Will Wilkinson - Latest Comments in Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

Micha Ghertner — Fri, 03 Dec 2004 09:41:12 -0000

Why do you assume I am more toilet trained than the average bear? Like all anarchists, I poop where I please.

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

ugh! — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 19:22:47 -0000

I believe that infants should be taken away from their parents at birth to be raised by the bears or wolves in the forest. So what, I say, if the bears & wolves eat most of the babies. Humans reproduces WAY too much and there are an indecent number of us being toilet trained here on poor, 4.5 billion year old, planet earth. Also, abortions would happily decrease because you can feed, er I mean throw your baby to the wolves instead of aborting it. The plentiful new supply of food would result in a surge in the bear & wolf populations which would go a long way in making up for our ruthless extermination of those regal animals to make room for more toilet trained(?), rapatious humans like Micha. That the libertarian social model should fail to take into account feral children is a ghastly if not beastly thought!

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

Tom Pearson — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 10:55:17 -0000

Wow; there certainly are a lot of comments here that have nothing to do with the point of the original post. The original post dealt with using state power to enforce a particular viewpoint in compulsory education. Because such a situation will always lead to dissatisfaction among those who do not agree with what's being taught to their children (whether it's science, religion or anything), a reasonable solution of giving parents a choice with regard to how their tax dollars will be used for educating their own children was presented. I would say that an even more agreeable solution (though vouchers may be a step down this road and are certainly preferable to the current system) is to eliminate compulsory education entirely and to allow parents to use the funding that currently goes to public schools to educate their children as they see fit regardless of what everyone else thinks of those views.

In other words, if we really want to live in a pluralistic society, we have to respect others' desire to raise their children, even if we think that their parents are teaching them harmful or absurd viewpoints. Note: I am not condoning child abuse. However, there is a wide range of beliefs that parents attempt to pass on to their children and school can be part of that transfer of beliefs. Will is saying, I think, that no one should be surprised if one group complains that the political processes governing part of the values transfer process (school) favor one group's views over another. And, further, that a good way to eliminate some of the tension among different groups is to depoliticize the process governing schooling by allowing parents to choose schools where their values are taught.

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

Rob McEwen — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 19:57:18 -0000

..oops... I goofed on the formatting. The sentences starting with "Stasis..." and "Sudden appearance..." both should have been italicized because both of these are a continuation of Gould's words.

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

Rob McEwen — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 19:52:48 -0000

I think that, ironically, points made on both sides in this argument clearly show that science (and the positions of scientists) is largely shaped by politics (unfortunately... it would be nice if we would not rule out possibilities before hand and then let the scientific method lead us wherever it goes!)

For example, since Charles Lyell first promoted Uniformitarianism in Geology, geologists were expected to hold to a rigid version of Uniformitarianism with only very little to no Catastrophism... and geologists who strayed from this path (even a little bit) didn't have a chance of a successful career in Geology... they were scoffed at and made fun of.

However, now that the evidence clearly shows that large-scale past catastrophic geological events did occur and had tremendous impacts on the physical makeup of the planet... (we know this for sure due to more advanced technology available today) ...suddenly, having a mixture of Uniformitarianism and Catastrophism is in "vogue"!

This leads to questions... what does that tell us about the state of science in the 19th, 20th, & 21st century? Also, if geologists merely 60, 40, and even 10 or 20 years ago had the "right" beliefs (about there being a mixture), but suppressed them or were persecuted for them because these beliefs were "assumed" to be wrong at that time (due to the scientific community being "hell bent" on not giving an inch to the creationists)... how can we be so sure that more of this is not going on today?

..and it is...

As I said earlier, I can cite examples where college science professors were fired just for bringing up examples of the kind of problems with Evolution that I've mentioned... and they were not trying to promote creationism... they were just trying to tackle these issues!

Finally, from time to time, a leading Evolutionists scientist will "spill the beans" and explain some of these problems.

Michael Denton's book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" was a "watershed" book. Denton is NOT at all a creationist. I'm fairly sure that he is an atheist. More recently, he wrote additional book(s) where he speculates on some pretty wild and unconventional theories which are at odds with BOTH creationism and Neo-Darwinism... he seems to have since "gone off the deep end"... but, to his credit, at least he is honest enough to try his best to find a way for naturalism to work without doing the things that Neo-Darwinists do where they sweep impossibilities under the rug... you see, at least Denton is intellectually honest about it. (can't say the same for Darwinists).

Also, consider the following quotes from Stephen Jay Gould, professor of Geology and Zoology at Harvard University. (deceased in 2002) Gould was one of the few Evolutionist willing to talk candidly about these problems:

"Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations."
********************
"But how do you get from nothing to such an elaborate something if evolution must proceed through a long sequence of intermediate stages, each favored by natural selection? You can't fly with 2% of a wing or gain much protection from an iota's similarity with a potentially concealing piece of vegetation. How, in other words, can natural selection explain these incipient stages of structures that can only be used (as we now observe them) in much more elaborated form?"
(this point is now championed by Michael Behe in his book, "Darwin's Black Box")
********************
...and most devistating of all because this is exactly what would be expected from the evidence left behind by Creationism:

The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;

2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'.
********************

Let me ask you, do you now consider Gould a religious fanatic?

Does Gould's tenure as professor of Geology and Zoology at Harvard University make Gould not credible? ...or were you expecting a professor from a small private Christian community college?

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

Micha Ghertner — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 19:02:02 -0000

Compare the number of theists who believe in evolution to the number of athiests who believe in intelligent design. One number is significantly positive; the other quickly approaches zero.

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

Rob McEwen — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 17:52:31 -0000

Micha said:
So too, creationists like Rob reject evolution because "intelligent design" is a better fit with their religious ideology.

This is a two way street.

A number of years ago, the renowned biologist (and evolutionist), Sir Julian Huxley (bio), grandson of Thomas Huxley (btw, also the brother of Aldus Huxley, the author of "Brave New World") made an interesting comment to an interviewer on a British television program. When asked why the scientific community quickly embraced evolution, Julian Huxley responded:

"I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origin of the Species, was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."

Basically, this is a common theme. Over time, there have been literally millions of college students who loved hearing that "God was dead" via Evolution. If there is not God, there are no absolutes and no eternal accountability to a Creator. Therefore, we set our own morals and we do whatever we please. I have heard such testimony and/or sentiments time and time again, both from converts to Christianity and from still-atheists (who were still delighted with their "freedom").

But... you might be thinking, "how dare Rob try to tell us how/why/what our motivations for believing Evolution"... "Rob doesn't know what we have learned that let us to that belief"... exactly... and likewise regarding your views about my views... no one here knows much about my religious belief or about how I discovered that Evolution was impossible.

Now, can we get back to science (for once) and off these "red herring" arguments?

And speaking of fitting science to one's ideology... there were a series of conferences starting in the 60s and in the early 80s where the "math" and statistical models of Neo-Darwinism were discussed. These started with the 1966 Wistar Institute. Basically, during these conferences, (non-religious, BTW) statisticians and mathematicians saw that Evolution was impossible... but the biologists, paleontologists, ect. stuck to their beliefs in spite of the scientific evidence

Check out the articles present by this Google search. For example, this one.

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

Micha Ghertner — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 08:37:32 -0000

Of course, as everyone familiar with the topic knows, Soviet scientists rejected Darwinian evolution, and thus natural selection and genetics, in favor of Lysenkoism, because Lysenkoism was a better fit with their political ideology. So too, creationists like Rob reject evolution because "intelligent design" is a better fit with their religious ideology.

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

Rob McEwen — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:23:26 -0000

Bernard made fun of my last post on Kriston's blog. I should mention that, in case anyone reading this doesn't know who Thomas Huxley is, see the following page on UC Berkely page:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/thuxley.html

Listen... I know that all of your Eugenics talk was kidding around... but the parallels were too striking to let that go... and ya'll did start sounding a lot like the "progressives" that are on display in Dostorevsky novels. They were all so excited about social engineering via the State... and these were obviously conversations that mirrored real conversations that Fyodor Dostorevsky had with real life "progressives" in his day and time... just a few years before Communistism destroyed their country.

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

Bernard — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 07:08:46 -0000

You're certainly a worthy poster child for the Creationist movement.

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

Rob McEwen — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 05:34:58 -0000

It seems that ya'll have come "full circle" and joined the leading Evolutionists of the recent past:

Thomas Huxley said:

"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites"

Never mind that fact that modern genetics has proven that there is extremely little difference between the races compared to the differences that already occur within races.

But this shows how your pre-conceived philosophy had "colored" your views of what you think is proven scientifically, regardless of the actual evidence.

...it also shows the kind of ludicrous ideas and views that your philosophy can lead to. I should note that, before the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the leading young "progressives" of the day embraced atheism along with communism. They had a lot of similar "bright ideas" too.... which lead the the deaths of hundreds of millions in the 20th century.

BTW... where in any of my posts on this thread (prior to this post) have I been "religious"... call me an "idiot" all day, but I've talked very little about God or the Bible or religion on this thread. I guess ya'll will do anything to avoid actually having to debate the science.

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

Micha Ghertner — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:18:44 -0000

I'm sure even the pseudo-moralistic, religious idiots like Rob can join together with the rest of us and agree that eugenics is both necessary and justified when it is used to remove brutes and ignoramuses like Trumpit from the collective gene pool. Call it a public good.

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

ugh! — Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:08:49 -0000

Eugenics anyone? We do it to dogs. My collie didn't arrive on Noah's arc, I'm afraid. She came out of intelligent design. (This is barnyard science at its best.) That's right, intelligent HUMAN design. Why or why can't we apply eugenics to ourselves. I know, the Nazis gave it a bad rap. But, do we have to remain a species that is for the most part is still brutish and ignorant when we can easily do something about it? I blame pseudo-moralistic, religious idiots for that, among others. Now that I'm through ranting for the moment, you can go back to sleep. Sorry to disturb ya'll, except for you Micha. For you, it's the DRAFT!!

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

Danny — Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:04:18 -0000

Man, all those parenthesis make it look like a one-man conversation.

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

Bernard — Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:27:33 -0000

I suspected this wasn't worth my time. Curse my optimism.

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

Rob McEwen — Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:20:28 -0000

sub total of all current bones currently used as "proof"

...for clarification... I was referring, at that point, to those bones currently used to "prove" human Evolution.

But a "handful" of controversial "humanoid" bones won't "materialize" the 99%+ pieces of the jigsaw puzzle I mentioned earlier (regarding the entire fossil record).

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

Rob McEwen — Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:12:52 -0000

Regarding Dawkins... on the page I listed originally:

http://tccsa.tc/articles/dawkins_pause.html

...there are all kinds of links to pages defending Dawkins and pages to counter these. That web site is very fair in that it gives Dawkins much coverage from his defenders.

Personally, after reading much of this, I think that all of the pro-Dawkins articles are "spin" from the Evolutionists... I'll let the "readers" check these out (and your link, too) and decide for themselves.

However, as you (or anyone) reads these, recall how your (or most) science teachers say things like "Evolution is a proven fact because we know that bacteria and viruses mutate into stronger variations that our immune system has a harder time fighting"...

...if such is true, answers to questions like this one to Richard Dawkins (and the links in the discussions about this) ought to be chalk full of specific "clinical" or "observable" examples of such mutations which have added to the genetic complexity (DNA) of the descendents of that virus, etc. The problem here is that the "descendent" was either "less" complex (yes, in some situations, you can have increased immunity or better survival via less complexity) ..OR.. the changes involved horizontal transfer of already existing DNA from other already existing bacteria/viruses.

BTW... please try to debate my facts/points rather than my "debating tricks".

Also, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove Evolution is true. Basically, the sentiments expressed on this thread so far are that Evolution is proven fact and that, by virtue of this, creationism should be ruled out by default. I don't claim to be able to prove creationism. The fact that I could present a lot of evidence for creationism is beside the point. What evidence can you provide to DISPROVE creationism beyond all doubt?

If I were to argue that ONLY creationism should be taught in science classes and that teaching other alternatives should not be allowed... then you could argue that I should be able to prove creationism.... but this is exactly what the Evolutionists are doing... Therefore, the burden is on them (and you) to prove that Evolution is fact. Short of such proofs, Evolution should NOT be taught as indisputable fact, and teachers should be more specific about what is actually proven, what is theory, and what is hypotheses. They should also be more open to alternate theories of origins being discussed. (I know of examples where pro-evolution college professors were fired just because they dared to discuss the kind of "problems" with Evolution I've mentioned here... there is a lot more politics and a lot less science here than many realize.)

Interestingly, during the Scopes "monkey trial", the Evolutionists made the argument that they wanted Evolution to be taught alongside creationism and that we should be open-minded to evidence supporting all possibilities... ironic given their position today!

But, while I'm on the topic of the scopes trial, it is interesting that virtually every single "proof" used for evolution at the Scopes trial has now been proven fraudulent.. BTW, "Inherit the Wind" was Michael Moore-like propaganda. (But they don’t tell you this in your high school science class, do they?) ...in fact, "Inherit the Wind"'s exaggerations and distortions are so outlandish, it is more like a parody.

In fact, science textbooks throughout the 20th century are littered with either (1) now-proven frauds ..OR.. (2) creatures who have now been proven either fully ape or fully human. ALL of the following are in one of these two categories: Piltdown Man, Neanderthal Man, Java Man. The sub total of all current bones currently used as "proof" could ALL fit together in a single closet. There is also much controversy surrounding this. For example, most of the skulls we see on the covers of National Geographic involve a lot of Plaster of Paris and a smaller portion of actual bone fragments.

Anyone... pull your high school or college biology textbook off the shelf and "scan" it for examples "proving" evolutions. Share them with me and lets see if they are still considered valid.

...they are littered with falsifications and "tall tales"... even recent ones... for examples:

http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_tbookreport900.htm

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

Bernard — Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:17:24 -0000

Rob, my patience for dishonesty is extremely thin.

You accused me of using a 'bait and switch' tactic because I narrowed your own strawman definition of evolution. The low-grade rhetorical trick was yours, not mine. My definition of evolution has remained consistent throughout.

'It also demonstrates the common confusion among proponents of Evolution of the actual positions of the leading Creationists.'

Rhetorical trick number 2 was to frame my own discussion in the context of every other argument you'd ever heard for evolution. It's an intriguing irony given that in the very same sentence you accuse your opponents of doing the very same thing you're doing:

'(they love to argue against their favorite crackpots all day... the kind that say things like "dinasaurs never existed", etc.,)'

Rhetorical trick number 3 is to throw out large numbers of unconnected links without any supporting analysis on your part. This is a particular problem with the statistical analysis link. If you want us to pore over statistics, you have to first provide a succinct explanation of the mechanism they are based on. Creationist statistics are almost always used to debunk their own 'random chance' strawman, which you've now used twice yourself. If you can't convince us you understand the basics, then you're not the right person to discuss any of the complexities with.

'For those too lazy to read the links... let me clairify again:'

Rhetorical trick number 4.

Rhetorical trick number 5 is to focus entirely on the weaknesses you perceive with evolution. I pointed out in my first post that biblical creationism fails on its own merits. If you want to promote it, i'd suggest you do so.

Rhetorical trick number 6 is the argument from authority you use with reference to Richard Dawkin. Not even he, you claim, can think of a single example of benign genetic mutation.

I read up a little on this, and what did I find?

http://www.ntskeptics.org/1999/1999august/august1999.htm

As it transpires, not only are you falling into the trap of assuming that if Richard Dawkin can't answer a question then there can't be an answer, you're actually peddling a ridiculously contrived scenario in the first place. This is not a route to respectability.

Is this to be a real discussion or not?

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

Rob McEwen — Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:53:03 -0000

...sorry... that last post was me... and I meant "BTW", not "BWT"... typos...

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

Anonymous — Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:51:11 -0000

BWT "Bait and Switch":

http://www.clichesite.com/content.asp?which=tip+2054

1. To offer something that is not available (i.e. Full blown "slimy goo to you" Neo-Darwinist Theory), and then provide a different item usually of lesser value (i.e. "descent with modification").

In this case "less value" means that "descent with modification" (in its very limited extent, BTW) is so far from proving full-blown (NDT) evolution that it is pathetic.... like 1st saying the "Sun rotates around the Earth" and then later using the fact that we see the Sun rise as proof.

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

Rob McEwen — Mon, 29 Nov 2004 07:28:28 -0000

I said:

When ALL mutations pass through these various types of "filters"... you have some real problems

For those too lazy to read the links... let me clairify again:

If only a tiny, tiny percentage of ALL mutations are going to make it past these various firewalls and get into "gene pool" of the population as a whole... applying this tiny, tiny percentage to something that is already order of magnatudes rare (additive mutations) makes additive mutations even more rare.

For example, if a grape factory has a raw output of 999,999 red grapes for every 1 blue grape... but they accidentally squash 99.999% of ALL grapes (regardless of color) ...these guys are very inefficient... what are the chances that a single blue grape gets through?

Then, (back to NDT) suppose one gets through very few hundred years... so what? At that point, there is not enough additive advances in DNA to create the complexity we find in life during that time since the Earth cooled enough to support carbon-based life. An engine this slow cannot go from single celled creature to human being in this time period... not even close.

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

Rob McEwen — Mon, 29 Nov 2004 07:02:34 -0000

>because the boundaries are pushed back

No, actually, what happens here is that the micro/macro thing often gets lost in translation. For example, there are situations where two separate creatures might be considered (by ordinary people, not necessarily scientists) to be separate species... but both creatures are completely sexually compatible. All dogs, or example, are completely biologically sexually compatible (aside from practical limitatations). Many varieties of bears (black bears, polar bears, etc) are completely sexually compatible.

What happens here is that some (less informed) people who argue for creation hear the "micro/macro" think but fail to get a better understanding of this. They walk away repeating mantras (much like evolutionists do) but fail to understand the full explaination. They falsely assume that leading creationists believe that evolution is ALWAYS limited to the species level.

But when you get to the full explaination, the leading creationists have FOR MORE THAN DECADES (even centuries) believed that "decent with modification" (but via deleting mutations) has the power to transform populations (abet, in rare instances) to a different creature sexually incompatible with its ancesters..

...no "boundaries are pushed back"... As I said, this belief dates back to Carl Linnaeus. The fact that this is new to you doesn't mean that the creationists have changed their views anytime in the past 100+ years. For example, the leading creationists have believed for decades that that all tigers, domesticated cats, lions, etc ALL descended from 1 or 2 or 3 original "created kinds".

Also, your observations about mutations are a nice fantacy... with zero basis in reality.

Dr. Edward E. Max seem to be the "expert" put up on talkorigins.org to take on Dr. Lee Spetner.

Dr. Lee Spetner debates Dr. Edward E. Max and this debate is listed here:

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp

(talkorigins.org also had the same debate, but according to Spetner, they mix up the order. Spetner says that don't actually change what was said, but by mixing up the order of what was said, it obuscates some of the ares where Max was creamated by Spetner)

A summary of this debate can be found here:
http://tccsa.tc/debate.html#max

Likewise, Richard Dawkins was asked:

"Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?"

He couldn't think of one single example. See here:

http://tccsa.tc/articles/dawkins_pause.html

This is a real problem. The engine which drives Neo-Darwin Evolution requires a sufficient amount of additive mutations to work. It is not just that these are rare... they are order of magnitutes rare... to the point that their very existance is even questioned.

For a detailed statistical analysis of this insurmountable problem that Evolutionists must overcome, see below:

http://www.wpbc.org.nz/Feature/stats2.asp

Basically, there are numerous firewalls which prevent most of ANY type of mutation (regardless of eventual benefit) to pass on to descendents. When ALL mutations pass through these various types of "filters"... you have some real problems... well, just read the article...

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

bernard — Mon, 29 Nov 2004 06:20:04 -0000

'This is a bit of a "bait-n-switch"'

You'll have to forgive me. I have no idea what a 'bait and switch' is. Can you explain?

'It also demonstrates the common confusion among proponents of Evolution of the actual positions of the leading Creationists.'

It does? How?

'(they love to argue against their favorite crackpots all day... the kind that say things like "dinasaurs never existed", etc.,) '

Or the kinds who claim that the earth is only 6000 years old?

I'll leave the 'usually within a species, always within a genus....' stuff, because the boundaries are pushed back as new evidence with regard to speciation is discovered. Leading creationists used to swear blind that speciation never occurred at all, and most biblical creationists will still use the question 'Can you show me just one example of macroevolution?'. I fully expect that in 5 years time there will be an even larger body of evidence, and the leading creationists will be arguing over an even smaller set of gaps in our understanding.

And then the long treatise on mutations. Ending with the beautiful quote:

'Dr. Lee Spetner contends that, given such astronomically low percentages of additive mutations found in nature, in order to have enough additive mutations for Evolution to occur, the harmful mutations would kill you many times over.'

Which demonstrates a key misconception about evolutionary biology. Harmful mutations do kill large numbers of creatures of all kinds on an ongoing basis. Those creatures that are less apt because of harmful mutations are less likely to reproduce (the more harmful the mutation, the less likely it is to be passed on). Beneficial mutations, on the other hand, are more likely to be passed on (though there are no guarantees), and so the fact that beneficial mutations are rarer than malignant ones is no barrier to the latter being spread.

On the assertion that beneficial mutations may never occur. This is simply and categorically false:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

Rob McEwen — Mon, 29 Nov 2004 06:05:06 -0000

I said:
if the fossil record were a "jigsaw puzzle", after over a century of digging, we probably have 5 out of 500 pieces of the puzzle

LET ME CLAIRIFY:

I mean of what the puzzle should look like if evolution really happened. The reason we don't have but a few pieces is because Neo-Darwinist Evolution didn't happen.

As I mentioned before, the science of evolution has degenerated into a pseudo-science. Unlike REAL science, it fails to make risky predictions. For example, Darwin did make risky predictions about what the fossil record would look like after more digging is done... and these predictions failed!

Darwin said:

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

Now that over a century of digging has passed, we don’t find in the fossil record "interminable varieties, connecting together ...by the finest graduated steps"
Instead, we find fully formed creatures with dramatic gaps separating them.

Re: Warning: This Post Contains a Discussion of Public Reason, Which is Just a Theory

Rob McEwen — Mon, 29 Nov 2004 05:44:40 -0000

Evolution is simply a study of the mechanics by which life adapts and changes over time.

This is a bit of a "bait-n-switch":

It also demonstrates the common confusion among proponents of Evolution of the actual positions of the leading Creationists. (they love to argue against their favorite crackpots all day... the kind that say things like "dinasaurs never existed", etc.,) Basically, Evolution is a pseudo-science where "dogmas" are rigidly set regardless of the evidence. In contrast, the leading creationists (Discovery Institute, etc) let the evidence "speak for itself".

For example, leading Creationists ALSO believe that descent with modification is an indisputable fact. But, the difference is that leading Creationists also believe that such modifications:

(1) are usually bound within a species,

(2) but, whenever not bound within the same species, these sometimes transform a population (over time) into a different species... but, definitely, in such cases, this different species is always within the same Genus (or even family)... but NEVER, EVER beyond this boundary... even given successive additional changes over time. BTW - Carl Linnaeus, the "Father of Taxonomy", was a Creationist and held this same exact view. Linnaeus considered the "created kinds" of the Bible to be (roughly) at what scientists called the Genus level, not (necessarily) the Species level.

(4) According to leading Creationists the engine for such changes (as I've described) is:
(A) those mutations which delete and/or scramble genes
...and/or...
(B) thinning of the gene pool within a population.

(5) As a result, in ALL such cases, the resulting species or sub-species is genetically LESS advanced then its ancestor. (i.e. fewer or less complex DNA). This is dramatically different than what Neo-Darwinists believe. But, unlike Neo-Darwinists theory, it is compatible with what is observed in science!

Consider that:

(1) The "hard core" (or most indisputable) evidence that Evolutionists give for "descent with modification" fits quite well into this Creationism framework. (i.e. virus mutations, bacterium mutations, ect. ...see (#4) for more info...)

(2) The fossil record shows tremendous stasis where many creatures that existed (according to Evolutionists) hundreds of millions of years ago exist in the EXACT SAME form TODAY! (Sometimes stuff that supposedly lived 350 millions years ago sudden shows up alive and well)

(3) The fossil record shows tremendous and innumerable gaps beyond the level of Genus or family (and very often even higher). There are NOT just a few missing links. Rather, if the fossil record were a "jigsaw puzzle", after over a century of digging, we probably have 5 out of 500 pieces of the puzzle... and these same 5 pieces keep getting dug up over and over and over again... thus, statistical science conclusively proves that we are NOT EVER going to find but a handful of more pieces to this puzzle. The missing ~99% pieces simply do NOT exist.

(4) Mutations which delete or scramble can be demonstrated in a lab all day long. Scientists who study mutations can go their entire lives without observing a mutation which adds information, but they will easily observe millions of mutations which do delete/scramble DNA. The most common exception is when the addition was already "preprogrammed" within existing DNA... and even this is rare. Moreover, there only about a dozen actual examples in existence of mutations that Evolutions can point to which add genetic information (Nylonase, for example), and even these are highly controversial because (1) some consider these to be the result of horizontal transfer of already existing DNA between microbes/viruses, ..OR.. (2) these examples involve "symmetrical" deletion of other functionality. (Therefore, the "engine" Evolution is based on probably doesn't even exist!). Dr. Lee Spetner contends that, given such astronomically low percentages of additive mutations found in nature, in order to have enough additive mutations for Evolution to occur, the harmful mutations would kill you many times over.