Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« The Nifong Watch | Main | The Nifong Watch: WaPo Wants Charges Dropped »

December 31, 2006

Comments

Bob

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplasm>protoplasm

...so where the hell did protoplasm come from, and why hasn't man been able to explain the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life>origins of life?

I believe in evolution, but I'm not convinced it didn't need a whole lot of help in the beginning!

jerry

I agree Bob, as I wrote somewhere earlier in this thread, the beginning stages of life seem wildy improbable to me. On the other hand, most of molecular biology was inconceivable not too long ago.

It's very annoying that the Creationist/Intelligent Design crowd attack evolution, hide their religious nature, and pretend that they are scientific, because some physical organizing principles might well be behind the origin of life (molecular biology and biophysics pretty much entirely explain the structures of living things, despite the Creationist propaganda).

I don't agree with what you're saying there about evolution Patton.

jerry

I'll add that "protoplam" really isn't much of a mystery - it's just a mixture of water, metabolic chemicals, DNA/RNA, fats, and proteins.

Enzymes in the protoplasm turns external nutrients into a very large number of chemical intermediaries:

http://www.expasy.ch/biomap/images/pathway-1b.png

These are turned into fats that make up cell walls, nucleotides that make up DNA and RNA, amino acids that make up proteins, and sugars (carbs) that are used for energy.

The information to make the cell is stored in the DNA (chromosomes) and then read out into RNA copies - which are the instructions for making the proteins in the protoplams (the enzymes). All this stuff has been discovered in the last 100 years or so.

Bob

But jerry, what you are arguing is that your "improbability" is more probable than pattons.

What I'm saying is that both "theories" have too many unanswered questions, and technically they're not in competition... except to those with agendas. Also neither of them deserves more credence than the other, until greater proof exists.

Which leads me to my assertion that they both have a place in the discussion.

jerry

Patton,
I guess another comment would be that science has been so successful because it is all about testing those secondary theories and keeping the ones that are true (in science true means whenever anyone does the test or asks subsequent questions).

Scientists spend most of their time doing experiments that don't work, or preparing to do the experiments, and then publishing the stuff that finally did work. From the reinforcing efforts of lots of people science slowly sees what the physical world is like.

Aside from frauds and truely remarkable discoveries science progresses through mostly small slow efforts, sort of like Etch-a-Sketch. Dark Energy and Dark Matter might cause a cosmologist with a new idea to totally rewrite the physics of the Big Bang (I see math as even more artsy than most of science) but astronomers will spend many years piecing together small observations until a big new story emerges.

jerry

Bob, the Intelligent Design crowd aren't scientists, they don't do experiments, they aren't interested in doing experiments or in scientific arguments, they are disingenuous in their discussion of science and of their agenda.

Their beliefs are opinion, not science, and don't belong in a science classroom (teach it in a religion class or in a religious school), it's an opinion held by dishonest religious people who's real agenda is to undermine science and replace scientific knowledge with religious belief and religious teaching in schools.

They would be most happy when they ensure that their kids and other peoples' kids remain as stupid as they are.

Slartibartfast

Here's a quick way for Terrye to pick up $250,000 dollars:

Sweet. Just try and collect, though.

Hovind is a quack whose acquaintance with the scientific method is superficial, to be generous.

Slartibartfast

Although he does look good on TV.

jerry

The point I want to repeat is that there isn't a great "design" mystery about the origin of all the diverse life on earth today (despite the Intelligent Design propaganda, molecular biology and biophysics explain that) - just about how it all began.

This is where very long periods of time, very unusual environments, and maybe unknown physical principals, might encourage the beginnings of life.

It would be immodest to think this is an easy question for scientists, or religious people, to answer.

Bob

jerry again you make a very weak argument. Why in your mind are scientist any better at making shit up then the ID folks? I'm not going to defend the ID crowd, since I believe what the represent is and unsophisticated counter or "push back" against the "so called" scientist and secularist who want to rid this country of any religion... especially Christianity.

"Scientists spend most of their time doing experiments that don't work, or preparing to do the experiments, and then publishing the stuff that finally did work. From the reinforcing efforts of lots of people science slowly sees what the physical world is like."

...sounds like religion to me! Or at least a belief system of sorts. But that may be due to your broad interpretation of a scientist.

I consider myself a pragmatist, so any scientist who scoffs at a religions belief system, needs to look a little closer at themselves... it's only fair!

Slartibartfast

Why in your mind are scientist any better at making shit up then the ID folks?

Internal and external consistency, with a couple of extra dashes of logic.

jerry

And with a mountain of successful results, Slarti.

Scientists don't just "make shit up," Bob, science isn't just an opinion, this is why science has been so successful (the computer you're typing on for instance), and this is why IDers political agenda and religious beliefs don't belong in a public school science classroom (go to a Creationist school somewhere). All things aren't equal in school or life, like a bad grade perhaps it's not fair.

I don't have an interest in removing religion from the US, I'm just not interested in letting the IDers fake science, fake critiques of science, and dishonest posturing, undermining our future and render children ignorant.

I think I have here, and do, examine the scinetific "belief system," and am better able to because I actually understand what science is, IDers and Creationists don't understand science and would be happier if other people didn't either.

Bob

"This is where very long periods of time, very unusual environments, and maybe unknown physical principals, might encourage the beginnings of life."

...or even a creator!

jerry, I think you'll find that since DNA has been discovered, scientists have struggled to "build" life from scratch. So until they can either prove or disprove a creator, they are in no position to rule it out.

Again I'm not a religious person at all...

Bob

jerry, once again you make a silly argument. Some parts of a computer were certainly developed by materials scientists, however the software was developed by engineers and mathematicians. I'm not going to argue with results.

Oh and "God" (there's that word again) help us if you think Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are scientists!

But there are plenty of scientists "making shit up" just as much as the ID folks. Furthermore I don't think you can claim to know just who is lying and who is the purveyor of the truth... or you still banking on cold fusion?

jerry

Engineering and mathematics are part of science Bob, the things that make computers work are an application of scientific knowledge, numerous software coders would probably be copying ancient texts by hand if it weren't for science (Gates and Jobs would be hawking the copies).

There is fraud in science but it isn't common, certainly not like the wholesale fraud behind the ID movement. I remember the day the Ponds and Fleichman's first Cold Fusion paper was faxed around the country, very exciting. I'm not sure what to think about CF - like the IDers Creator, it's fine with me if someone wants to study it, and gets someone to fund it.

No dishonest advocacy groups are fighting to have CF taught as scientific truth in a high school classroom though,

no labels go into books challenging the First Law of Thermodynamics,

Cold Fusion advocates also actually do experiments that don't work and release the results (thus your skepticism),

and children aren't brainwashed into stupidity because their parents are Believers in Cold Fusion.

Barney Frank

Bob, the Intelligent Design crowd aren't scientists, they don't do experiments, they aren't interested in doing experiments or in scientific arguments, they are disingenuous in their discussion of science and of their agenda.

Well "they" is a rather broad term. Some IDers are Christians, some are Jewish, some are agnostics and some are even atheists of a sort. Additionally some are indeed scientists who "do" science.
Moreover what they primarily discuss is the philosophy of science, which has a long and quite accepted history regardless of whether the philosopher in question was a practicing scientist. The problem is that some people just don't like the philosophy being discussed, so rather than debate the issues they resort to slurs and personal insults.

I personally think science is wonderful and has been a great boon to mankind. It is however subject to the same weaknesses of any human institution; particularly that very human trait of pulling up the drawbridge and considering outlying viewpoints as beyond the pale. It happens within science itself; witness the mockery that sensible, skeptical critics of some of what passes for climate science are incurring. Many scientific theories that we now accept as fundamental were ridiculed, often savagely, for decades by the scientific establishments of the day.

What IDers are arguing is the viewpoint held by the vast majority of scientists up until 150 years ago. Unfortunately with the discovery of how a small fraction of the universe works many people now seem to think why it works doesn't matter anymore. And for some reason they get mad and start calling people names when anyone attempts to restore a little of the former humility science once had.

Slartibartfast

I think you'll find that since DNA has been discovered, scientists have struggled to "build" life from scratch

Sure, given a laboratory the size of a planet, and several hundred million years. Everyone's in on that.

jerry

Barney, I'd be interested in knowing your position about teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design in public high school classrooms, or about putting these fake warnings about evolution in high school science textbooks.

boris

Just as the Search for Extra Terrestial Intelligance is scientific, so might research into biological Intelligent Design. Some of the same probablilites would apply.

Recent item at Newscientist claims there's a paper proposing that there are more simulated realities than actual universes so odds are that this reality is in fact a simulation.

Is that ID?

Bob

Thanks Barney, you said it better than I did.

jerry wants to fight the issue by using the ID folks as the only position on this.


And I'll answer your question jerry... yes if science is truly correct on this topic then what better way than to have young minds see both sides of the argument... isn't that what school is all about? If your so confident in "your" view as the right one, this should be a walk in the park.

Or would that be too progressive?

Bob

String Theory... 30 years and billions of dollars and you get diddly squat. not that I'm apposed to the time spent, but the unethical nature of the funding is the same if not worse than in Global Warming circles. There is no money for opposing views. So mediocrity squeezes in just to pay the bills... this is another example of scientist "making up shit", just to feed the bulldog.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19225834.300-review-2006-string-theory-increasingly-knotty.html>New Scientist - String Theory increasingly knotty

"To explain why we see the universe we do, some string adherents look to the anthropic principle: all of these diverse universes exist, they say, but we are observing one of the few that's hospitable to life. To opponents, that's a cop-out."

boris New Scientist is one of my favorites... been subscriber for many years.

Barney Frank

jerry,

Depends on what you call creationism. Do I think young earth creationism is science and should be taught as such? No.

But of course young earth creationism has little or nothing to do with ID and their intentional conflation by critics of ID does not inspire confidence in the intellectual honesty of their criticism.

What I emphatically believe should be taught is that there are criticisms of science which are not often being raised by many scientists. And the reason they're not being asked is because they raise unsettling philisophical issues that most scientists prefer not to discuss, NOT because they are illegitimate questions. It is accurate to say that IDers haven't produced much affirmitive science, but they have produced some rather tough questions and the mainstream scientists responses have been less than impressive.

What I emphatically think should not be taught is non scientific glop like the 'primordial soup' or 'panspermia' explanations of life or frauds such as those in the book "Icons of Evolution". That known frauds were taught, without objection, to millions of kids for decades should make someone who is apparently concerned about kids being taught idiocies rather than good science pretty uncomfortable.

I find the response to criticism to always be revealing. Most peope respond to criticism that is self evidently without value by dismissing, ignoring or even laughing at it. Most people respond to criticism that they are afraid may have some uncomfortable merit or that at least makes them think about issues they'd rather ignore with anger and character assassination. Evolutionary biology's response to ID has been, for the most part, of the latter variety not the former, which suggest to me there is something more going on than the mere defense of the scientific method. Maybe their philosophy and world view is wrapped up in their science too?

Slartibartfast

what better way than to have young minds see both sides of the argument

Good question. What's the other side of the argument, again? Anything falsifiable?

jerry

Barney I think you know that most scientists by and large spend absolutely no time thinking or caring about Creationists and IDers (or politics in DC for that matter).

But the Creationists and IDers mount stealth attacks on school boards in the states and start teaching crap in school and calling it science (much like the story about the Grand Canyon that started this thread). I saw a great petrified hat on a Creationist show on TV, great comedy but not science. I understand that Creationists and IDers would like to be political and have scientists remain disinterested or "humble," but it honestly seems a naiive thing to expect this.

Boris, IDers don't do experiments, it's a political movement, not science. If anyone knows of an ID experiment, particularly if there happened to be an interesting result, please describe it, give links etc....

Bob

Why do you people always see a fucking political movement in everything.

The fact that scientist can't explain how to create protoplasm is all that's needed for the discussion. Your the ones wrapping this into religion.

Let's face it there are nuts on every side of every issue... nobody here is defending the loons. I just want to know what gives the scientist the only say on explaining this world and how it all started?

boris

Anything falsifiable?

Not this again ...

Suppose arguendo 2 choices, evolution or ID.

If one isn't falsifiable the other isn't either.

Not a porponent of ID BTW.

boris

mount stealth attacks on school boards

Gosh ... sorta like what's happening to Christmas ???

boris

IDers don't do experiments ...

It may be true that zero scientific research has been done on ID whereas SETI has been completely legit. Ooops what about the Hale Bop Mother Ship Suicide Cult ... was that science ???

Oh wait ... a few nuts do not discredit legitimate scientific inquiry. Or do they?

Barney Frank

jerry,

Why did I waste my time?

You continue to conflate ID and creationism as one and the same and start talking about petrified hats, of all things. Then you gripe about what you apparently believe is some type of large scale corruption of science classes by IDers. I would conservatively guess that Haeckel's 'ontogeny recapitualtes phylogeny' fraud has been taught to about a million times as many school kids as ID. Why do outright frauds or falsified theories such as the 'primordial soup', not corrected by those responsible for science education and still taught to millions bother you less than the mere questioning of certain scientific doctrines?

And why does evolution touch such a nerve?
If an astrophysicist says that the big bang and 'let there be light' sound suspiciously similar, nobody has a cow or calls him a fraud and claims he has forfeited the right to be called a scientist. But if a biologist even hints that someone or something may have had a hand in life outside of chance and time he's a modern day Judas.

Patton

In continuing to study this issue, it appears that macro-evolutionists are not much different

then their creationist antagonists they appear to despise.

Just as they believe Creationists see God in everything, they see Evolution in everything.

Anything they can’t come up with another reason for its existence immediate becomes proof of evolution.

DNA appears to be the building block of life and created early on in the proces

I guess my problem jerry is that you are saying that evolution only occurred AFTER the first

life form evolved. Would not the period from the beginning of the Earth until the first living cell also be part of evolution?

Wouldn’t the creation of that first protein be part of the evolutionary process?

Some scientists now claim that maybe it was crystal formations that started it all,

isn’t the formation of those crystal structures part of the evolutionary process or does evolution

stop at that first cell being completed?

Since scientists appear to believe that life can form by itself anywhere in the Universe, isn’t just as logical that that

first strand of DNA or first cell was ‘put’ here rather the grew out of chemical reactions.

Maybe some alien ship was checking the planet out and decided to off load their waste tanks

and dropped all their garbage on the planet and the garbage contained a living organism.

Maybe some life form shot billions of DNA strands out into the universe in hopes of continuing its

existence (the need to reproduce is what causes evolution right?) from some doomed planet a billion light years away

and some living matter survived the trip.

Is that any less likely then the appeared out of thin air scenario?

It appears evolutionists reject such ideas because:

1. They don’t want to have to believe in another smart life form because that smacks of God,

Or, 2. they reject the idea that it is easy for life to exist at all….but that contradict their whole thought about

life begginning here.

Could life just as easily have developed somewhere else 10 billion years ago and some ended up here?

I guess the question would be is that more or less likely then some random group of chemicals/crystals in some
primordial soup created a cell or R/DNA.

Patton

Jerry: ""But the Creationists and IDers mount stealth attacks on school boards in the states and start teaching crap in school and calling it science """"

Now that's interesting:

Miller's experient to create 'life' in the laboratory was a crap experiment, yet it is still cited as science of evolution.

The so-called vestigial organs cited by scientists of proof of evolution turn out not to vestigail at all.

The Haeckel embryo pictures were fakes and completely bugus in his attempt to prove macro evolution.

The scientists claims about celocampth based on its fossils were proven wrong when real ones were dicovered alive and studied.

I could go on, but isn't this exactly what you claim IDs are doing?

These were all BS scietist pawned off on our children as facts.

Slartibartfast

Suppose arguendo 2 choices, evolution or ID.

If one isn't falsifiable the other isn't either.

Oops, nope. There's a fallacy in there somewhere, but I'm too lazy to name it. No, there are four choices:

1) evolution fits observations
2) evolution is contradicted by observations
3) ID fits observations
4) ID is contradicted by observations

My point is that ID is not actually specific enough to be contradictable.

Slartibartfast

There are actually other choices, possibly, if anyone's got some other theories that they'd like to submit for summary falsification, but the point is, there ain't only two choices. That there are more choices available is kind of beside the point.

Patton

Couldn't IDs have done the same thing?

Miller could have said, look children, here is how the Intelligent design (ID) built the first protein.

Vestigial organs could have been left as a sign from the ID that he built us. I know when I build something out of used lumber, I don't take out all the old nails, why shough the ID be expected to be so neat?

Haekel could have said his pictures prove the ID used the same blue print over and over....the ID'er was lazy.

They could say the Celocampth proves the ID'r has a sense of humor.

boris

there are four choices

You do know what arguendo means don't you?

Evolution could be the most intelligent of designs. #5

Points is the falsifiable argument is a crock.

Slartibartfast

Sure: arguendo means for the sake of argument. But what you posed for the sake of argument doesn't correspond to reality, so posing it for the sake of argument doesn't validate your conclusion.

Unless you really meant to do something else, in which case I'm all ears.

Evolution could be the most intelligent of designs.

If you're claiming ID and evolution are one and the same, you've lost me. If they're the same, why teach both?

Patton

I guess what I am saying is this. Supposed the concept of a single God and the whole Christian thing never existed.

Supposed the world all worshiped trees and logs and Mother Nature. And then, some guy named Darwin comes along and says, you know, I've been looking at all this stuff and I think trees and logs have nothing to do with us being here. I think life required an intelligence to design it.

And all the reasons cited today for evolution, he cited as proof of an intelligence designing life on Earth.

Would everthing macro evolutionists say about evolution, also prove Intelligent Design?

Patton

If an Intelligent Designer wanted to build life, he would have to use components in the environment, he would have to have building blocks and a blue print, etc. etc

boris

doesn't correspond to reality

Says you. Arguendo bypasses that debate to move to a more relevant one.

If humans didn't evolve then the question becomes where did we come from? Lumping all possible answers into ID is one way to satisfy the logic.

So yes there is a POV where it's either ID or Evolution, hence each falsifies the other.

Continue to pretend you can't grasp that and you will be demoted from The One down to The Point Nine.

jerry

"Creation Science" and ID are an opinion (that conveniently changes as required, just read this thread), it certainly is not scientific(show me one just good ID experiment, please, I've been asking for this for several days now), it isn't even a debatable scientific argument (ID arguments always seem to return to showing that science is wrong, even though this quality is the great strength of science - show me just one case where IDers or Creationists admit they've been wrong), Creationist and ICer science is the fantasy of a small number of dishonest political extremists who would be happy to screw over your children -tracking them to their fantasy land of imposed stupidity.

jerry

Er, let me try that again:

"Creation Science" and ID science are an opinion (that conveniently changes as required during debate, just read this thread):

it certainly is not scientific. Show me just one good ID experiment, please! I've been asking for this for several days now and no one can name point to even one.

it isn't even a debatable scientific argument (ID arguments always seem to return to claiming that science is wrong, even though this quality is the great strength of science. Show me just one case where IDers or Creationists admit they've been wrong, please.

Creationist and IDer science is the fantasy of a small number of dishonest political extremists who would be happy to screw over your children - tracking them into their fantasy land of imposed stupidity, beware!

Nothing for you guys to disagree with now....

;-)

Slartibartfast

Says you.

No, says the universe. The universe won't limit your choices to only two, no matter how hard you wish that it would.

If humans didn't evolve then the question becomes where did we come from?

Good question. One that's already bid a rather brief adieu to evolution, but in a universe of your own design and build, you can do that. Let us know how it turned out, ok?

So yes there is a POV where it's either ID or Evolution, hence each falsifies the other.

Um, no. Actually, ID doesn't posit any specific way that humans got here, does it? By design, one might say.

Me, I'm quite comfortable with the notion that God just (so to speak) flipped a switch, and life evolved to where it is now according to His wishes. Others seem tightly adhered to the 7,000-year-old Earth (or whatever the real number is), while there are still other notions of how we got to be here. If you're unacquainted with other mythologies, well: not my problem.

In other words, it's pretty obvious that there's a host of Deity-steered versions of how we got here, plus a tighter subset of versions of how we evolved to this point. Pretending this all boils down to A or not A ignores much.

Daddy

I recall reading somewhere, possibly in Ridley's "Genome", that a thumnail definition of 'Life' was something like anything that can use the resources of the world around it to make copies of itself. You folks probably have a better definition than that, but I am hopeful that within 100 years we will know if there is any non-Earth induced 'Life' existing on any of the planets, proto-planets, or moons of our Solar System. If none is discovered, I doubt it will change the opinions seen on this thread. If life is discovered however, do you guys think that would alter either sides opinion, or just push the search for the Great First Cause off to more than 1 location?

Patton

Jerry, Not sure your grasping what I am saying.

You want an intelligent design experient, well wasn't Miller-Urey experiment Intelligent Design?

They didn't just throw everything from early earth into a bowl and see if life forms (Evolution), they actually tried to design life (intelligent Design), they used particular molecules, with a particuler environment just like an Intelligent Designer would to build life. They even had to build in a cold sink so that the proteins wouldn't be immediately destroyed by the enviroment (which could only have been done by an ID, not evolution).

So how does Miller-Urey prove Evolution, more then it proves ID??

Patton

Evolutionists want it both ways. They claim all kinds of things prove evolution, but when those things are proven false, they claim that the fact that they all turned out false, doesn't mean ID is more likely, it just means we have to keep trying to prove macro evolution no matter how many times we are wrong.

Bob

The irony patton is that the evolutionist only crowd are the hypocrites in this argument. We could easily turn this argument around and ask jerry to show the "scientific" experiment that disproves some form of ID. They rely solely on the fact that since it can't be proven it must not exist. But yet scientist swear that string theory explains everything, and yet decades later, we still can only experience 3 dimensions. Sure maybe someday it'll be proven or dis-proven, but why is that effort considered valid science and yet ID is only a "hoax" to be played upon the children.

Again, I do believe that the best way to teach students is to allow them to argue both sides. They should be taught to ask the hard questions, and including ID will actually be better for both viewpoints. Keeping it outside the classrooms is what I feel has given the religious zealots more credibility, since they control their version.

At this point in mankind's evolution, the scientists have only scratched the surface in explaining this life and our world so far... you would think they'd be a bit more humble.

jerry

Daddy, I've thought that if life were found on Mars scientific and non-scientific doubters would just persevere with claims that it was from Earth, and suporters would persevere with delight that life does exist elsewhere (in the solar system at least) and then go on to describing it at great length, comparing it to life on Earth, and testing hypotheses as to the "origin of life in the solar system." IDers clearly wouldn't need to bother with any of that, their Intelligent Being Theory would remain unchallenged by any external observation.

Patton, Miller-Urey was certainly an important origins experiment by recognised scientists. What I'd like to see is the sort of science the people at the "Discovery Institute" are doing, or if they aren't doing experiments what their plan is for studying "Design." I might even say that carrying on from Miller-Urey is sensible. But my understanding of the "science" supported by "Discovery Institute" is that it's all actually political smoke and mirrors that's really about bashing science.

Bob, I've been asking for someone to tell me some result from ID science here for days now without a single example being offered. The reason is that ID isn't about experiments, and isn't science - it's a political movement that wants to masquerade as science. Without even one example (let alone a body of work) of "ID science," I'm comfortable in saying it is a political hoax that shouldn't be presented to children as science.

I'm sort of skeptical about string theory, though I'm not a mathematician (theoretical math at least isn't very expensive!). I do like the idea that humans may be physiologically unable to perceive important things about reality though, and I do like the Dark Matter and Dark Energy mystery.

boris

Pretending this all boils down to A or not A ignores much.

Clearly the argument can be framed as:

  1. Evolution;
  2. Not Evolution;

      For the purpose of judging the "falsifiability" canard. Since it's my point I can assign ID = Not Evolution

      If you can't deal with it any credibility you may claim wrt "science" is blown to smithereens. Point Nine.

boris

^^ That's pretty strange.

jerry

"So how does Miller-Urey prove Evolution, more then it proves ID??"

If you are asking why M-U and evolution are supported by the scientific community, and why ID isn't, the answer is that is was an honest experiment designed to answer a question that was then written up and reviewed and published, scientists even followed it up with more experiments.

ID is a political movement, it wants an opinion taught in school science classes, or it just wants "the debate" taught. For example, the ID crowd wants to claim that eyes were "Designed" by an "Intelligent Being." Ok, if you want that opinion presented as fact in a science classroom show me the scientific evidence for it.

If IDers are more generally saying that modern life must have been "Designed" (let's say they've abandoned the argument about evolution) show me a body of experimental work that has tested this question and supports this conclusion.

A 50 year old biochemistry paper really isn't sufficient to convince me to support ID, and to get the scientific community to allow ID into a high school science classroom there's going to need to be some really good data supporting it.

But there isn't a group of IDers doing experiments, or a body of experimental papers suporting ID, there's a bunch of dishonest political activists pretending to be scientists and making baseless charges agains science.

This is why "the debate" is a non-starter. There is no debate about evolution, thousands of experimental papers by thousands of scientists over many years support evolution. Until someone shows me some papers I'm not convinced that a single person (hopefully a scientists) has done one experiment that supports ID. It isn't even a debate, there's no science in ID just political activism.

boris

A complete theory of evolution is still a long way off. Biologists are still discovering features in so called "junk" DNA. There is no definitive answer to the factor in the SETI equation for the probablility of self assembly of a living cell given favorable values for the other factors.

Now you could claim up until some point in the 19th century that there was no science in pop mythology wrt little green men and UFOs. But I consider SETI to be real science regardless of an abundance of associated junk science and nonsense.

Point is "there's no science in ID" is an assertion without basis and since I could design experiments to determine the SETI self assembly probability, which also happens to pertain to ID BTW, I challenge your assertion.

The simulated reality point posted earlier also does.

Granted SETI is not a topic particulary suited to high school biology, wheras evolution is well grounded scientifically. However it is also clear that "there's a bunch of dishonest political activists pretending to be scientists and making baseless charges against religion".

Slartibartfast

So how does Miller-Urey prove Evolution, more then it proves ID??

They rely solely on the fact that since it can't be proven it must not exist.

These are related, and both show a fundamental misunderstanding of what science does. First one first: if Miller-Urey failed, then it doesn't prove anything except that the experiment didn't achieve the experimental objective. If Miller-Urey (I'm not familiar with it, but I expect they tried to replicate life or some building block in some relatively small closed environment) failed, it just means that it failed. Sometimes experiments are based on faulty expectations. If they'd done the experiment in a world-sized laboratory that replicated early Earth conditions exactly and failed to get anything like life after a billion years or so, I'd think maybe there was an indication that something in theory was amiss.

As for the second, you don't prove existence. You posit a theory that fits the observations, and then you design an experiment to see if you can contradict the theory.

The theory of evolution isn't cast in stone. Newton's laws were pretty much the rule until Einstein came along, but Einstein's findings built on Newton, they didn't contradict Newton. Anyone who expects that the TOE must remain static in order to be a defensible body of theory is keeping an unreasonable set of expectations.

Slartibartfast

For the purpose of judging the "falsifiability" canard. Since it's my point I can assign ID = Not Evolution.

Ok, in a binary universe. Not to be confused with the actual universe, though.

jerry

I don't have a problem with SETI (I think Contact may be the best science movie ever made), and I don't think the scientific community does either. But ID and "Creation Science" are a very different story.

What "baseless charges against religion?"

boris

Not to be confused with the actual universe, though.

So you're an expert on what can be incuded as ID in the actual universe. Wow, who'da thunkit. Point Nine, ID expert!

What "baseless charges against religion?"

How many biology teachers claiming that evolution disproves religion would it take? How many religious parents would you believe?

What does a sci-fi movie have to do with the science of SETI?

Do you or do you not dispute the SETI equation or the simulated reality hypothesis as science? Because if either are valid then the claim that "ID is not science" is false.

Slartibartfast

So you're an expert on what can be incuded as ID in the actual universe.

No, I just happen to know that you can't define your own universe and have the rest of us acknowledge it as the real one.

Propping up faulty logic with snark doesn't seem to be working for you, boris. Probably a change in tactics might be in order.

boris

have the rest of us acknowledge it

No just forcing you to take an honest stand.

Stand up for evolution. You don't get to be the "anything but religious nonsense" position in the debate.

The actual real universe debate is: evolution vs anything but

An the IDer have staked out the anything but evolution position. Fact. Point Eight.

boris

Pretty obvious that Patton is promoting the "anything but evolution" argument isn't it?

Slartibartfast

Stand up for evolution. You don't get to be the "anything but religious nonsense" position in the debate.

Not that anyone voted you as arbiter, but...show me where I said anything like that. I won't be holding my breath, because you're not going to find it. This is pattern behavior for you, so I should stop being surprised when you do it.

The rest of your post makes no sense. I recommend that you screw that cap on the hip flask really tightly and keep it on for the next couple of hours.

Slartibartfast

Pretty obvious that Patton is promoting the "anything but evolution" argument isn't it?

I have no idea and almost as little interest in what argument Patton thinks it's making. Certainly it's not a scientific one.

boris

show me where I said anything like that

Didn't claim you did. You're position so far is to avoid any clear cut stand. Could be this could be that too many possibilities yadda yadda yadda.

boris

I have no idea ...

Then you're not an expert in what position ID is taking are you.

Slartibartfast

You're position so far is to avoid any clear cut stand.

Assuming some horrible reading comprehension on the part of the subject, I can see how it might seem that way.

Then you're not an expert in what position ID is taking are you.

Agreed, not an expert, which unfortunately doesn't mean I'm not familiar with ID.

Patton

“” the ID crowd wants to claim that eyes were "Designed" by an "Intelligent Being." Ok, if you want that opinion presented as fact in a science classroom show me the scientific evidence for it.”””

No, what we are saying is that evolution couldn’t possibly have designed the eye, so why does that theory get any better standing then any other? Micro-evolution can’t build an eye and noone has every been able to show that macro evolution ever occurred. Evolution by the definition provided is incapable of building complex systems that can’t be reduced

It is the evolutionist that demonstrates incredible faith in a scenario when you consider the fact that even a simple light sensitive spot is extremely complicated (evolutionist theory), involving a huge number of specialized proteins and protein systems. These proteins and systems are integrated in such a way that if one were removed, vision would cease. In other words, for the miracle of vision to occur, even for a light sensitive spot, a great many different proteins and systems would have to evolve simultaneously, because without them all there at once, vision would not occur. For example, the first step in vision is the detection of photons. In order to detect a photon, specialized cells use a molecule called 11-cis-retinal. When a photon of light interacts with this molecule, it changes its shape almost instantly. It is now called trans-retinal. This change in shape causes a change in shape of another molecule called rhodopsin. The new shape of rhodopsin is called metarhodopsin II. Metarhodopsin II now sticks to another protein called transducin forcing it to drop an attached molecule called GDP and pick up another molecule called GTP. The GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II molecule now attaches to another protein called phosphodiesterase. When this happens, phosphodiesterase cleaves molecules called cGMPs. This cleavage of cGMPs reduces their relative numbers in the cell. This reduction in cGMP is sensed by an ion channel. This ion channel shuts off the ability of the sodium ion to enter the cell. This blockage of sodium entrance into the cell causes an imbalance of charge across the cell’s membrane. This imbalance of charge sends an electrical current to the brain. The brain then interprets this signal and the result is called vision. Many other proteins are now needed to convert the proteins and other molecules just mentioned back to their original forms so that they can detect another photon of light and signal the brain. If any one of these proteins or molecules is missing, even in the simplest eye system, ‘vision’ will not occur.

The question now of course is, how could such a system evolve gradually? All the pieces must be in place simultaneously. For example, what good would it be for an earthworm that has no eyes to suddenly evolve the protein 11-cis-retinal in a small group or “spot” of cells on its head? These cells now have the ability to detect photons, but so what? What benefit is that to the earthworm? Now, lets say that somehow these cells develop all the needed proteins to activate an electrical charge across their membranes in response to a photon of light striking them. So what?! What good is it for them to be able to establish an electrical gradient across their membranes if there is no nervous pathway to the worm’s minute brain? Now, what if this pathway did happen to suddenly evolve and such a signal could be sent to the worm’s brain. So what?! How is the worm going to know what to do with this signal? It will have to learn what this signal means. Learning and interpretation are very complicated processes involving a great many other proteins in other unique systems. Now the earthworm, in one lifetime, must evolve the ability to pass on this ability to interpret vision to its offspring. If it does not pass on this ability, the offspring must learn as well or vision offers no advantage to them. All of these wonderful processes need regulation. No function is beneficial unless it can be regulated (turned off and on). If the light sensitive cells cannot be turned off once they are turned on, vision does not occur. This regulatory ability is also very complicated involving a great many proteins and other molecules… all of which must be in place initially for vision to be beneficial.

Now, what if we do not have to explain the origin of the first light sensitive “spot.” The evolution of more complex eyes is simple from that point onward… right? Not exactly. Every different component that requires unique proteins doing unique functions requires a unique gene in the DNA of that creature. Neither the genes nor the proteins that they code for function alone. The existence of a unique gene or protein means that a unique system of other genes and proteins are involved with its function. In such a system, the absence of any one of the system genes, proteins, or molecules means that the whole system becomes functionless. Considering the fact that the evolution of a single gene or protein has never been observed or reproduced in the laboratory, such apparently small differences suddenly become quite significant.

jerry

No, what we are saying is that evolution couldn’t possibly have designed the eye, so why does that theory get any better standing then any other?
- and if not evolution what, don’t be coy.

Micro-evolution can’t build an eye and noone has every been able to show that macro evolution ever occurred.
- there are many examples of mutations that prevent eye development – I bet I could find a regulatory example, you’d say that’s not a single gene with a great evolutionary effect?

Evolution by the definition provided is incapable of building complex systems that can’t be reduced
- sorry, what definition?

It is the evolutionist that demonstrates incredible faith in a scenario when you consider the fact that even a simple light sensitive spot is extremely complicated (evolutionist theory), involving a huge number of specialized proteins and protein systems.
- I don’t recall discussing faith, is this really you Patton, or some masquerade? In any case, I’d say that evolution got started long before that “simple light sensitive spot, “ – all chemicals react to light, so lets say that a random mutation changed ability of a light reactive protein to interact…

These proteins and systems are integrated in such a way that if one were removed, vision would cease.
- right, like those mutations causing color blindness? Think about gene families.

In other words, for the miracle of vision to occur, even for a light sensitive spot, a great many different proteins and systems would have to evolve simultaneously, because without them all there at once, vision would not occur.
- ibid, with endless further examples. One hallmark of evolution has been to provide animals with multiple partially-redundant copies of many genes, so when scientists remove one another redundant family member supplies the missing function. Gene duplication is thought to be a powerful advantage in evolution because the duplicated gene is free to mutate without harm to the organism.

For example… If any one of these proteins or molecules is missing, even in the simplest eye system, ‘vision’ will not occur.
- Though I’m not clear if you mean physically deleted (a deletion mutation) or functionally deleted (a nucleotide change affecting function but allowing protein expression)… Google “rhodopsin mutations” in “color blindness” and “retinitis pigmentosa”, the author would be “Nathans”, these are just some examples of mutations that do not completely prevent function.

The question now of course is, how could such a system evolve gradually?
- not a biggie

All the pieces must be in place simultaneously.
- just demonstrated this to be false

For example, what good would it be for an earthworm that has no eyes to suddenly evolve the protein 11-cis-retinal in a small group or “spot” of cells on its head?
- but I said you should be starting with a mutation that affects a protein, long before a spot would be present – though a mutation causing clumping of light-reactive proteins might be the beginning of a “spot.”

These cells now have the ability to detect photons, but so what? What benefit is that to the earthworm?
- you’d have to ask the earthworm , maybe it wants to find lady earthworms and this is easy above ground when it rains, just need to know which way is up?

Now, lets say that somehow these cells develop all the needed proteins to activate an electrical charge across their membranes in response to a photon of light striking them. So what?! What good is it for them to be able to establish an electrical gradient across their membranes if there is no nervous pathway to the worm’s minute brain?
- let’s just begin by saying that all cells establish electrical gradients, then maybe they functionally diversify through the process of evolution… etc….

Now, what if this pathway did happen to suddenly evolve and such a signal could be sent to the worm’s brain. So what?! How is the worm going to know what to do with this signal? It will have to learn what this signal means.
- so the worm where the connection is made finds the lady and makes a big happy family, and the worms where this doesn’t happen end up single and bitter.

Learning and interpretation are very complicated processes involving a great many other proteins in other unique systems. Now the earthworm, in one lifetime, must evolve the ability to pass on this ability to interpret vision to its offspring.
- no, this is misleading, the systems are thought to gradually evolve over very long periods of time, not “in one lifetime.” You present the evolved system that is present today and ask how this could happen all at once – that’s an immodest demand in my opinion.

If it does not pass on this ability…. … all of which must be in place initially for vision to be beneficial.
- Same mistake, evolutionary biologists would say that these problems were all gradually accomplished over a very long period of time – but there are those pesky mutants in regulatory proteins that can have a great immediate effect (Google “antennapedia” and check the images).

Now, what if we do not have to explain …..means that the whole system becomes functionless.
- all false, just start looking at the wide variety of mutations that have been observed in many species that have little effect on function, hereditary degenerative diseases for instance have very little initial effect on function.

Considering the fact that the evolution of a single gene or protein has never been observed or reproduced in the laboratory, such apparently small differences suddenly become quite significant.
- I’m not sure that “evolution” is properly applied to laboratory situations, but scientists have been saturating genes for proteins, and genomes, with mutations for some time now, they even let genes “evolve” under a variety of conditions and then study the outcomes.

That's all for today!

Patton

""""In other words, for the miracle of vision to occur, even for a light sensitive spot, a great many different proteins and systems would have to evolve simultaneously, because without them all there at once, vision would not occur.
- ibid, with endless further examples. One hallmark of evolution has been to provide animals with multiple partially-redundant copies of many genes, so when scientists remove one another redundant family member supplies the missing function. Gene duplication is thought to be a powerful advantage in evolution because the duplicated gene is free to mutate without harm to the organism.""""

So I take it jerry that you believe an organism would have developed the entire eye structure at one time? From the receptor to the brain function?

If that is not what you are saying, they do you actually believe it is possible under evolution to make one change, while planning to make other chnages in the future?

Very simple question. If a organism development light receptors on its skin, why would it develop the necessary structures to turn the light to impulses to send to the brain, if the brain didn't have the capability to receive, process or understand the light??

Doesn't the concept of building the impulse generators without simultaneously building the brains structures defy basic evolution?

The organism would be building a useless structure that cannot be used unless the brain is prepared to receive and interpret the light.

And if the organism developed all at once, doesn't that also defy evolution because it appears to be following a complex design.

Patton

It appears what your saying is that the organism built all these structures one at a time for another purpose and then they all just fell together to create vision.

And is color blindness also micro evolution, not macro? Just like eye color.

Patton

Jerry, interesting you bring up antennapedia. But again you are only talking about re-aranging the deck chairs, not creating a new boat. While one mutational step in a biological organism might seem to have large effects, such as the antennapedia mutation in fruit flies. Although such a change may be impressive to some, it involves only the rearrangement of existing structures; no new structures are made.
So while you may be able to play around with the existing blueprint, you didn't build a new one.

Patton

The more I think about it, micro evolution, like Darwins finches, isn't even really evolution. It is simply a means for a organism to adapt to the current environment.

The organism is just pulling a different recessive gene out of his pocket no different then if we pull a pair of gloves from our pocket to adapt to cold.

But how were all those genes built to begin with.

Patton

For instance, hair color changes are a mutation in an existing gene. I think what scientists need to demonstrate for 'molecules to man' evolution to be plausible is the genetic mechanism to account for the origin of the original melanin gene, pigmentation, etc. Clearly a mutation in a pigmentation gene causing less of the pigment to be made does not provide that kind of example. Directional evolution cannot be achieved by reduction/elimination of pre-existing genetic data.

Bob

patton, I think it's a lost cause with folks who believe that since science can prove evolution, it in turn makes ID a farce. I will admit that the "only" ID folks are just as obstinate. So asking Evo folks to disprove a Creator is just as unfair as them asking ID folks for proof there is... it's a stupid "nobody wins" argument.

I'm willing to admit I don't know, which keeps my mind open to both possibilities. So until either one has definitive proof I think both viewpoints have value.

Patton

Well I think we can all agree that micro evolution exists and we can agree that:

1. Scietists have not been able to prove macro evolution.

2. Every instance where scientists originally claimed macro evolution was involved that can now be determined turned out to be false. (vestigial organs, soft tissue assuptions in fossils, etc.)

3. Evolutionists have as much faith without proof of macro evolution as creationists have about God being involved.

I think in time, both sides will attempt to co-opt some form of intelligent design because that is the direction the facts are going. It doesn't have to be God, it doesn't have to be cute aliens. But there was something that occurred earlier on in the life process that gave it some direction, some blueprint. Maybe someday we'll figure out what that was. For all we know that 'force' could have evolved itself and have nothing to do with a God.

Maybe the big bang was actually the end of something else, and not just a begginning.

But the closed minds of the evolutionists will make things all the harder.

Slartibartfast

I think it's a lost cause with folks who believe that since science can prove evolution, it in turn makes ID a farce.

Science hasn't "proven" evolution; best look up "theory". Science won't prove ID, either.

I think if Patton wants to debate specific details on evolution, he'd be better off in a forum devoted to such a purpose. I'd bet that talkorigins has one or more such devoted to exactly that.

So, Patton, if you're self-convinced that you've got refutation, I encourage you to go forth and put it out there where it counts. I'd be surprised, though, if you've got any arguments that haven't already been swatted down.

Bob

"Science hasn't "proven" evolution; best look up "theory". Science won't prove ID, either."

I know... "folks who believe" It was my attempt at sarcasm...

jerry

Patton, I think one difference between us is that you don't imagine evolutionary precursors to the variety of life on earth today. Not surprising, as you're an evolution non-believer.

"So I take it jerry that you believe an organism would have developed the entire eye structure at one time? From the receptor to the brain function?"

No, don't know how you can think this, I've been saying just the opposite.

"If that is not what you are saying, they do you actually believe it is possible under evolution to make one change, while planning to make other chnages in the future?"

Right, in the sense that a living organism experiences many challenges to survive and reproduce - these challenges would target many different organs, many different cell types many different proteins within the cells, throughout the life of any living thing. So, across all living things evolution potentially acts on all genes at the same time... when a mutation appears it might give one organism an advantage or disadvantage, if it's an advantage that organism's offspring might better survive over future populations. Single species could change greatly given enought time (think of all those varieties of dogs) and new species could separate and change more extremely (this is thought to be encouraged by small population sizes, isolating geographies, and large chromosomal rearrangements.

"Very simple question. If a organism development light receptors on its skin, why would it develop the necessary structures to turn the light to impulses to send to the brain, if the brain didn't have the capability to receive, process or understand the light??"

But I don't see it as happening all at once, I see it happening gradually. For instance a nervous system probably evolved because there was an advantage for cells to stay connected as body size grew larger - particularly those light spots and muscle cells. As generations went by things became further separated, things like worms evolved into things like fish, and the cells connecting became more complex also.

I've already said that I don't think there's any evidence I could give which would convince you about macro-evolution Patton.

Slartibartfast

Ah. My bad.

cboldt
ordered list off unordered list off
boris

It was an ordered list.

Should have checked source.

boris

Unintended ambiguosity ...

I should have checked source. IE and Mozilla didn't show a problem. What browser ?

cboldt

-- "What browser?" --


Lynx/2.8.6rel.2 libwww-FM/2.14 SSL-MM/1.4.1 OpenSSL/0.9.8d

jerry

Hmmm, ummm......... what? Translate?


Entirely unrelated attempt to contribute something positive:

"You will learn Winston's faults in a moment, you will spend a lifetime learning his virtures."

Patton

"""Science hasn't "proven" evolution"""

Well then maybe scientists should stop acting like it has.

Why do so-called scientists reject all other theories and settle on a theory that has not be proven in any aspect (macro evolution)?

Why is evolution theory the only one allowed to be taught to future scientists?
Is it to narrow their minds as well?

And shouldn't we distrust it even more when every piece of evidence scientists have pointed to in the last 60 years to say macro-evultion happened turned out to be inaccurate.

Isn't their at least something wrong with a theory that everytime its best scientists point to factual evidence they turn out to be wrong?

Macro-evolution theorist claimed for decades that man should be riddled with vestigial organs, while ID says that man wouldn't be.

ID turns out right and evolution theorists were wrong. Now they turn around and say, well, we just haven't figured out why were not riddled with vestigial organs.

I won't go down the list (Fossil record, soft tissue, etc.) but I think you get the point.

Patton

I would think the so-called scientific method would have room for such a test.

If I say A + B = C and if that is true, then D must be E...and then it turns out D isn't E...you seem to have a problem.

God

Ok, OK, all right allready. I DID IT!
I DID IT!
YA GOT ME, NOW CAN WE END THIS ARGUMENT??

Yes, even God has to use Microsoft.

maryrose

Thank you God for being the last word on the subject.

Slartibartfast

Why do so-called scientists reject all other theories and settle on a theory that has not be proven in any aspect (macro evolution)?

Cite? What other theories do you have in mind?

A theory is a theory. It's a model that explains observed data, not the actual mechanism. Just as, note, Newton's Laws are actually theories. Newton hasn't exactly been proven wrong, note, just incomplete. But Newton's laws are also simple enough that one can illustrate them in simple experiments; evolution, not so much.

Which doesn't invalidate evolution as a theory, note.

Anyway, if you've got some scientific theory that fits observed data and does it better than TOE does, let's hear it.

jerry

"Why is evolution theory the only one allowed to be taught to future scientists?
Is it to narrow their minds as well?"

There is no alternative Patton, ID is an opinion - please tell me about any body of experiments, even one experiment, that makes ID something that should be taught. ID is an opinion, facts/experiments are not necessary.

"And shouldn't we distrust it even more when every piece of evidence scientists have pointed to in the last 60 years to say macro-evultion happened turned out to be inaccurate."

This is a near-complete falsehood, if you exclude the simple frauds (ID would qualify as a simple fraud BTW) science entirely supports macro-evolution - even if you do not, and you wish to continue perpetuating falsehoods about science.

Patton, some people see a rose and see a mausoleum - I see a rose and see a survivor with a fascinating history and future - that opinion is entirely supported by the whole of science.

You choose an unchanging mausoleum of myth and superstition.

lastchaos gold

My friend told me that she would buy lastchaos gold for me, and I was so happy.

LOTRO Gold

When you have LOTRO Gold, you can get more!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame