested ear!

robindch

> I used to be skeptical - now I question everything

How could you have been skeptical before, if you didn't question everything previously?

> I think that I will be a true skeptic and go along and
> LISTEN respectfully to Ken Ham before making my
> OWN MIND UP about what he has to say.

Why don't you visit Ham's site at http://www.answersingenesis.org and see what the man has to say for himself. Two random mouseclicks produce the following piece of crap:

> About 130 million [...] were slaughtered this century in the name
> of atheism, whereas all those killed in ‘the name of Christ’ in all
> of recorded history was at most around 17 million.

Firstly, 130m people were not murdered 'in the name of atheism', whatever *that* means. FYI, Hitler says in his Mein Kampf 'I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.', a fairly straightforward sentiment in favour of a faith which Hitler never renouced. Meanwhile, over the border to the East, 'Uncle Joe' Stalin trained for the priesthood in the Russian Orthodox Church and maintained an interest in religion, and particularly its methods, throughout his life. So, to be honest about it, should we add Hitler + Stalin's totals to the christian side of this frightful equation?

Secondly, at least Ham has the honesty to admit that 17m people are dead because of christ's self-appointed followers + hangers-on. His curious logic seems to be that it's ok for christians to murder a helluva lot of people, as long as non-christians murder more. Can some passing christian explain the weird logic of this to me?

Anyhow, back to creationism -- Ham's statements upon evolution are as disingenuous and dishonest as the one above and you don't really have to listen or read very much of his output in order to come to an informed judgement of his accuracy and honesty and, consequently, his worth.

> I recently discovered that the odds of producing the amino
> acid sequence for a particular 100 chain protein by accident
> choosing from the 20 common amino acids at each point on
> the chain is 10 to the power of 130.

At the rick of being accused of being a 'smart aleck' again (see the holocaust thread), how did you discover this? Are you a trained molecular biologist? Or did you copy this factoid from a creationist website?

The useful talkorigins.org website contains a useful discussion of probabilities, specifically, see the section labelled 'Coin tossing for beginners' and below.

> I would value your skeptical opinion on the above mathemastical calculation.

My polite opinion of this mathematical calculation is that it is worthless. See the link above.

> I would be even more interested in YOUR explanation for
> the spontaneous emergence of life - that doesn't involve
> pure fantasy.

Again, see talkorigins.org where these excellent questions are dealt with in far greater depth than I've time to develop here.

FWIW, I'd also be interested in hearing any creationist argument that doesn't involve fantasy.

Hope this helps,

- robin.

J C

My statement that "I used be a skeptic - but now I question everything" was in part a joke - and in part serious.

It is a fact that everyone, including skeptics of every description, bring their own "baggage" and bias to all of the issues that they encounter. I try to minimise my bias by actively listening to all points of view - especially ones that I disagree with. In fact, I have found that this is the only way to really broaden my mind!!

Your use of the words "trained molecular biologist" in your attempted put-down of me reveals that you don't question everything yourself. If you truly questioned everything you wouldn't have the apparent blind faith in all "trained molecular biologists" that your statement implies. The import of your statement is that unless I am a "trained molecular biologist" my views should be summarily dismissed.

As a true skeptic, I never accept that the experts always know best - we should remember that "trained experts" said that the Titanic was unsinkable!!

In answer to your question about my scientific credentials - yes, I have a university degree in science - and significant expertise in the biological sciences.

Your area of expertise is immaterial to me - your arguments stand or fall on THEIR own merits as far as I am concerned !!

I have visited the internet site that you have suggested - and all I got was confirmation of the enormous odds against the spontaneous generation of any aspect of life!!! This also echoes my everyday experience - I have never seen even a cell that has died coming back to life again - although it has all of the stuctures and biochemical systems still present!!! So far I have also been unable to successfully resuscitate one either!!!

Life is a truly amazing phenomenon - but because we see it every day we don't really comprehend how amazing it really is!!

My discovery on the probability of life occurring by accident was made independently by myself - I told you that I was a true skeptic!!
It draws as much on mathematics as it does on biology.

The real "eye opener" for me, however, was when I tried "to get a handle" on what size of number 10 to the power of 130 actually is. I discovered that if every electron in the known Universe, produced a random 100 amino acid sequence one thousand million times every second for 5,000 million years only 10 to the power of 107 permutations would be produced which is many orders of magnitude less that what would be required to guarantee the production of a specific useful protein - and a single molecule of a particular protein isn't much use sitting there on it's own. There is basically not enough matter or time in the Universe to produce even a useful protein - so I haven't even bothered to calculate the odds of producing anything else spontaneously.

Being a true skeptic I would prefer not to label my argument - but if you would like to label it as a "Creationist" argument as you have implied - then it certainly isn't based on fantasy - unless you think that pure mathematics is fantasy!!!

As far as I can see the theory of evolution is dead - but it has forgotten to lie down!!!

What amazes me, as a skeptic, is how many other skeptics have been "taken in" by this crazy theory with no basis in reality - don't you guys ever question anything?

robindch

> If you truly questioned everything you wouldn't have the
> apparent blind faith in all "trained molecular biologists" that
> your statement implies.

From this, am I correct in thinking that you believe that I should accept the views of untrained people in the area of molecular biology, or indeed, the views of people untrained in whatever area I'm interested in? Sounds a bit daft to me, but I presume I'm not understanding you correctly -- please clarify!

> we should remember that "trained experts" said that
> the Titanic was unsinkable!!

Wrong -- the 'unsinkable' bit appeared in marketing fluff from White Star, and not from a naval architect. Sadly, the misquote stuck, because it made a good, though false, story. The Titanic was simply unlucky in suffering from simultaneous multi-point failure, as engineering structures are from time to time.

> As far as I can see the theory of evolution is dead

I don't think you have looked very far. Do you deny that there is any evolution at all? Or simply deny the existence of what creationists refer to as 'macro-evolution'? Or do you claim that since your calculation (based upon premises which you've not made clear) has demonstrated that life couldn't have arisen by itself, that life therefore *didn't* arise by itself, and therefore there is no such process as evolution? There are plenty of logical holes in the latter, but I'm interested in hearing more about your views, so if you could explain your chain of logic as you understand it, I'd be happy to read it.

> how many other skeptics have been "taken in" by this
> crazy theory with no basis in reality

I'm not aware of any trained biologists who think that evolution is a 'crazy theory with no basis in reality' -- congratulations, you're the first! -- in fact, on the contrary, all whom I know believe that it's one of the most well-demonstrated, thoroughly researched theories in existence and on a par with other theories such as gravity, electricity, magentism, etc, etc. See the NCSE's 'Project Steve' (details here), for a semi-light-hearted look at the number of trained and experienced scientists who have been 'taken in' by this theory.

One thing, though, as a trained scientist, I'm a bit surprised at your misuse of the word 'theory' in this fractious context. For anyone reading who's not familar with the scientific, rather than the common, sense of the term, see this link for a good explanation of what a scientific theory is, and why it's important to use it in an accurate, rather than sloppy, way.

> yes, I have a university degree in science - and significant
> expertise in the biological sciences.

Do you mind me asking which institution granted you your degree? And it would be interesting to hear about your expertises, too, if you've time to recount them briefly.

thanks,

- robin.

Turley

J C wrote:

My statement that "I used be a skeptic - but now I question everything" was in part a joke - and in part serious.

I see a lot of truth in your statement and you are wise to also be skeptical of the skeptics. After much investigation and contemplation, if I am going to believe in something, I settled on Psalm 62.

J C wrote:

The real "eye opener" for me, however, was when I tried "to get a handle" on what size of number 10 to the power of 130 actually is. I discovered that if every electron in the known Universe, produced a random 100 amino acid sequence one thousand million times every second for 5,000 million years only 10 to the power of 107 permutations would be produced which is many orders of magnitude less that what would be required to guarantee the production of a specific useful protein - and a single molecule of a particular protein isn't much use sitting there on it's own. There is basically not enough matter or time in the Universe to produce even a useful protein - so I haven't even bothered to calculate the odds of producing anything else spontaneously.

Those are big numbers.

Myksyk

Being a true skeptic I would prefer not to label my argument - but if you would like to label it as a "Creationist" argument as you have implied - then it certainly isn't based on fantasy - unless you think that pure mathematics is fantasy!!!

As far as I can see the theory of evolution is dead - but it has forgotten to lie down!!!

What amazes me, as a skeptic, is how many other skeptics have been "taken in" by this crazy theory with no basis in reality - don't you guys ever question anything?

You're mixing your arguments here. You are speaking of the origin of life as if this is the same question as the evolution of species. These are separate questions. No-one has yet explained the origin of life though there are some interesting theories. The evolution of different species once life exists is unquestionably best explained by the theory of natural selection as proposed by Darwin and Wallace. The suggestion that this is a 'crazy theory with no basis in reality' is simply a denial of the reality of the overwhelming scientific verification this theory has received since it was first announced in 1859.

Your 'argument' 'based on mathematics' refers to the origin of life and is simply a statement of personal incredulity and disbelief.

The fact is there is life and clearly we have millions of species and to most people they are intimately related, a fact backed up by all the available data. What I would like to know is, in relation the evolution of species, what is your argument (which should be decidely 'not crazy' and 'based in reality')?

Turley

robindch wrote:

Wrong -- the 'unsinkable' bit appeared in marketing fluff from White Star, and not from a naval architect. Sadly, the misquote stuck, because it made a good, though false, story. The Titanic was simply unlucky in suffering from simultaneous multi-point failure, as engineering structures are from time to time.

I think the point was that experts can be wrong. I do not know if a naval architect said the Titanic was "unsinkable" but I am confident experts can be wrong. Robert Millikan, won the Nobel Prize in Physics and in 1923 said, "There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." And Harry Warner of Warner Brothers said in 1927, "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"

robindch wrote:

...Do you deny that there is any evolution at all? Or simply deny the existence of what creationists refer to as 'macro-evolution'?

I think it would be good to define the terms of discussion so we all agree on what we are talking about. Evolution can sometimes mean the "big bang theory" and "creation" and "creationism" can be different things.

robindch wrote:

Do you mind me asking which institution granted you your degree? And it would be interesting to hear about your expertises, too, if you've time to recount them briefly.

Let's not change the topic. Perhaps a new thread could be opened if you want to discuss JC.

Turley

Myksyk wrote:

You're mixing your arguments here. You are speaking of the origin of life as if this is the same question as the evolution of species. These are separate questions. No-one has yet explained the origin of life though there are some interesting theories.

I think this shows that we should agree on what we are discussing to avoid confusing issues. I find it acceptable to have both a creator and evolution.

Myksyk

Turley wrote:

I think it would be good to define the terms of discussion so we all agree on what we are talking about. Evolution can sometimes mean the "big bang theory" and "creation" and "creationism" can be different things.

Yes ... (Please refer to my earlier post). I have to say that I have not heard evolution being equated with big bang theory but maybe some people do. I think there are three questions being mixed up:

1. The origin of the universe
2. The origin of life
3. The evolution of life/species

J C

Robin

My position is that I question all views. As far as I am concerned, an argument stands or falls on it’s own merits – and not on the supposed qualifications of the person who is making it. I am not particularly impressed by how much “training” a person has received – the logic of their argument is my main concern.

One definition of “training” that I have come across in a dictionary is “bringing a person to a desired standard of obedience/behaviour by instruction and practice”. This whole idea of “training” sounds a little bit Orwellian to me, and it is certainly not likely to produce original breakthrough thinking among it’s recipients.

Turley has adequately dealt with the “Titanic” point – and said it better that I possibly could have!!.

I was using the word theory in its populist meaning to describe evolution. I think that Evolution is AT BEST a scientific hypothesis, or more accurately a collection of many different hypotheses. It has never merited the appellation of the word theory in it’s proper scientific meaning – i.e. a precise description and explanation of observed phenomena that is accessible to testing by repeatable observation or experimentation. To remain valid, phenomena must always be observed that are in accordance with and/or predicted by the theory.

Evolution doesn’t pass muster on any count
1. It has never been precisely defined and is subject to continuous revision as new phenomena are encountered which are not in accordance with the current most acceptable “theory”.
2. It is impossible to observe hypothetical events that may / may not have occurred supposedly over millions of years – and it is equally impossible to frame experiments to do so either. Evolution is therefore incapable of being tested by repeatable observation or experimentation.
3. It fails even more miserably on the validity test – repeatedly, phenomena are observed that are not in accordance with or predicted by the current most acceptable “theory” – thereby necessitating the constant revisionism outlined at point 1 above. For example, “Gradual Evolution” predicted that as fossils were discovered in larger numbers the missing links between different species would be filled in by intermediate types. This didn’t happen and “Punctuated Evolution” was proposed – without even an acknowledgement that Gradual Evolution had become an invalid hypothesis.

None of these deficiencies apply to other established scientific theories. Our knowledge of gravity, electricity, magnetism, etc. is so reliable that there are actually SCIENTIFIC LAWS of Gravity , Electromagnetism, etc.

Evolution may have had more effort expended on it by scientists but the results are abysmal in comparison to gravity and electromagnetism - a classical example of the merits of quality over quantity.

For your information, my honours degree was granted by The National University of Ireland and I’ve had a long and distinguished career working in both the Private and Public Sectors.


TURLEY
You are right there are many definitions of Evolution – which is one of the reasons why it is not a proper scientific theory – could you imagine similar confusion over the precise scientific definition of gravity, electromagnetism, etc. – I think not.


MYKSYK
You are absolutely right – science has not come up with a plausible hypothesis never mind a proper scientific theory on the origins of life – even though some evolutionary textbooks would have you believe otherwise. But then of course, the subject matter of evolutionary textbooks is outside of the scientific realm anyway!!

I always think that evolutionary textbooks should be kept in the fiction section of libraries – they are a great “read” – just like a Patricia Scanlon paperback. They certainly shouldn’t be kept in the science section!!

My ‘argument’ is based on BOTH mathematics AND “cutting edge” bio-science. My discovery was certainly a personal “Eureka” moment that gave me great pleasure. However, more importantly, the figures are absolutely devastating to both the spontaneous generation of life and the evolutionary hypotheses.

The Theory of Natural Selection is a valid scientific theory as it is precisely defined and is testable by repeatable observation and/or experimentation. Having said that, Natural Selection itself certainly doesn’t produce variation – and tends to produce stability / mediocrity rather than novel / improved types of creatures. For example, an “improved” (and therefore different) specimen is almost always sexually selected AGAINST in wild populations of animals - and often in the Human population as well!!! The theory does provide an excellent explanation for observed adaptation in populations exposed to changed environments. However, the adaptation always uses inherent genetic diversity already within the population and IN EXTREMIS a highly adapted population can end up in an inbred genetic cul-de-sac unable to adapt to any new environmental changes due to it’s loss of genetic diversity during the initial adaptation process.

The Evolution Hypothesis, on the other hand, is totally defunct, lacking as it does any plausible mechanism for creating genetic diversity. The only mechanism currently observed – genetic mutation – is invariably damaging to the genome and results in lethal and semi lethal conditions, conferring disadvantage most of the time. This is hardly a plausible mechanism to provide the massive INCREASE in genetic information evident at all points between “muck and man”.
The phenomenon of irreducible complexity means that an organ with an ultimate advantage, say a functioning eye, is a significant DISADVANTAGE in any intermediate non-functioning stage. Intermediate forms, will generally command resources, create weaknesses or be sexually repellent and as they are without any compensating advantage they will be SELECTED AGAINST. Irreducible complexity also means that it is mathematically impossibile to produce a complex useful organ through random means - try improving your sight by "whacking" your eye and see what I mean.

You validly ask what my argument is – As a true sceptic, and a professional scientist, I will start with what I have observed / haven’t observed:-

I have never observed any plausible mechanism for the spontaneous generation of life.
I have never observed the spontaneous or assisted restoration of life to any dead organism or cell.
I have observed millions of different species which are distinctly different and whose cells are packed with organised information of amazing density and unimaginable complexity.
I have observed biochemical systems at atomic levels of resolution that outclass the largest and most sophisticated manufacturing abilities of mankind.
I have observed levels of interlinked complexity and functionality within living systems that are orders of magnitude greater than out most powerful computer systems.
I have observed missing links between ALL species, both living and fossil.
I have observed great perfection and genetic diversity in all species.
I have observed evidence that all populations are degenerating over time with accumulated mutations – and many extinctions of species are due to this degeneration.
I have observed the fossil record to actually be a record of instantaneous death and catastrophic burial – and NOT a record of the gradual development of life over time.
I have observed that the production of USEFUL biochemical polymers by random means is a mathematical (and physical) impossibility.
I have observed that all living systems use pre-existing sophisticated complex biochemical systems and bio-molecules to produce simple bio-molecules – and the production of DNA itself requires the pre-existence of DNA / RNA and a massively complex array of other biochemical “machinery”.
I have observed that geological formations, such as the Grand Canyon and new canyons formed during the Mount St. Helens eruption, to be evidentially formed through the action of large amounts of water acting over a small amount of time.
I have never observed any "higher species" to actually increase genetic information over time.

ALL of the above observations are contrary to the predictions of "The Evolutionary Hypothesis" and that is why I maintain, as a professional scientist, that evolution is invalid i.e. dead - but it has forgotten to lie down. It’s failure to lie down, i.e. to be rejected by the generality of the scientific community, is as big a stumbling block to modern scientific progress as the Geocentric Hypothesis was to progress in medieval astronomy. Another good example of “trained experts” getting it totally wrong – ironically, BECAUSE OF their “training”!!!

My message is to abandon the dead hypothesis of evolution and stop trying to resuscitate it. Go back to what science does best – objective observation – and frame a new hypotheses that fits all of the REALITY that we observe – and NOT what some people would like to continue to BELIEVE, in spite of the evidence against it. For my money, I think that some “untrained scientists" would have the best chance of producing this breakthrough thinking.

Finally, one last example of a case of "Foot in Mouth" by a so-called "trained expert". I read recently that, in his retirement speech in the 1860's, the Director of the US Patents Office advised the US government to close the Office because he believed "that all inventions that are useful to humanity are already invented". On second thoughts, maybe he WAS right!!! (JOKE!!).

My challenge still remains to all you supposed skeptics out there - to point out ANY aspect of the so-called "Theory of Evolution" that doesn't involve a complete suspension of MY common sense and YOUR grip on reality!!!

I look forward to hearing Ken Ham talking about common sense and reality next Saturday!!!

Myksyk

My position is that I question all views.

Do you question the views outlined in the bible? If so to what extent?

As far as I am concerned, an argument stands or falls on it’s own merits – and not on the supposed qualifications of the person who is making it. I am not particularly impressed by how much “training” a person has received – the logic of their argument is my main concern.

Actually, the evidence for their argument is what matters.

I was using the word theory in its populist meaning to describe evolution.

That is not how it is being used here and it is crucial to appreciate the difference.

Evolution doesn’t pass muster on any count
1. It has never been precisely defined and is subject to continuous revision as new phenomena are encountered which are not in accordance with the current most acceptable “theory”.

This is called science. All knowledge in science is deemed tentative (the best we have at the moment in accordance with the available evidence). How unlike religion it is in this regard which claims the Truth and must fit all observed phenomena into the old frame rather than create a new more valid frame, regardless of twisted and tangled the truth becomes in the process.

2. It is impossible to observe hypothetical events that may / may not have occurred supposedly over millions of years – and it is equally impossible to frame experiments to do so either. Evolution is therefore incapable of being tested by repeatable observation or experimentation.

All theorising includes speculation. Take for example cosmology, archaeology, paleontology, biology etc etc. The theory of evolution by natural selection is, like all good theories capable of easy refutation. Just show us the hard evidence which refutes it. A simple example like a human skeleton beside a dinosaur skeleton will suffice. Darwin said this is all it would take.

3. It fails even more miserably on the validity test – repeatedly, phenomena are observed that are not in accordance with or predicted by the current most acceptable “theory” – thereby necessitating the constant revisionism outlined at point 1 above. For example, “Gradual Evolution” predicted that as fossils were discovered in larger numbers the missing links between different species would be filled in by intermediate types. This didn’t happen and “Punctuated Evolution” was proposed – without even an acknowledgement that Gradual Evolution had become an invalid hypothesis.

The theory of gradual evolution is still the most accepted form of evolutionary theory. It is not an invalid hypothesis.

None of these deficiencies apply to other established scientific theories. Our knowledge of gravity, electricity, magnetism, etc. is so reliable that there are actually SCIENTIFIC LAWS of Gravity , Electromagnetism, etc. ..... could you imagine similar confusion over the precise scientific definition of gravity, electromagnetism, etc. – I think not.

Yes I could because there is. There are different theories about what gravity really is for example. Is it the actual bending of spacetime or the exchange of yet to be discovered graviton particles - speculation and wonder. Wonderful speculation. Time, thought, observation and experiment will help refine the current theory to an even better fit with the evidence and reality. You seem to think that if we don't have all the facts now that the theory is invalid or useless. This is simplistic and wrong. No-one has yet come up with a general theory of any part of nature and reality which in its first manifestation explains everything. Constant change and refinement are the currency of good science theory and practice. Quamtum Mechanics added to Classical physics which was an incomplete theory but they are both compatible. If we were to follow your example then scientists would have thrown out classical laws when qunatum physics was posited, making an egregious error in the process. Likewise, the theory of natural selection can be refined and added to making it a better and better theory, not a weaker theory. As I said this is science. Surley you understand this.It also fits with all other theories in science, contradicting none of them. This idea of agreeing auxiliary hypotheses is important and shows the homogeneity of all scientific theories' understanding of reality.

.... the subject matter of evolutionary textbooks is outside of the scientific realm anyway!!

Why?

The Theory of Natural Selection is a valid scientific theory as it is precisely defined and is testable by repeatable observation and/or experimentation.

Agreed.

...an “improved” (and therefore different) specimen is almost always sexually selected AGAINST in wild populations of animals - and often in the Human population as well!!!

This does not make any sense to me. Please explain.

(Apparently my post with quotes is too long so please see this continued in next post)

Myksyk

The phenomenon of irreducible complexity means that an organ with an ultimate advantage, say a functioning eye, is a significant DISADVANTAGE in any intermediate non-functioning stage.

Are you saying JC that if were in a room with a predator (who had very poor vision - but had some) trying to kill you that you would not choose to have say 5% vision rather than none, or 10% or 50%? Would having ths amount of vision be a significant DISADVANTAGE to you in that arena? Of course it would be the opposite and you know it. Intermediate forms do not know they are intermediate forms. They are adequate and useful in the context of what resources others (competitiors or predators) have at that time.

Intermediate forms, will generally command resources, create weaknesses or be sexually repellent and as they are without any compensating advantage they will be SELECTED AGAINST.

How do you know this? What information have you on the sexual preferences of early life forms (if they had any)!

Irreducible complexity also means that it is mathematical impossibile to produce a complex useful organ through random means - try improving your sight by "whacking" your eye and see what I mean.

Unfortunately this betrays a really fundamental lack of understanding of evolutionary processes. The old 'random' chestnut is a favoured one by creationists and is corrected so many times without success that the failure to acept those corrections can only be construed as deliberate obfuscation. Although genetic mutations are random events, natural selection is not.

I have never observed any plausible mechanism for the spontaneous generation of life.

No-one has. Maybe one day we will. It is not relevant to the theory of evolution.

I have never observed the spontaneous or assisted restoration of life to any dead organism or cell.

So what? It's currently too difficult to do that. What does this show. What is your point.

I have observed millions of different species which are distinctly different and whose cells are packed with organised information of amazing density and unimaginable complexity.

We all have. It's entirely, head-shakingly wonderful.

I have observed biochemical systems at atomic levels of resolution that outclass the largest and most sophisticated manufacturing abilities of mankind.
I have observed levels of interlinked complexity and functionality within living systems that are orders of magnitude greater than out most powerful computer systems.

We all have. It's entirely, head-shakingly wonderful.

I have observed missing links between ALL species, both living and fossil.

Really? That's astounding.

I have observed great perfection and genetic diversity in all species.

ok.

I have observed evidence that all populations are degenerating over time with accumulated mutations – and many extinctions of species are due to this degeneration.

This is an extraordinary statement. What evidence have you to back this up?

I have observed the fossil record to actually be a record of instantaneous death and catastrophic burial – and NOT a record of the gradual development of life over time.

Where did you observe this?

I have observed that geological formations, such as the Grand Canyon and new canyons formed during the Mount St. Helens eruption, to be evidentially formed through the action of large amounts of water acting over a small amount of time.

This is a joke right? Oh I forgot, you HAVE to believe this to fit with the inerrancy of the bible. No refining or changing allowed in that story.

My message is to abandon the dead hypothesis of evolution and stop trying to resuscitate it. Go back to what science does best – objective observation – and frame a new hypotheses that fits all of the REALITY that we observe – and NOT what some people would like to continue BELIEVE, in spite of the evidence against it.

Let's be honest. Creationists will NEVER change their position no matter what science finds. They beleive they have the Truth and hhave to squeeze everything into that frame. Science on the other hand WILL continue to change and be refined. Scientists will be open to whatever view of reality the evidence points to. Scientists, despite what creationists fervently believe, will gladly abandon the theroy of evolution by natural selection in favour of a better theory which fits the evidence and data better. This would take a lot of disconfirming data and time (as should be the case, but it would happen). What it won't do is abandon an extraordinarily successful and useful theory because it doesn't agree with the bible.

For my money, I think that some “untrained scientists" would have the best chance of producing this breakthrough thinking.

Funny, I would have bet that you'd think that!

I would leave the “trained scientists” doing what they do best, routine mondaine day-to-day work!!!

Patronising spite. Doesn't deserve further comment.

bus77

I think the people who came up with the terms 'creationism' and 'darwinism' should be shot. It was probably the press, as usual :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Myksyk wrote:

You seem to think that if we don't have all the facts now that the theory is invalid or useless. This is simplistic and wrong.

Well said, i was about to say exactly the same thing

Evolution is an idea of how life develops. The finer details are a work in progress, but the over all idea, that one species develops through continous change into another species is a sound scientific theory that so far nothing has ever come close to disputing. Because the fine print details of how evolution exactly works in individual species and species that lived millions of years ago are still being worked out does not main the theory is flawed.

It would be like saying we should rethink that idea that gravity exists because we are not sure exactly how black-holes work.

J C

Quote:
All knowledge in science is deemed tentative
Correct – but this is precisely why ALL scientific theories must be subject to continuous testing – otherwise science would rapidly degenerate into a collection of tentative “old wives tales” that are never tested.
Evolution is a “unique and very strange beast” indeed. On one level it is held as an Article of Faith by many people and is thus a form of “World View” for these people. On another level is awarded the (undeserved) status of a Scientific Theory.
The people who hold it as a “World View” are entitled to do so if they so wish – I don’t believe in it – but I also don’t believe in several other philosophies either!!
Awarding it the status of a Scientific Theory is another matter entirely. All proper Scientific Theories are tentative – a single repeatable observation or experiment may invalidate them at any time – and that is how it should be. A SCIENTIFIC THEORY therefore:-
1. Must be PRECISELY DEFINED – so that everyone knows what they are testing / talking about. Evolution is very loosely defined with almost as many definitions as there are scientists!!!
2. Must lend itself to repeated testing by observation and/or experimentation. The essence of Evolution refers to events in the distant past, which do not lend themselves to observation and/or experimentation. A Scientific Theory cannot be validated in the first place without being repeatedly tested – and because core aspects of Evolution cannot be tested it has therefore never been a valid Scientific Theory.
3. Must IMMEDIATELY be declared invalid or amended if ANY repeatable observation and/or experimentation detects any phenomenon, which is not in accord with the theory. A new hypothesis may then be proposed – but if no adequate hypothesis is available to “fill the gap” the theory must fall anyway. This is actually implemented with every other Scientific Theory – and should also apply to Evolution as well.

Quote:
All theorising includes speculation. Take for example cosmology, archaeology, paleontology, biology etc etc. There are different theories about what gravity really is for example. Is it the actual bending of spacetime or the exchange of yet to be discovered graviton particles

Any theorising, which includes speculation, may be very interesting but it is strictly outside the realm of science. I could speculate that all gravity originates in my big toe – but because I am not able to prove it by repeatable observation or experimentation – it won’t become a Scientific Theory – at least I hope not!!


Quote
The theory of evolution by natural selection, like all good theories is capable of easy refutation. Just show us the hard evidence which refutes it.

Show me the hard evidence that PROVES it – otherwise I will ask you to show me the hard evidence that refutes my theory that all gravity originates in my big toe and by an undetectable process finds it’s way from me throughout the Universe. At least, you will have the advantage of a precisely defined hypothesis – which is more than can be said for Evolution. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not capable of refutation because significant aspects of it are not capable of testing by observation or experimentation, just like my “Big Toe Theory” – and that is why neither are valid Scientific Theories – though my “Big Toe Theory” does provide some great speculation – for me anyway!!!

Quote:
The theory of gradual evolution is still the most accepted form of evolutionary theory. It is not an invalid hypothesis.

It is an invalid SCIENTIFIC hypothesis because of all I have just said – no matter how many people believe in it – in fact, I think that it has recently been replaced by the “Theory of Punctuated Evolution” – which is equally un-testable and therefore equally invalid scientifically.

Quote
You seem to think that if we don't have all the facts now that the theory is invalid or useless.

No – as long as any theory confines itself to what is actually known, and conforms to the requirements of a Scientific Theory, as a professional scientist, I will accept it as valid.

Quote
Quantum Mechanics added to Classical physics which was an incomplete theory but they are both compatible. If we were to follow your example then scientists would have thrown out classical laws when quantum physics was posited, making an egregious error in the process.

Classical Physics Laws still remain scientifically valid because they are continuously validated by repeated tests every day throughout the world. I’m not so sure that all Quantum Mechanics speculations are on as solid ground – I am beginning to get that very heavy gravitational feeling in my Big Toe again !!!

Quote
Are you saying JC that if were in a room with a predator (who had very poor vision - but had some) trying to kill you that you would not choose to have say 5% vision rather than none, or 10% or 50%? Would having this amount of vision be a significant DISADVANTAGE to you in that arena? Of course it would be the opposite and you know it.

You have moved the argument from the general laws of natural selection, to the particular of a theoretical predation scenario of your own invention. I will answer you by saying that if the “primordial eye” in this scenario had 0% vision and was growing out of the bottom of the foot and had become so infected that the leg had advanced gangrene – the possessor of such an appendage would certainly be at a DISADVANTAGE. The chances of a complex structure such as an eye having ANY vision and being it the right place through random processes is effectively zero under the Laws of Probability. I am also unaware that any continuum of intermediate eye structures have ever been observed in either living or fossil creatures.

Quote
Scientists will be open to whatever view of reality the evidence points to. Scientists, despite what creationists fervently believe, will gladly abandon the theory of evolution in favour of a better theory which fits the evidence and data better. This would take a lot of disconfirming data and time (as should be the case, but it would happen). What it won't do is abandon an extraordinarily successful and useful theory because it doesn't agree with the bible.

I also agree that scientists should be open to the reality that the evidence points to – that is their role, after all. The abandonment of a Scientific Theory, however is never contingent on the availability of a better theory to replace it – a theory should ALWAYS be abandoned if it is proven to be invalid or is outside of science in the first place. A lot of disconfirming data and time is NEVER required to invalidate a Scientific Theory – all that is required is ONE REPEATABLE observation or experimental result that is not in accordance with the Theory. The alternative is for science to be chronically infested with disproven “old wives tales”, awaiting an acceptable replacement theory – which may never materialise. The integrity of science demands that it honestly says that it doesn’t know something rather clinging to ANY invalid theory.

Myksyk

Any theorising, which includes speculation, may be very interesting but it is strictly outside the realm of science.

I'm sorry but this is gloriously, almost amusingly, misinformed. Speculation and theory based on observations are at the heart of science, not outside of it. Theories inform the type of experiments that need to be carried out and it is this experimentation and the resultant data will confirm or disconfirm that theory. The theory of natural selection has been overwhelmingly confirmed by the evidence collected since its proposal.

Show me the hard evidence that PROVES it

Do you accept that there is irrefutable experimental evidence of micro-evolution?

The theory of evolution by natural selection is not capable of refutation because significant aspects of it are not capable of testing by observation or experimentation.

You are confused. You can never definitively prove any scientific theory. You can only continue to add to its evidential support. Again, these are basic aspects of science ('tentative knowledge' as spoken to before). Refutation on the other hand is a simple matter (relatively) ... For example, finding the skeleton of a human in 2 billion year old rock would 'rock' the foundations of the theory of natural selection to its core. Now that would be interesting but of course, every bit of fossil evidence to date only lends support to the theory of natural selection.

I think that it has recently been replaced by the “Theory of Punctuated Evolution”

No it hasn't.

You have moved the argument from the general laws of natural selection, to the particular of a theoretical predation scenario of your own invention.

So? It was merely used to expand YOUR point. Either an organism with a miniscule amount of vision is at an advantage over one which has none or it isn't. If light sensitive cells (readily available in vasts amounts of organisms) can mutate slightly over vasts amounts of time to confer advantage they will be selected for and survive.

I will answer you by saying that if the “primordial eye” in this scenario had 0% vision and was growing out of the bottom of the foot and had become so infected that the leg had advanced gangrene – the possessor of such an appendage would certainly be at a DISADVANTAGE.

Correct. But then such a development would not be selected for and would not survive. Perfectly predicted by evolution by natural selection. Anyway, your point was that supposed 'intermediate' stages would always confer disadvantage which is patently false. Let's say that our vision improves 20% in the next 5,000 years ... are you saying that any previous level of functioning conferred disadvantage?

The chances of a complex structure such as an eye having ANY vision and being it the right place through random processes is effectively zero under the Laws of Probability.

You are entirely correct. Random genetic mutations would hardly ever produce advantageous functional changes in physiology on their own. Lucky for us then that natural selection is not a random process. You actually don't seem to understand that evolution by natural selection is not a random process. Actually, on the basis of this statement, you don't understand the basic idea behind natural selection at all.

By the way, with all this talk of the importance of evidence, scientific validity and your requirements for repeatable experiments etc ... I'm inclined to ask what is theory do you support for the origin of species?

Myksyk

Carl Zimmer has a couple of short but interesting essays on the evolution of eyes here

Turley

J C wrote:

Finally, one last example of a case of "Foot in Mouth" by a so-called "trained expert". I read recently that, in his retirement speech in the 1860's, the Director of the US Patents Office advised the US government to close the Office because he believed "that all inventions that are useful to humanity are already invented".

"Everything that can be invented has been invented." -Charles H. Duell, Director of U.S. Patent Office, 1899.

Capt'n Midnight

Myksyk wrote:

Carl Zimmer has a couple of short but interesting essays on the evolution of eyes

LOL - if humans are the pinnacle of evolution then how come we have a blind spot when mollusc's don't, any creationist must admit that we are higher on the scale of things than bleedin' shellfish like scallops (even if they are good swimmer and have lovely blue eyes.)

http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste/humaneye.html - design review

http://soma.npa.uiuc.edu/courses/bio303/Ch11b.html - other types of eyes , inc pinhole eye of Nautilus

And who had the best eyes - obviously the pinnacle of evolution
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&itemid=2021&cat=11

the eyes of the trilobites were composed of inorganic calcite .... Objects one foot away, or objects one hundred yards away, would be in focus simultaneously. Such intricacies suggest that evolution is a degenerative process, for nothing on Earth today compares to the eye of the trilobite.]

Calcite is also known as "Iceland Spar"
Other advantages of this type of Eye - it's more solid than bone, has polarization properties (bees use this to navigate) and double refraction so unlike our eyes you aren't limited to light coming in the front or just the amount of light arriving in though a pupil only 5mm in diameter..

Zombrex

JC you seem to only be interested in arguing over the dictionary definition of "theory" and "science" ... it is rather silly imho

There is a huge huge wealth of physical evidence that shows the evolution is the method that life on earth develop from on species to the next. We are still not totally sure how it happens exactly, probably because there is not one method but hundreds working together in different species for billions of years. But the foundation of evolution, that one species through mutations that are of advantage develops into another is totally scientifically sound and is backed up by the last 100 years of study. Also nothing of any serious consideration has ever been put forward as a viable alternative suggestion. When faced with only one idea that seems to fit scientists should study that idea, not dismiss it.

We are not sure how it happens exactly, but we are sure it is happening just like we are not sure how light works but we are sure it does work.