Questions for Evolutionists

[Administrator2]

THE GALATIAN

It doesn’t matter. All evidence will be made to fit the theory of evolution. The ToE doesn’t make predictions it makes accommodations.

In the case of whales, where the "accommodation" was to predict that whales with legs would be found, it seems to have been a remarkably prescient accommodation, unless evolutionary theory had an advantage that other theories did not.

When one makes a statement about future events, this is normally called a "prediction", not an accommodation. However, since the future event predicted was the location of whales with legs, one could argue that this really is a "postdiction" about what happened before.

Still, it's a pretty good demonstration of the usefulness of evolutionary theory. Theories are, after all, supposed to be used to gain knowledge.

http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/Anat/Hans/AmbulocetusPhoto.jpg

 

[Administrator2]

PAUL OF EUGENE

Greetings [to John Paul]. I suppose when we address each other we have double the reason to term our communications "pauline epistles."

In the interests of brevity I'm cutting a lot, I hope our readers appreciate that. So lets cut to the responses.

Hate to burst your bubble but it is in no way “certain” that life could have arisen via purely natural processes. We have taken all the chemicals found in life, mixed them together and nothing. Life is much more than chemical reactions and it certainly isn’t any evidence that shows life can arise from non-life without help. Even with our intervention we can’t prod life from non-life. From what we know life itself is irreducibly complex. That much science has told us. If someday science is corrected I will cross that bridge at that time.

When I say life is certain I make a grand assumption. That assumption is that creation is infinite. If our own universe is finite - which I actually tend to believe - then that is compensated for by the fact that there are an infinite number of universes.

In the context of this kind of grand infinity, the most improbable events will occur, not very often, that is they will be far apart from each other, but they will exist. I mean such things as a temporary violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, for example, with complexity that would otherwise be considered by design appearing spontaneously. The words of shakespeare are spelled out accidently by falling raindrops in a barren plain, read by no one, written in english tho no one within billions of light years speaks english at all, then covered up by the subsequent rain. In an infinity of universes, that will happen. When you get to heaven, maybe you can go visit the occasion where that happened, as a lark.

It is in that context that I say it is inevitable that life will appear - somewhere, sometime, somehow. I suppose its possible our earth bore life in that fashion, but I doubt it.

Please define a “rather probable event”?

When we figure out how to check other planets with liquid water on them for life, I expect that life in some form will be found on more than 5 per cent of those planets.

Paul of Eugene:
DNA sequencing showing degrees of chemical similarity are objective, not subjective.

John Paul:
Then they obviously point to a Common Creator. Thank you.

Since the chemical similarities are found to be consistent with evolutionary theory and nothing else . . . your conclusion is valid only if the Creator created outside of evolution with the idea of simulating evolution. I regard such a creation theory as highly unlikely to be true.

Paul of Eugene:
Consider feathers and hair. Why is their no bat with feathers and no bird with hair? A common creator making every species from scratch would have no a priori reason to make all bats with hair and never use feathers.

John Paul:
That’s just ridiculous. Who are you to suppose what a Creator would do? It also assumes that at one time there wasn’t any bats with feathers. Not everything that has lived and died gets fossilized.

I am one of His beloved children. I'm glad you understand why we don't have every transitional species.

And please do tell where bats got their echolocation system and birds got their migratory sense.

They were evolved from less highly refined abilities to do the same things more crudely.

Paul of Eugene:
Have you heard about the recent discovery of intermediate fossils showing the development of whales in Pakistan and India?

John Paul:
You mean the alleged development of whales from land mammals?

Paul of Eugene:
Their characteristics were postulated in advance and then the fossils that matched the postulates were found. That, my friend, is prediction and objective verification of the prediction.

John Paul:
If that is all it takes to get you to believe the theory of evolution is indicative of reality I feel sad for objectivity. If you have an alleged starting point and an alleged end result, postulating what might be expected in between would be pretty much a no-brainer, wouldn’t it? What might we find if the cetacean evolved from some ungulate? uhhhhh, remnants of legs! Which is what they think they recently found.

And you think this was a subjective kind of thing? They just lucked out, predicting the patterns the bones would take and then finding those patterns? Subjectivity should be made of more wishy-washy stuff than that!

Paul of Eugene:
Now its your turn. I have some questions for you!

John Paul:
Let’s see if I can dance around them with your grace…

Thanks for the complement!

Paul of Eugene:
1) Can you suggest a test that will gather evidence for or against evolution that is NOT NOW being tried?

John Paul:
By evolution I will assume you mean the theory of evolution because it is possible to agree that evolution occurs without agreeing to the biased extrapolations of the theory of evolution.
Chromosomal fusion. Our alleged closest ancestor via common descent have 48 chromosomes humans have 46. Somewhere along the line a little chromosomal fusion took place. I assume this hasn’t or isn’t being tried because of politics. With our genetic engineering we should be able to duplicate that. Also I find it interesting that in the billions of generations of experimental bacteria not once has a eucaryote arose. A virus has always remained a virus.

Hmmm. You know, you might have some good suggestions there. It should be fairly easy to attempt to do some in vitro fertilization of various ape eggs and sperm, including our own, and we could see what would start off a blastocyte and what wouldn't . . . . it should give evolutionists pause if the human egg and sperm NEVER accept any others as a hybred. If they did, would the anti-abortion folks be upset when the life of the developing egg was terminated? Should they? And the idea of attempting to force a survival of a parasitic cell inside another that successfully reproduces is a good one.

Paul of Eugene:
2) Can you suggest a test that will gather evidence for or against evolution that IS now being tried?

Truthfully once we discovered the double-helix the theory of evolution should have been modified. We opened the black-box but refused to see what it was telling us. Then when we hit upon alternate gene splicing, Crick’s "Central Dogma" should have been thrown out. The fact that both are still around tells me there is more than evidence at work here.

Sorry, I just don't follow your reasoning here at all. I can see where you state a conclusion but I don't see any reasons for coming to the conclusions you state. That makes it just argument from authority, and (don't take this to hard) I don't count you as an authority.

 

[Administrator2]

EARL DETRA

John Paul: Yes I accept that living organisms can and do change over time. What I don’t accept is extrapolating observed change to the grand sweep of the theory of evolution.

One of the basic concepts of the Creation model of biological evolution is that all of life’s diversity evolved from the originally Created Kinds. Instead of a “tree of life” we have an orchard.

And then do you agree that these 'kinds' were 'created' at different times in the past, possibly over 3+ billion years?

John Paul:
And I find it disturbing that you think a biological theory is required to explain an interpretation of the fossil record.

You seem easily disturbed. After all, they were biological organisms were they not? Why wouldn't biology have anything to do with changing biology of earth?

The following can be read in its entirety at http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/ by scrolling down to the bottom half of the page and selecting Exposing the Evolutionist’s Sleight-of-Hand With the Fossil Record:

I am sorry, but I am more than familiar with Fred Williams' ideas regarding geology and paleontology. I respectfully suggest that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of the fossil data.

"Here’s the catch, the magic behind the illusion. Whenever an evolutionist presents his line of evidence for evolution in the fossil record, he will without fail, virtually every time, present a vertebrate transitional fossil. Why is this important? The evolutionist is failing to mention to his audience that vertebrates constitute less than .01% of the entire fossil record, and of these fossils, most species are represented by a bone or less!1 What about the other 99.99% of the fossil record?"

Here Fred seems to make the argument that even though evolution works for explaining the vertebrate record, that we need some other explanation for the balance of the fossil record. I'm not sure that this is a strong argument.

"That’s the other key piece of information the evolutionist is withholding from you. Complex invertebrates make up the vast majority of this portion of the record, roughly 95%. We have cataloged literally millions of different species of these very complex creatures, and we have entire fossils, not just pieces here and there. In this rich and virtually complete portion of the fossil record, there is not a single sign of evolution, whatsoever!!!

No one is witholding information. Fred is ascribing some motive that does not exist. Actually, there is evidence of evolution because of the constant change of fossil communities present in the record. While certainly at the phyla level, all 'kinds' seem to be present early; one must explain the fact that there are no mammals in Devonian strata, no dinosaurs in the Cambrian rocks, or why there are no angiosperms in pre-Mesozoic times. This is what evolution does. It explains these data. The amount of data represented by various parts of the fossil record is irrelevant. There are changes that cannot be explained otherwise. Also, I might point out that Fred conveniently leaves out the distribution of plant fossils in the record.

"1. The fossil distribution data comes from Answers is Genesis, and is based on various sources (including Paleontologist Dr. Kurt Wise). This data is not disputed by informed evolutionists, which includes frequent Talk.Origins regular Andrew Macrae."

I'm not sure what this means. The distribution of fossils is pretty well known. The problem is that Fred seems to think there is some conspiracy to conceal data. There are many reasons for preferential preservation of marine invertebrates. One of which is that many vertebrate fossils are non-marine (which is kind of interesting in itself since they supposedly occcur in the middle of a global flood) and were readily eroded or otherwise destroyed.


"2. For example, in the widely used college undergraduate textbook “Evolutionary Biology” (3rd Ed. 1998), author Douglas Futuyma does not list one single transitional leading up to the complex invertebrates (see chapter 6 in particular, “Evolving Lineages in the Fossil Record”). All his transitional examples spanning orders or classes are vertebrates! His only mention of the "evolution" of the complex invertebrates is a brief snippet on the changes in rib numbers on trilobites! This of course is nothing more than small-scale variation, or micro-evolution. Also see “Invertebrate Beginnings”, Paleobiology, 6: 365-70, R.D. Barnes, 1980. Also see Dr Chen’s comments in the Boston Globe article A Little Fish Challenges A Giant Of Science (see footnote 7)."

So evolution is okay for describing vertebrate evolution, but not for invertebrates? I'm not sure that this is a strong argument. Is Fred saying that evolution for vertebrates is not evidence for evolultion of other lines?

"7. ‘A Little Fish Challenges A Giant Of Science’ - The Boston Globe, May 30, 2000, Pg. E1; Fred Heeren, Globe Correspondent. From the article: “According to Chen, the two main forces of evolution espoused by neo-Darwinism, natural selection ("survival of the fittest") and random genetic mutation, cannot account for the sudden emergence of so many new genetic forms.” Chia-Wei Li was more blunt: “No evolution theory can explain these kinds of phenomena.” "

Again, what is this evidence all about? All it does is move the earliest fishes back to the Cambrian. You will note that these fish are quite primitive and very dissimilar to modern fish. This is exactly what evolution would predict: 'If there are older fish, they would be more primitive." Evolution did not predict that there were no earlier fish.

John Paul: When asked for fossil evidence that supports their position evolutionists will show us plankton evolving into plankton and clams evolving into clams.

Earl Detra: Hmm, I don't remember these. Seems to me that any such examples were to explain speciation, not evolution.

John Paul:
That would be correct.

Then why don't you give some other examples of what evolutionists actually use to show 'macro' evolutionary sequences?

Earl Detra: Okay, so explain the data from your viewpoint. I think you are also being disingenuous in that you have been given many examples including therapsids, whales, birds, and probably others. Why do you not bring these up and then offer an explanation?

John Paul: I don’t believe the theory of evolution is indicative of reality so I don’t see any examples of the alleged great transformations in the fossil record. And as such I don’t find a need to explain anything. IOW it makes more sense to me to have a biological theory explain what we see in biology and genetics and then finding an explanation for the fossil record than it does to come up with a biological theory based on the fossil record and trying to fit it into what we observe in biology and genetics.

Does this mean you will not explain what we see in the fossil data? My request was that you explain the fossil record under your scenario. These fossil sequences have been offered by various evolutionists as evidence for evolution, but you only mentioned plankton and clams in your argument above.

John Paul: As I have stated above, that organisms change over time is not the debate. Creationists since the time of Carolus Linneaus (Karl von Linne 1707-1778) knew the level of species was not fixed and therefore the Created Kind (Linne was a Creationist) was a higher level than species. IOW just because we observe speciation doesn’t mean new kingdoms, phyla, classes or orders can arise by the same mechanism.

Earl Detra:
No, it does not. However, when the fossil record shows the kingdom, phyla and orders changing with time, we have a clue to a process.

John Paul:
The fossil record only shows that if you believe it. IOW your statement confirms the “I wouldn’t have seen it if I didn’t believe it” scenario for evolutionists.

Of course Linne was a creationist. He really did not have an alternative. He did not have the fossil record to observe nor the other tools that Darwin was able to call upon. This is a disingenuous argument. And you are wrong. At higher orders, the record shows changes in the community of organisms on earth. This is hard evidence.

John Paul: If, as you say, the ToE is objectively testable, why don’t you just answer my questions? It should be easy enough to do.

Earl Detra: The theory of evolution has been tested with every fossil discovery of the last hundred years.

John Paul: That is why I specified objective tests. One’s interpretation of the fossil record doesn’t qualify as objective.

Yes, the fossil communities objectively and systematically change with time. There are no credible exceptions.

Earl Detra: So far there has been no credible deviation from the expected process. Now, in modern times, the theory is tested every day as a premise in thousands of experiments and observations. If it did not work, we would know it.

John Paul: There is a huge difference between what we can observe and objectively test and extrapolating that to the grand sweep of the ToE. The funny thing is in all the experiments we have done with bacteria involving millions (if not billions) of generations not once have we observed the bacteria accumulating mutations as to evolve into something other than bacteria. Once a virus always a virus, as far as observation and experimentation goes. I don’t see how that helps you.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. We can objectively see the grand sweep of evolution from the primitive life forms of the early Cambrian seas to the complex mammal communities of the Cenozoic. As far as experiments go, I'd just like to say that there have been no efforts to recreate evolution as you would define it, only to cause variations beneficial to humans. It is doubtful that any experiment can duplicate the complex, dirty world of a natural environment or its changes. I know you put much faith in the engineers who design experiments and create models, but I do not share it. The real world that I and other scientists have to deal with is not so sterile and predictable.

There aren’t any fossils of progenotes. There aren’t any fossils of single-celled organisms evolving into multi-cellular organisms.

However, we do have multi-cellular organisms preceded in time by single-celled and colonial single-celled organisms. Could this be a clue? Or should we ignore it?

There aren’t any fossils of the alleged evolution of eucaryotes from procaryotes. And there isn’t anything in the fossil record that would indicate that life arose from non-life via purely natural processes.

I thought you wanted to be so precise about the definition of evolution and here you are insisting on a critical link between evolution and abiogenesis. We would be glad to discuss abiogenesis, but it would be widening the scope of this thread.

John Paul: When something is objectively tested there is little doubt with its conclusion. Heavier than air flight, once thought impossible by the very respected Lord Kelvin (a Creationist), was proven incorrect by science and engineering. Engineering is a very good venue to objectively test science, as it is applied science. Now that heavier than air flight has been objectively tested, there isn’t any evidence that it can’t occur.

Earl Detra: Yes, when the technology became available to test heavier-than-air flight it could be objectively tested and some previously held concepts could be shown wrong. The point here should be that when it became possible to scientifically observe the fossil record, previously held concepts were shown to be wrong. The only evidence against evolution consists of incredulity. In other words, there isn't any evidence that it can't occur.

John Paul: Actually there isn’t any genetic or biological evidence that demonstrates any of the alleged great transformations can occur. Relying on one’s interpretation of the fossil record for evidence for a biological theory is a stretch and is hardly objective.

Good. I assume then that you have such evidence for an alternative? I am sorry, but the fossil record must still be explained. Evolution does this. You simply avoid this fact and sidestep the issue with a red herring argument that a biological theory should not be used to explain paleontology.

John Paul: Once again, that organisms change over time is not the debate.

Earl Detra: You say this repeatedly. Could you please explain what you mean. Does it mean that you subscribe to evolution and only have a problem with mechanisms?

John Paul: I don’t understand. Aren’t you supposed to know what it is you are debating against before joining the fray?

Hey, I'm here to learn. If I am to take you correctly, then you and Fred should learn about the fossil record before discussing it. I do not require this of you.

The reason Creationists don’t like using the word evolution is because it becomes confused with the theory of evolution. Creationists understand that the change in allele frequency occurs over time, we just don’t find that the alleged evidence for the grand sweep of the ToE is compelling. So instead of using the word evolution most often than not you will hear us speak of variations (within the Created Kind).

All I am asking is that you understand that when we say 'evolution' we mean the entire concept of the theory and it mechanisms as it is widely accepted today. We are not discriminating macro or micro, and we are not talking about Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. Just like you, we speak in terms of what it is to us. You can debate Darwin all you want. He will not speak. To quibble over definitions is simpy a diversion.

John Paul: What I would like to see objectively tested is the alleged great transformations required if the ToE is indicative of reality. I have listed a few of those in my thread opening post. And yes the mechanism is also in question but that is for another thread.

Earl Detra: The great transformations are right there in the fossil record. They can be tested over and over. And this has been done. No one is trying to 'prove evolution' any more.

John Paul: The key word is objective, Earl. As in objective tests. In order to “see” the alleged great transformations in the fossil record you have to already be well biased towards the ToE. The ToE will never be “proved” even if science was about proof as it can’t even be objectively tested.

Using the ToE as a premise for research is a way of testing it objectively. If it didn't work, we would know in short order. The problem is that this has not happened.

I sometimes wonder if you mean that to "see" the great transformations means to literally see them. Sorry, but this does not happen in real life. Not only do they happen under unusual conditions but over long periods of time in human terms. You have set impossible standards for evolutionists that I believe you will not subject your own theory to. For me, finding a fossil in two locations that can later be mapped to show contemporaneity is an objective test. This would be extremely unreliable under any other existing scenario from evolution.

On a final note, a new position will drastically reduce the amount of time I have to participate in this discussion. I will try, but may be gone for weeks at a time. If other evolutionists wish to join the game in my place, please do so.

 

[Administrator2]

JOHN PAUL

Scott Page
The following was presented:

"Creationists confirm “descent with modification”. We just disagree with you what from. Every kingdom is it’s own orchard on one big symbiotic plantation that is the planet Earth."

Scott Page:
As written, it appears that this means creationists believe that there were only 3-5 original Kinds (Kingdoms). That cannot be correct.

John Paul:
It is your inference that is incorrect. I didn’t even mention Created Kinds in reference to orchards in that part of the post.
Every “tree” in the orchard would be the Created Kind, not each orchard.

Scott Page:
I do wonder though, How have creationists 'confirmed' descent with modification?

John Paul:
Most likely by a method very similar to how evolutionists have. We do have observed speciation events you know. That would be a confirmed descent with modification.

"The “tree of life” means very little if it can’t be objectively tested or verified. The trunk is virtually non-existent. Nothing but theoretical musings in there."

Scott Page:
How would one, I wonder, "objectively test" the concept of Creation ex nihilo? The 'Kind' concept?

John Paul:
That is what (Creation) science is trying to determine. If, after over 100 years of trying (the current time period that evolutionists have had), we still can’t answer those questions I would say the Creation account of origins and the Creation concept of Created Kinds are better left for the philosophy class, where they can be discussed along with the theory of evolution.

I would wonder why you don’t answer the questions posed to evolutionists. You know- what this thread is about? What are you avoiding?

Scott Page:
There is nothing but theoretical musings (well, theory-based experimental conclusions would be a more accurate descriptor) in ANY science.

John Paul:
Applied and operational science takes those theoretical musings and objectively tests them. Science and the scientific method have given us technology and inventions that help us. Science also brings forth cures for diseases. You can’t put a man on the moon, fire up your PC or cure cancer with theoretical musings alone. Somewhere along the line the musing ended, testing and application of those musings began.

" Theoretical musings that humans are descended from some ape-like organisms has not helped us one bit in any field. "

Scott Page:
I thought it had just been written that creationists 'confirm' descent with modification?

John Paul:
Did you miss this sentence- We just disagree with you what from. ?

Scott Page:
Or is it that they only confirm SOME descent with modification?

John Paul:
That is what the sentence you ignored implies.

Scott Page:
What are the objective criteria upon which the exception for humans is premised?

John Paul:
Baraminology is relatively new. But, unlike the ToE, I would hope it could be objectively tested before its conclusions are considered to be scientific dogma.

"If you have an alleged starting point and an alleged end result, postulating what might be expected in between would be pretty much a no-brainer, wouldn’t it? “What might we find if the cetacean evolved from some ungulate?” uhhhhh, ”remnants of legs!” Which is what they think they recently found."

Scott Page:
Funny - I have read that Minke whales have rudimentary pelvi and femurs embedded in their abdominal wall musculature.

John Paul:
Do you have a reference?
Wouldn’t they only be femurs if they belonged to legs? So by calling these femurs it is being assumed they are legs or were from legs.

Scott Page:
Of course, 'predicting' something that occurred in the past is an iffy business. Take the situation in the world today. Who would have predicted that the United States has a history only just over 2 hundred years? That it started out as a few British colonies?

John Paul:
Predicting history? Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Were you trying to say, “who, just over 200 years ago, would have predicted the United States would be in the position it is today?” Of course we would have to add that the United States started out as more than a few British colonies. The Spanish were in Florida before the English arrived. They were also in the south western US (via Mexico). Then there is the matter of the French. Was New York originally called New Amsterdam after a British village? And the natives were also here. It is doubtful the British colonies would have survived if it weren’t for them.

Scott Page:
But, lets discuss no-brainers. If we have an end point - say, the Chihuahua. And we supposedly have the starting point - the original 'dog-kind'. It should be a no-brainer to predict all of the intermediate forms from the original dog-kind to the extant Chihuahua. I mean, they should have basically the same morphology! So, tell us all what creationism tells us about the descent with modification - which creationists have confirmed - of the modern Chihuahua.

John Paul:
As I have pointed out earlier in this post baraminology is relatively new (I am sure we have been over this before). They (baraminologists) have not confirmed what the originally Created Kinds were, but they are working on it. That would mean we do not know what the original dog-kind was.

That misses the point. The Chihuahua is the product of selective breeding and not a product of natural evolution. IOW, it took intelligent intervention to produce a Chihuahua. Not a good example at all.

"Chromosomal fusion. Our alleged closest ancestor via common descent have 48 chromosomes humans have 46. Somewhere along the line a little chromosomal fusion took place. I assume this hasn’t or isn’t being tried because of politics. With our genetic engineering we should be able to duplicate that ."

Scott Page:
This appears to be a red herring, or perhaps a non-sequitur.

John Paul:
It follows the question that was being asked and it is not distracting attention from the real issue. Therefore we can conclude it isn’t a red herring nor is it non sequitur.

Scott Page:
There is no reason whatsoever to suspect that the chromosomal fusion event caused and speciation event.

John Paul:
Chromosomal fusion would be a start. We have to start somewhere, don’t we?

Scott Page:
Better yet, with our genetic engineering and the well-funded creationist groups, it should be a no-brainer to demonstrate descent with modification - which creationists have confirmed - from an original Kind.

John Paul:
Please tell us how you know the finances of Creationist groups? Creationists don’t get public funding for their research projects and have to rely on private donations. It is the evolutionists that get public funding and have more resources to do their research.

Seeing that your post has not touched upon the purpose of this thread it would appear that it is you who are posting “red herrings”.

=========================================================

Galatian’s post:

John Paul:
It doesn’t matter. All evidence will be made to fit the theory of evolution. The ToE doesn’t make predictions it makes accommodations.

galatian:
In the case of whales, where the "accommodation" was to predict that whales with legs would be found, it seems to have been a remarkably prescient accommodation, unless evolutionary theory had an advantage that other theories did not.

John Paul:
Reference please. What whale was found with legs?

galatian:
When one makes a statement about future events, this is normally called a "prediction", not an accommodation. However, since the future event predicted was the location of whales with legs, one could argue that this really is a "postdiction" about what happened before.

John Paul:
Since when is common sense a prediction or a postdiction? If whales did evolve from land animals, unless it was from snakes, legs on whales would obviously be something to look for. And if you are looking hard enough for something it is not surprising that it is found. It basically confirms the “I wouldn’t have seen it if I didn’t believe it.”, evolutionary credo.

galatian:
Still, it's a pretty good demonstration of the usefulness of evolutionary theory. Theories are, after all, supposed to be used to gain knowledge.

http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/Anat/Hans/AmbulocetusPhoto.jpg

John Paul:
Ambulocetus natans is NOT a whale. What is the gain in knowledge that theorizing that whales evolved from land animals gives us? I have asked this of cetacean experts and wasn’t very surprised at their response (it doesn’t add anything to their research).

Here’s the catch when using Ambulocetus as an ancestor to whales. Look at its feet. If the genetic evidence is correct, whales are allegedly descended from ungulates, which have hoofs. What am I missing?

When first presented with the picture the galatian has provided I did a little research than I sent an email to AiG (Answers in Genesis) because it appeared to be in conflict with their data. This is the response I received:

Thanks for drawing this to our attention.
It would appear from the URL that you supplied that more parts of
Ambulocetus natans have been found. However, this has only just been
(?) published. See Madar, S.I., J.G.M. Thewissen, and S. T. Hussain.
Additional holotype remains of Ambulocetus natans (Cetacea,
Ambulocetidae), and their implications for locomotion in early whales.
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Accepted July, 2001. One of the
principles of scientific progress is that finds and claims have no
currency until they pass the peer review process (even then the claims
are not necessarily reliable). When we can get a copy of this paper and
verify the locality of the extra pieces, etc., we will comment further
(note that some critical parts of the original fossil were found some 5
m removed).

However, even if all the bits are acceptable, it does not seem to change
the story much---unlike Pakicetus, where the animal has been transformed
from a purely aquatic creature to a purely terrestrial creature (not
exactly what Gingerich had hoped and imagined originally). See the
updated version of Dr Sarfati's response at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0926ep2.asp

It does seem strange that it seems that almost everything Thewissen and
Gingerich find has become a cetacean, or something evolving in that
direction. There is plenty of evidence from their papers that they just
shift the definition of 'whale' to include whatever they find, including
terrestrial running animals! It's a grand exercise in story telling,
and very flexible (e.g. the shift from artiodactyls to mesochynids back to artiodactyls as the ancestors of whales. If the sequence showing the transformation of a land mammal
into a whale was so clear, how can they switch candidates so easily?
It's difficult not to be very cynical.

Don Batten, Ph.D.

John Paul:
Creativity and imagination are good but they are no substitute for the scientific method.

 

[Administrator2]

THE GALATIAN

galatian:
In the case of whales, where the "accommodation" was to predict that whales with legs would be found, it seems to have been a remarkably prescient accommodation, unless evolutionary theory had an advantage that other theories did not.

John Paul:
Reference please. What whale was found with legs?

Galatian:
Let's see… We still see vestigial legs in whales today. And there's Basilosaurus, which had hind legs. And there's Rodhocetus, which while almost exclusively aquatic, had small limbs that could still move it about on land a bit. And there's Ambulocetus, which had somewhat less useful limbs, but could still move about somewhat like a seal on land.
And there's Pakicetus which is hardly like a whale at all. Would you be interested in discussing what makes these fit into the cetaceans?

galatian:
When one makes a statement about future events, this is normally called a "prediction", not an accommodation. However, since the future event predicted was the location of whales with legs, one could argue that this really is a "postdiction" about what happened before.

John Paul:
Since when is common sense a prediction or a postdiction?

Galatian:
It's not. A postdiction would be a statement of what we would find, based on prior evidence. Because whales have certain ungulate features, (among other things), it was predicted that the transitional whale would have a combination of ungulate and cetacean characteristics. And that's what was found.[/b]

And if you are looking hard enough for something it is not surprising that it is found. It basically confirms the “I wouldn’t have seen it if I didn’t believe it.”, evolutionary credo.

Galatian:
I'm skeptical that belief could put legs on a whale. Evidence is pretty much what it is, regardless of what one expects it to be. How do you manage to "believe" hips onto a whale, or an ungulate digestive system, or hooves? These seem to be rather resistant to belief.

galatian:
Still, it's a pretty good demonstration of the usefulness of evolutionary theory. Theories are, after all, supposed to be used to gain knowledge.

http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/Anat/Hans/AmbulocetusPhoto.jpg

John Paul:
Ambulocetus natans is NOT a whale.

Galatian:
It is classified as a whale, because it has characteristics of a whale. Granted, it also has characteristics of an ungulate. But that's what a transitional whale is supposed to look like. It wouldn't be a transitional, if it were not.

What is the gain in knowledge that theorizing that whales evolved from land animals gives us? I have asked this of cetacean experts and wasn’t very surprised at their response (it doesn’t add anything to their research).

Galatian:
It merely tells us more about the evolution of whales. Whether or not this turns out to have a practical use, I don't know. I don't particularly care. I think knowledge is worth the effort of learning. On the other hand, if someone asked you to provide federal funding for a study of the sex life of the screwworm fly, would you approve it?

Here’s the catch when using Ambulocetus as an ancestor to whales. Look at its feet. If the genetic evidence is correct, whales are allegedly descended from ungulates, which have hoofs. What am I missing?

Galatian:
Hooves. It's one of the reasons that they are placed among the ungulates. Only ungulates have hooves. Here, Duane Gish of the ICR admits that it had hooves.

The femur was short and stout, and the feet were enormous. The toes were terminated by a short phalanx carrying a convex hoof.

ICR IMPACT No. 250 WHEN is A WHALE A WHALE? Dr. Duane T. Gish
Galatian:
He makes several errors in his article, but he is correct about the hooves.

When first presented with the picture the galatian has provided I did a little research than I sent an email to AiG (Answers in Genesis) because it appeared to be in conflict with their data. This is the response I received:

(Answers in Genesis doesn't know how many bones were actually found)
Galatian:
I guess it's a case of AIG not getting all the information. However, it's a photograph of the bones so far found, and reality (far as I know) tops ignorance.

However, even if all the bits are acceptable, it does not seem to change
the story much---unlike Pakicetus, where the animal has been transformed
from a purely aquatic creature to a purely terrestrial creature (not
exactly what Gingerich had hoped and imagined originally).

Galatian:
Actually, they've erred on that. Pakicetus was a largely terrestrial animal, that lived on the margins of the Tethys Sea. It was somewhat earlier than Rhodocetus, which was similar to Pakicetus, but much more adapted to the water, and less able to move about on land.

It does seem strange that it seems that almost everything Thewissen and Gingerich find has become a cetacean, or something evolving in that direction.

Galatian:
It would, if it was true, but that's not the case. They found fossils of many other creatures in these deposits. I suspect he's only seen the fossils of whales and their predecessors.

There is plenty of evidence from their papers that they just shift the definition of 'whale' to include whatever they find, including terrestrial running animals!

Galatian
It's not that simple, of course. There are particular skeletal characteristics found in cetaceans, and anything so classified needs to have them. Transitional cetaceans must have a combination of ungulate and cetacean characteristics to so qualify. The details, especially in the skull are complicated. I can look up the specifics, if you'd like to hear about them.

If the sequence showing the transformation of a land mammal into a whale was so clear, how can they switch candidates so easily?

Galatian:
They can't. It was, and is a major problem, in sorting out how it happened. Keep in mind that the question has narrowed, not to whether or not ungulates gave rise to whales, but which ungulates. The biochemical/genetic data seems to have tipped the balance in favor of artiodactyls, although there's still some investigation going on. Finding a few more anklebones should tell us what we need to know. It's not hard to see that evolutionary progression from Pakicetus on. But is Pakicetus an artiodactyl? That's still in question, although the answer appears to be "yes".

 

[Administrator2]

SCOTT PAGE

Scott Page: The following was presented:

"Creationists confirm “descent with modification”. We just disagree with you what from. Every kingdom is it’s own orchard on one big symbiotic plantation that is the planet Earth."

Scott Page:
As written, it appears that this means creationists believe that there were only 3-5 original Kinds (Kingdoms). That cannot be correct.

John Paul:
It is your inference that is incorrect. I didn’t even mention Created Kinds in reference to orchards in that part of the post.
Every “tree” in the orchard would be the Created Kind, not each orchard.

That’s the thing about inferences – they stem from the written words of those whose minds we cannot read.

Scott Page: I do wonder though, How have creationists 'confirmed' descent with modification?

John Paul: Most likely by a method very similar to how evolutionists have. We do have observed speciation events you know. That would be a confirmed descent with modification.

So speciation is descent with modification? Descent from an original Kind must be the same. I wonder – what criteria are employed to determine the extent to which descent has occurred?

John Paul: "The “tree of life” means very little if it can’t be objectively tested or verified. The trunk is virtually non-existent. Nothing but theoretical musings in there."

Scott Page: How would one, I wonder, "objectively test" the concept of Creation ex nihilo? The 'Kind' concept?

John Paul: That is what (Creation) science is trying to determine. If, after over 100 years of trying (the current time period that evolutionists have had), we still can’t answer those questions I would say the Creation account of origins and the Creation concept of Created Kinds are better left for the philosophy class, where they can be discussed along with the theory of evolution.

I would wonder why you don’t answer the questions posed to evolutionists. You know- what this thread is about? What are you avoiding?

Creation was the dominant paradigm in science for hundreds of years before the ToE was formulated, not to mention the fact that there have been creationists all along. The time constraint issue is a flim-flam.

As for the ‘questions’ posed to evolutionists, they are largely of the type that there will probably be no answers for, as they seem to be in the realm of the origin and very early diversification of life. Not coincidentally, I’m sure, an area that there is very little physical evidence for.

The questions have little to do with evolution as such.

Scott Page: There is nothing but theoretical musings (well, theory-based experimental conclusions would be a more accurate descriptor) in ANY science.

John Paul: Applied and operational science takes those theoretical musings and objectively tests them. Science and the scientific method have given us technology and inventions that help us. Science also brings forth cures for diseases. You can’t put a man on the moon, fire up your PC or cure cancer with theoretical musings alone. Somewhere along the line the musing ended, testing and application of those musings began.

Just like I wrote in my quote:

“…well, theory-based experimental conclusions would be a more accurate descriptor…”

Rocketry and computers and disease prevention and cure, of course, all started with ‘theoretical musings’ that panned out.

" Theoretical musings that humans are descended from some ape-like organisms has not helped us one bit in any field. "

Scott Page: I thought it had just been written that creationists 'confirm' descent with modification?

John Paul: Did you miss this sentence- We just disagree with you what from. ?

No. You can disagree all you want, the fact remains that the EVIDENCE, at least when applied objectively, indicates a shared ancestry for humans and apes. Even creation science confirms this - see http://creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum34_4.html
wherein the objective (molecular) data indicates a human-ape ancestry, but this is rejected in favor of SUBJECTIVE (morphological and ecological) data, even though the same data they rejected had been used as a ‘reliable’ indicator for other groups. I had some personal communication with one of the authors of the linked study, and made some disturbing discoveries regarding their use of morphological data as well, that I will expand on if necessary…

Scott Page: Or is it that they only confirm SOME descent with modification?


John Paul: That is what the sentence you ignored implies.

I didn’t ignore it.

Scott Page: What are the objective criteria upon which the exception for humans is premised?

John Paul: Baraminology is relatively new. But, unlike the ToE, I would hope it could be objectively tested before its conclusions are considered to be scientific dogma.

So you have no answer then, fine. The methods employed by those using ToE-based hypotheses of descent have been tested on knowns.

Science 1991 Oct 25;254(5031):554-8
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice.

Atchley WR, Fitch WM
“Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains.”

One example of many.

"If you have an alleged starting point and an alleged end result, postulating what might be expected in between would be pretty much a no-brainer, wouldn’t it? “What might we find if the cetacean evolved from some ungulate?” uhhhhh, ”remnants of legs!” Which is what they think they recently found."

Scott Page: Funny - I have read that Minke whales have rudimentary pelvi and femurs embedded in their abdominal wall musculature.

John Paul: Do you have a reference?

I do
Here is one, though not on Minke whales specifically:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html

Wouldn’t they only be femurs if they belonged to legs? So by calling these femurs it is being assumed they are legs or were from legs.

Grin… They are called femurs because they are attached to or associated with pelvi which are attached to or associated with the sacral portion of the skeleton, just like in us… and mice… and other mammals.

Scott Page: Of course, 'predicting' something that occurred in the past is an iffy business. Take the situation in the world today. Who would have predicted that the United States has a history only just over 2 hundred years? That it started out as a few British colonies?

John Paul: Predicting history? Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Were you trying to say, “who, just over 200 years ago, would have predicted the United States would be in the position it is today?” Of course we would have to add that the United States started out as more than a few British colonies. The Spanish were in Florida before the English arrived. They were also in the south western US (via Mexico). Then there is the matter of the French. Was New York originally called New Amsterdam after a British village? And the natives were also here. It is doubtful the British colonies would have survived if it weren’t for them.

Your inference is flawed. I meant exactly what I wrote, as it is exactly what you seem to be demanding evolutionists be able to do. Were someone ignorant of the history of the United States, would they look at the present situation and ‘post-dict’ a short history rife with civil unrest as is the case? Doubtful. Of course, the UNITED STATES did, in fact, start out as a few British Colonies. New York is not called New Amsterdam, is it? Native Americans were not part of the Continental Congress, were they?

Scott Page: If we have an end point - say, the Chihuahua. And we supposedly have the starting point - the original 'dog-kind'. It should be a no-brainer to predict all of the intermediate forms from the original dog-kind to the extant Chihuahua. I mean, they should have basically the same morphology! So, tell us all what creationism tells us about the descent with modification - which creationists have confirmed - of the modern Chihuahua.

John Paul:
As I have pointed out earlier in this post baraminology is relatively new (I am sure we have been over this before). They (baraminologists) have not confirmed what the originally Created Kinds were, but they are working on it. That would mean we do not know what the original dog-kind was.

That misses the point. The Chihuahua is the product of selective breeding and not a product of natural evolution. IOW, it took intelligent intervention to produce a Chihuahua. Not a good example at all.

It was for what I was getting at. Indeed, since it is the result of artificial selection, it should be even easier for the creationist to point to the abundant evidence which they insist should be displayed for them, were evolution true.

"Chromosomal fusion. Our alleged closest ancestor via common descent have 48 chromosomes humans have 46. Somewhere along the line a little chromosomal fusion took place. I assume this hasn’t or isn’t being tried because of politics. With our genetic engineering we should be able to duplicate that ."

Scott Page: This appears to be a red herring, or perhaps a non-sequitur.

John Paul: It follows the question that was being asked and it is not distracting attention from the real issue. Therefore we can conclude it isn’t a red herring nor is it non sequitur.

Incorrect. The question asked:

“1) Can you suggest a test that will gather evidence for or against evolution that is NOT NOW being tried??”

You responded with the above. It is a non-sequitur because it is clear in your quote (“I assume this hasn’t or isn’t being tried because of politics. With our genetic engineering we should be able to duplicate that.”) that you think that the chromosomal fusion event was pivotal, indeed, perhaps caused the speciation event in question.

Scott Page: There is no reason whatsoever to suspect that the chromosomal fusion event caused and speciation event.

John Paul:
Chromosomal fusion would be a start. We have to start somewhere, don’t we?

See my last response above.

Scott Page: Better yet, with our genetic engineering and the well-funded creationist groups, it should be a no-brainer to demonstrate descent with modification - which creationists have confirmed - from an original Kind.

John Paul: Please tell us how you know the finances of Creationist groups? Creationists don’t get public funding for their research projects and have to rely on private donations. It is the evolutionists that get public funding and have more resources to do their research.

The van Andels gave the ICR 500,000 dollars a few years ago. Lump sum. Did they do some research to ‘prove’ the scientific merits of creationism? Not at all. They had a new ‘museum’ built. The DI has a budget well over a million dollars a year – FAR more than the best publicly-funded evolution-oriented academic researchers. Where is THEIR research? Nonexistent. They instead use the funds for publications and travel. Are we not told that there are X number of creationists in academia? Surely, they can utilize the equipment at their institutions and get some funding – just like everyone else – and test their hypotheses?

[ June 11, 2002, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

[Administrator2]

JOHN PAUL

Earlier I asked the galatian to provide a reference to substantiate his claim of whales with legs. Instead of providing a reference he provided hearsay:

Galatian:
Let's see… We still see vestigial legs in whales today. And there's Basilosaurus, which had hind legs. And there's Rodhocetus, which while almost exclusively aquatic, had small limbs that could still move it about on land a bit. And there's Ambulocetus, which had somewhat less useful limbs, but could still move about somewhat like a seal on land.
And there's Pakicetus which is hardly like a whale at all. Would you be interested in discussing what makes these fit into the cetaceans?

John Paul:
Please provide the reference that shows whales have “vestigial legs”. Maybe they are the same whales as Scott’s whale with “femurs”. The alleged “hind legs” on Bailosaurus aren’t legs at all.

BTW, the latest has Pakicetus as a pure land animal. Hardly like a whale but could be mistaken for the dog-like animal in the movie Willow. Or maybe a cross between that type of dog and the large rodents that lived in the fire swamp in the movie The Princess Bride. Clearly only a cetacean in the wildest imaginary scenario.

http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/Anat/Pakicetid.html

Later (despite my spelling error of “hoofs” instead of hooves) the galatian proclaims that Ambulocetus natans had hooves. Yet in the picture of Ambulocetus fossil remains we can see it was not hooved. Here is another website on this animal:

http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/ANAT/Ambulocet.html

Where are the hooves? Either the fossil isn’t constructed properly or someone changed the definition of hoof. And what about the drawing on that above linked website? No hooves there either. In the ICR Impact 250 Gish mentions the back limbs end in hooves but that is not evident by the evidence. Is there any genetic evidence that shows an organism can have hind limbs that end in hooves but front limbs that don’t?

And yes I would love to hear why evolutionists think these organisms fit into the cetaceans.

galatian:
When one makes a statement about future events, this is normally called a "prediction", not an accommodation. However, since the future event predicted was the location of whales with legs, one could argue that this really is a "postdiction" about what happened before.

John Paul:
Since when is common sense a prediction or a postdiction?

Galatian:
It's not. A postdiction would be a statement of what we would find, based on prior evidence. Because whales have certain ungulate features, (among other things), it was predicted that the transitional whale would have a combination of ungulate and cetacean characteristics. And that's what was found.

John Paul:
Right, like I said common sense tells us that something being classified as a transitional would have a combination of characteristics of the organisms being compared. However just because certain organisms share some characteristics of others is by no means exclusive evidence of a shared ancestor.

What is the gain in knowledge that theorizing that whales evolved from land animals gives us? I have asked this of cetacean experts and wasn’t very surprised at their response (it doesn’t add anything to their research).

Galatian:
It merely tells us more about the evolution of whales.

John Paul:
You mean the alleged evolution of whales if the theory of evolution were actually indicative of reality, which it isn’t.

Galatian:
Whether or not this turns out to have a practical use, I don't know. I don't particularly care.

John Paul:
Does it have any use (practical or not)? If it can’t be objectively tested how can it have any use besides that of theoretical musing of the alleged past events.

Galatian:
I think knowledge is worth the effort of learning.

John Paul:
True. Knowledge is worth the effort of learning. But is the alleged whale evolution really knowledge? It is no more than a theoretical musing of alleged past events that in reality didn’t happen. If it can’t be verified how can it be knowledge?

Galatian:
On the other hand, if someone asked you to provide federal funding for a study of the sex life of the screwworm fly, would you approve it?

John Paul:
It would all depend upon what else the money was needed for and what benefit or knowledge increase it would provide. It would be a priority thing. I do realize that some things are better left privately funded.

In reference to AiG:

Galatian:
I guess it's a case of AIG not getting all the information.

John Paul:
According to their response there was some added information. They went with what was published at the time they released their article. Now they are looking at this new information. As they noted some of the fossil was found 5 meters above the rest.

Galatian:
However, it's a photograph of the bones so far found, and reality (far as I know) tops ignorance.

John Paul:
The National Enquirer has some pretty interesting photographs too. Doesn’t mean they are indicative of reality.

Objectively testing a premise removes ignorance and can reduce dogma to dust. Let’s see if we can use genetic engineering to rearrange the genome to move the nose of an ungulate (hippo? Pig?) to become a blowhole.

Where’s Dr. Moreau when you need him?

 

[Administrator2]

JOHN PAUL

Scott Page: The following was presented:

"Creationists confirm “descent with modification”. We just disagree with you what from. Every kingdom is it’s own orchard on one big symbiotic plantation that is the planet Earth."

Scott Page:
As written, it appears that this means creationists believe that there were only 3-5 original Kinds (Kingdoms). That cannot be correct.

John Paul:
It is your inference that is incorrect. I didn’t even mention Created Kinds in reference to orchards in that part of the post.
Every “tree” in the orchard would be the Created Kind, not each orchard.

Scott Page:
That’s the thing about inferences – they stem from the written words of those whose minds we cannot read.

John Paul:
Inference of what is written is influenced by the reader’s bias, sometimes ignorance and is not only influenced by the writer (which would be an implication and I did not imply what you inferred).
In this case the inference stems from not following the thread and not knowing what it is you are debating against. The orchard had been presented by Creationists years ago.
Like I stated, I did not even mention Created Kinds in reference to orchards in that part of the post. If you had a question as to what I was saying all you had to do was ask. But instead you jumped to a wrong conclusion.

Scott Page: I do wonder though, How have creationists 'confirmed' descent with modification?

John Paul: Most likely by a method very similar to how evolutionists have. We do have observed speciation events you know. That would be a confirmed descent with modification.

Scott Page:
So speciation is descent with modification?

John Paul:
Sure. What else would it be?

Scott Page:
Descent from an original Kind must be the same. I wonder – what criteria are employed to determine the extent to which descent has occurred?

John Paul:
I am not sure. We see limits in life so Creationists ask “why not to life itself?” Why is life so special that we see everything in life has limits but not biological organisms evolutionary extent?

David Plaisted has some insight as to what the limits may be:

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/mutation.html

and

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/blocked.html

John Paul: "The “tree of life” means very little if it can’t be objectively tested or verified. The trunk is virtually non-existent. Nothing but theoretical musings in there."

Scott Page: How would one, I wonder, "objectively test" the concept of Creation ex nihilo? The 'Kind' concept?

John Paul: That is what (Creation) science is trying to determine. If, after over 100 years of trying (the current time period that evolutionists have had), we still can’t answer those questions I would say the Creation account of origins and the Creation concept of Created Kinds are better left for the philosophy class, where they can be discussed along with the theory of evolution.

I would wonder why you don’t answer the questions posed to evolutionists. You know- what this thread is about? What are you avoiding?

Scott Page:
Creation was the dominant paradigm in science for hundreds of years before the ToE was formulated, not to mention the fact that there have been creationists all along.

John Paul:
Of course there were Creationists all along, starting with Adam & Eve. Many scientists before Darwin made their observations and proposed their theories in light of a special Creation, and still contributed mightily to the advancement of science.

Actually, evolution was first proposed by the ancient Greeks, then it was dismissed.

Scott Page:
The time constraint issue is a flim-flam

John Paul:
Things take time that much is for sure. Science is NOT in the habit of producing instant results. Surely a person in your position would understand this. The only flim-flam is the passing of the ToE as science.

Scott Page:
As for the ‘questions’ posed to evolutionists, they are largely of the type that there will probably be no answers for, as they seem to be in the realm of the origin and very early diversification of life. Not coincidentally, I’m sure, an area that there is very little physical evidence for.

John Paul:
Thank you. Then the ToE is out of the realm of science and out of reach of scientific method.

Scott Page:
The questions have little to do with evolution as such.

John Paul:
They show the grand sweep of the ToE can’t be objectively tested.

Scott Page: There is nothing but theoretical musings (well, theory-based experimental conclusions would be a more accurate descriptor) in ANY science.

John Paul: Applied and operational science takes those theoretical musings and objectively tests them. Science and the scientific method have given us technology and inventions that help us. Science also brings forth cures for diseases. You can’t put a man on the moon, fire up your PC or cure cancer with theoretical musings alone. Somewhere along the line the musing ended, testing and application of those musings began.

Scott Page:
Just like I wrote in my quote:

“…well, theory-based experimental conclusions would be a more accurate descriptor…”

Rocketry and computers and disease prevention and cure, of course, all started with ‘theoretical musings’ that panned out.

John Paul:
Just like I said- they could be objectively tested. That is how they “panned out”. Also there is a difference between theoretical musings and theoretical musings on past events.

" Theoretical musings that humans are descended from some ape-like organisms has not helped us one bit in any field. "

Scott Page: I thought it had just been written that creationists 'confirm' descent with modification?

John Paul: Did you miss this sentence- We just disagree with you what from. ?

Scott Page:
No.

John Paul:
It appears you did.

Scott Page:
You can disagree all you want, the fact remains that the EVIDENCE, at least when applied objectively, indicates a shared ancestry for humans and apes.

John Paul:
No it doesn’t. The EVIDENCE when applied objectively indicates a shared (i. e. Common) Creator. We have different number of chromosomes. That, taken objectively, would say we didn’t share a common ancestor unless chromosomal fusion could be objectively tested.

Scott Page:
Even creation science confirms this - see http://creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum34_4.html
wherein the objective (molecular) data indicates a human-ape ancestry, but this is rejected in favor of SUBJECTIVE (morphological and ecological) data, even though the same data they rejected had been used as a ‘reliable’ indicator for other groups. I had some personal communication with one of the authors of the linked study, and made some disturbing discoveries regarding their use of morphological data as well, that I will expand on if necessary…

John Paul:
As I have stated several times now, Baraminology is a relatively new research venue. The current molecular data can easily point to a Common Creator. I am confident that once we decipher the genome, that premise will be borne out.

Scott Page: Or is it that they only confirm SOME descent with modification?

John Paul: That is what the sentence you ignored implies.

Scott Page:
I didn’t ignore it.

John Paul:
The evidence says otherwise.

Scott Page: What are the objective criteria upon which the exception for humans is premised?

John Paul: Baraminology is relatively new. But, unlike the ToE, I would hope it could be objectively tested before its conclusions are considered to be scientific dogma.

Scott Page:
So you have no answer then, fine. The methods employed by those using ToE-based hypotheses of descent have been tested on knowns.

Science 1991 Oct 25;254(5031):554-8
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice.

Atchley WR, Fitch WM
“Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains.”

John Paul:
Wow, mice evolving into mice. Producing a genealogy tree? That’s what you are offering? Are you saying that because this appears to work on “knowns” that it is OK to extrapolate to unknowns? This is the crux of the debate- extrapolating from “knowns”. It is hardly a given.

Scott Page:
One example of many.

John Paul:
That’s great. So far it looks like evidence for variations within a Created Kind.

"If you have an alleged starting point and an alleged end result, postulating what might be expected in between would be pretty much a no-brainer, wouldn’t it? “What might we find if the cetacean evolved from some ungulate?” uhhhhh, ”remnants of legs!” Which is what they think they recently found."

Scott Page: Funny - I have read that Minke whales have rudimentary pelvi and femurs embedded in their abdominal wall musculature.

John Paul: Do you have a reference?

Scott Page:
I do
Here is one, though not on Minke whales specifically:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html

John Paul:
It doesn’t mention a femur. The alleged “hind limbs” are actually only that in the view of evolutionists.

Do we have any genetic evidence that would show that legs can be “erased” like that?

Let me explain: If these bones were at one time femurs that did form hind limbs, then what happened to the rest of the leg? For example, can we, with genetic engineering, alter some organism’s (with legs) genome and see if we can get an organism with only femurs for hind limbs? Or maybe take a whale and using genetic engineering splice the necessary sequence into the whale’s genome (or whatever was necessary) to see if fully formed legs appear?

Wouldn’t they only be femurs if they belonged to legs? So by calling these femurs it is being assumed they are legs or were from legs.

Scott Page:
Grin… They are called femurs because they are attached to or associated with pelvi which are attached to or associated with the sacral portion of the skeleton, just like in us… and mice… and other mammals.

John Paul:
From Britannica:

FEMUR: limb or appendage of an animal, used to support the body, provide locomotion, and, in modified form, assist in capturing and eating prey (as in certain shellfish, spiders, and insects). In four-limbed vertebrates all four appendages are commonly called legs, but in bipedal animals, including humans, only the posterior or lower two are so called.

Are you changing the definition of “femur” to suit your needs? Do you have a definition of “femur” other than the one Britannica offers?

Scott Page: Of course, 'predicting' something that occurred in the past is an iffy business. Take the situation in the world today. Who would have predicted that the United States has a history only just over 2 hundred years? That it started out as a few British colonies?

John Paul: Predicting history? Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Were you trying to say, “who, just over 200 years ago, would have predicted the United States would be in the position it is today?” Of course we would have to add that the United States started out as more than a few British colonies. The Spanish were in Florida before the English arrived. They were also in the south western US (via Mexico). Then there is the matter of the French. Was New York originally called New Amsterdam after a British village? And the natives were also here. It is doubtful the British colonies would have survived if it weren’t for them.

Scott Page:
Your inference is flawed.

John Paul:
I didn’t infer anything. The way it was written is incorrect. I was just pointing out the obvious.

Scott Page:
I meant exactly what I wrote, as it is exactly what you seem to be demanding evolutionists be able to do.

John Paul:
No, that is not what I am demanding of anyone. If people want to make a claim they had better be able to substantiate it. Science makes that demand. So far evolutionists can’t even do that.

Scott Page:
Were someone ignorant of the history of the United States, would they look at the present situation and ‘post-dict’ a short history rife with civil unrest as is the case? Doubtful. Of course, the UNITED STATES did, in fact, start out as a few British Colonies. New York is not called New Amsterdam, is it? Native Americans were not part of the Continental Congress, were they?

John Paul:
First it would all depend on the evidence the person doing the “post-dicting” had to work with.
New York changed names. The name was changed because the British attacked the Dutch colony and took it over. That doesn’t negate the fact that there were more than British colonies inhabiting what is now the United States. But if we are to limit ourselves to “start-out as”, then the US started out as the European invasion of the Western Hemisphere. For without that the idea that would be the United States may have never been formulated and put into practice. It just so happened that the idea had 13 British colonies and a lot of (inhabited) land to work with.

Scott Page: If we have an end point - say, the Chihuahua. And we supposedly have the starting point - the original 'dog-kind'. It should be a no-brainer to predict all of the intermediate forms from the original dog-kind to the extant Chihuahua. I mean, they should have basically the same morphology! So, tell us all what creationism tells us about the descent with modification - which creationists have confirmed - of the modern Chihuahua.

John Paul:
As I have pointed out earlier in this post baraminology is relatively new (I am sure we have been over this before). They (baraminologists) have not confirmed what the originally Created Kinds were, but they are working on it. That would mean we do not know what the original dog-kind was.

That misses the point. The Chihuahua is the product of selective breeding and not a product of natural evolution. IOW, it took intelligent intervention to produce a Chihuahua. Not a good example at all.

Scott Page:
It was for what I was getting at.

John Paul:
Which was what? Setting up a strawman?

Scott Page:
Indeed, since it is the result of artificial selection, it should be even easier for the creationist to point to the abundant evidence which they insist should be displayed for them, were evolution true.

John Paul:
Not so. In the first place evolution had nothing to do with bringing about Chihuahuas. We would have to know the mind of the person(s) doing the initial artificial selecting, what dogs were used, where this occurred and where the remains of the process were buried. Then we could do some detective work and piece it all together.

With this scenario we should be able to duplicate the outcome, even if the way we reached that outcome may not be the same as the original way Chihuahuas were bred into existence. We would still be able to demonstrate such a thing is possible with artificial selection.

"Chromosomal fusion. Our alleged closest ancestor via common descent have 48 chromosomes humans have 46. Somewhere along the line a little chromosomal fusion took place. I assume this hasn’t or isn’t being tried because of politics. With our genetic engineering we should be able to duplicate that ."

Scott Page: This appears to be a red herring, or perhaps a non-sequitur.

John Paul: It follows the question that was being asked and it is not distracting attention from the real issue. Therefore we can conclude it isn’t a red herring nor is it non sequitur.

Scott Page:
Incorrect. The question asked:

“1) Can you suggest a test that will gather evidence for or against evolution that is NOT NOW being tried??” [/quote]

John Paul:
Right and I answered it. That would mean it wasn’t non sequitur.

Main Entry: non se·qui·tur
Pronunciation: 'nän-'se-kw&-t&r also -"tur
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, it does not follow
Date: 1540
1 : an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2 : a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from anything previously said

Seems like you change definitions just to suit your needs. That is the second one in this post alone.

Scott Page:
You responded with the above. It is a non-sequitur because it is clear in your quote (“I assume this hasn’t or isn’t being tried because of politics. With our genetic engineering we should be able to duplicate that.”) that you think that the chromosomal fusion event was pivotal, indeed, perhaps caused the speciation event in question.

John Paul:
Not so. I think chromosomal fusion is part of it and a part we should be able to duplicate. Alleged chromosomal fusion also just happens to be evidence used by evolutionists to claim humans and the great apes share a common ancestor.
Even IF I did think what you said I think it still wouldn’t make it non sequitur as it still would follow the question. Do you have any information that the alleged chromosomal fusion was NOT pivotal or didn’t cause the speciation event in question?

I guess the only way to get around this issue is to do the experiment.

Scott Page: There is no reason whatsoever to suspect that the chromosomal fusion event caused and speciation event.

John Paul:
Chromosomal fusion would be a start. We have to start somewhere, don’t we?

Scott Page:
See my last response above.

John Paul:
See mine. It is obvious when one sets out to show something there has to be a starting point in the process (to test the hypothesis). If you want to start out by genetically engineering all the other differences in the genomes first, fine.

Scott Page: Better yet, with our genetic engineering and the well-funded creationist groups, it should be a no-brainer to demonstrate descent with modification - which creationists have confirmed - from an original Kind.

John Paul: Please tell us how you know the finances of Creationist groups? Creationists don’t get public funding for their research projects and have to rely on private donations. It is the evolutionists that get public funding and have more resources to do their research.

Scott Page:
The van Andels gave the ICR 500,000 dollars a few years ago. Lump sum. Did they do some research to ‘prove’ the scientific merits of creationism? Not at all. They had a new ‘museum’ built. The DI has a budget well over a million dollars a year – FAR more than the best publicly-funded evolution-oriented academic researchers. Where is THEIR research? Nonexistent. They instead use the funds for publications and travel. Are we not told that there are X number of creationists in academia? Surely, they can utilize the equipment at their institutions and get some funding – just like everyone else – and test their hypotheses?

John Paul:
Let’s see we have “natural” museums promoting evolutionary ideals but it is not OK to build a museum governed by Creation ideals? Museums generate income. Without income the $500K would be gone in little time. What would $500K buy these days? 5 Scientists for one year? What about their equipment? Where would they work? You do realize how much lab equipment costs, how much the set-up costs are for an organization. I know the ICR is sponsoring the RATE group. They are doing research. I am sure Humphreys is working on his cosmology, as is Gitt on his Information theorems and just like Barry Setterfield on c-decay. As for the DI, from what I understand they are doing research. Why are you so impatient? How long did it take Darwin to get his thoughts published?

If you were really interested you would be asking those questions to the respective institutions.

Most scientists are concerned with their field. Most fields are not concerned with the ToE or Creation and most scientists realize that neither scenario is relevant to their specific research.

 

[Administrator2]

[Administrator: one response to John Paul was just returned to the sender because most of the post was quotes from the discussion so far. The following post is the same, but Jeff had an email problem and we couldn't get his post on the board for several days. So it is going up as it is. It is better for the reader if authors only quote when necessary and just refer to what has been said otherwise. Thank you.]

JEFF

Paul of Eugene:
Well, life is here, so it must have gotten here SOMEHOW! No kidding, the presence of life on earth is evidence. In view of the established fact that the great diversity of life comes from evolution, a natural process, it isn't such a big leap to believe that the creator of all could also have arranged to use natural law for the origin of life as well. Put it this way: If God wanted to, could God have arranged for life to arrive through the operation of natural law?

( )yes ( )no Of course the answer is yes.

John Paul:
Yes, life is here. If God had anything to do with it then it didnt arrive from non-life via purely natural processes.

Jeff: Why ? Where is the evidence that God is limited as to His chosen mechanisms ?

Doesn't God use clouds to make rain ? ...or is that not allowed either ? Didn't He use hydrogen to make stars ?

Paul of Eugene:
It is certain that life could have arisen by purely natural processes. Even the most adamant creationist admits it is perfectly possible for life to spontaneously form from a collection of the necessary atoms; they merely say it is so improbable that it might as well be considered to be impossible. But this argument is flawed, because in all of the vast universe, and in all the possible universes that might be out there, we only know about one instance of life originating. Therefore it is perfectly possible that life started only once as as stupendously improbable event, and here we are.

John Paul:
Hate to burst your bubble but it is in no way 'certain' that life could have arisen via purely natural processes.

jeff:
This must mean you can provide evidence that deomonstrates -once and for all-, that life could NOT have arisen via purely natural processes. You can demonstrate a negative ?

I would conclude the occurrance of life generating is - not- 100% certain, (science must always entertain a healthy degree of doubt) but so far we've only investigated one star system.

John Paul:
...We have taken all the chemicals found in life, mixed them together and nothing. Life is much more than chemical reactions and it certainly isnt any evidence that shows life can arise from non-life without help.

jeff:
All that this demonstrates is that we have more unfinished work. It doesn't mean naturally occurring life is impossible. It means we still aren't absolutely sure....YET.

The conclusion that naturally occurring life is impossible, cannot be drawn from your example. Or, more precisely, a 'Scientific' conclusion cannot be drawn from your example because it doesn't demonstrate an impossibility - only a lack of critical information. It could be the same elements and compounds, but under different physical circumstances.

Did you falsify EVERY possible scenario imaginable ? ...and even those unimaginable ?

John Paul:
Even with our intervention we can't prod life from non-life. From what we know life itself is irreducibly complex. That much science has told us.

jeff:
Where ? Cite a source, please.

Science hasn't told us that. That is nothing more than personal incredulity.

John Paul:
If someday science is corrected I will cross that bridge at that time.

jeff:
Gee, that sounds awfully like the 'God of the Gaps' hypothesis to me. Perhaps you can explain how it is not ?

John Paul:
Please define a 'rather probable event'?

Right now there isn't any evidence that life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes.

jeff:
...and even LESS evidence that life arising from non-life via purely natural processes is impossible. Actually, your claim is nothing more than your opinion, based on ignoring evidence to the contrary.

Organic chemistry has provided considerable insight into this process.

John Paul:
Seeing that premise has held up against all tests, no matter how rigged for success they have been,

jeff:
All tests ? In every conceivable & inconceivable scenario and circumstance ?

How many tests were conducted using the Ocean bottom's chemo-synthetic thermal-vent environment ?

John Paul:
what are the alternatives?

jeff:
Do You mean, "what are the 'scientific' alternatives" ?

John Paul:
However, if you are saying that God rigged it so that life could form from non-life under natural laws given some specific condition and set that condition up on several life-supportable systems (which God most likely would have rigged into existence).

Jeff:
What do you mean by 'most likely'? Where is the evidence supporting THIS assertion?

John Paul:
that would be a simplistic version of ID. We should be able to replicate those conditions and hoping that natural laws haven't changed,

jeff:
Hoping? Is that some scientific control mechanism ?
Why would we need to 'hope' ?

Perhaps you can cite evidence indicating the laws of physics have been different at some time in the past ?

How do natural laws change ?

John Paul:
[and] bring forth life from non-life. Accomplishing that may shed some light on any possibility of that occurring via purely natural processes.

jeff:
Yes, creating life in a lab, from non-life, may shed some light on the possibility of life occurring via purely natural processes.

Actually, that is an enormous understatement. But I admire how, even then, you would still entertain some degree of doubt. That's science.

John Paul:
Or remove all doubt that it could.

jeff:
Whoops ! We just fell off the science wagon again. Where did your healthy degree of doubt go ?

John Paul:
The point being is if evolution doesn't apply to non-living matter what is the mechanism that would bring life from non-life?

jeff:
Abiogenesis: Organic Chemistry. All the essential elements are here. Life just needed the right circumstances.

John Paul:
What does natural selection work on?

jeff:
Pre-existing, living organisms that have reproduction potential.

John Paul:
The reason someone was smart enough to create the illusion the two are separate is because there isn't any evidence to support the premise that life could arise from non-life via purely natural processes

jeff:
The reason abiogenesis and evolution are described as separate concepts is because they are different phenomena, with different processes, differing starting points, materials, conditions, mechanisms and results.

Solar panels collect energy from sunlight. But converting this energy into electricity is NOT equivalent to Nuclear fusion. However, the nuclear fusion had to occur FIRST, in order for silicon panels to collect & convert light rays into electricity.

Energy collection isnt nuclear fusion.

Diversification of life isnt abiogenesis.

Nuclear fusion is required for solar panels to operate.

Pre-existing life is required for evolution to occur.

Nuclear fusion allows energy collection to happen.

Abiogenesis allows diversification to occur.

but abiogenesis ISN'T diversification.

Could it be that, since you oppose both ideas and you reject them despite the evidence, that you tend to lump them together ?

John Paul:
Evolutionists are having a hard enough time trying to maintain the illusion that purely natural processes can account for the diversity of life from some genetically unknowable origin.

jeff:
Only when one denies the evidence from entering the picture. Otherwise, it's no problem at all. Just common sense.

John Paul:
How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that progenotes evolved into procaryotes?*

How could we objectively test the hypothesis that eucaryotes evolved via procaryotic endosymbiosis?*

How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that true multi-cellularity evolved from colonies of single-celled organisms (i.e. the Volvox)?*

Or for that matter how could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that the eye could evolve?

jeff:
That may depend on what you mean by 'objective' testing and falsifying.

Using this stringent requirement, science can make no claim on gravitational theory. We can only 'hope' that Pluto will come around. We may as well remove all reference to the existence of viruses from our science textbooks.

No one has seen them without the aide of a microscope. Its possible that what we perceive as tiny viruses is actually some optical illusion caused by the equipment.

We can safely remove nuclear physics from the science books too. No one has ever seen an atom or proton or electron 'objectively'.

But since we're dealing with 'Theoretical' science, wouldn't it be best ( and simplest ) to go about eliminating possibilities rather than attempting to 'prove' others ?

Can we accurately conclude that a specific phenomenon is absolutely impossible simply because we haven't seen it ? Couldn't it also mean that our expertise is currently insufficient to verify the possibility ?

In practical terms, it is more difficult ( if not impossible ) to demonstrate that a currently unknown, highly unlikely hypothetical explanation, occurring in the remote past is IMPOSSIBLE - in every possible scenario, under every unimaginable set of circumstances. Of course, I am referring to the scientific method here.

Having said that, we'll try again.

-How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that progenotes evolved into procaryotes?

A: - Present evidence that the existence of prokaryotes, predates the existence of progenotes. But this doesn't rule out the possibility that some progenotes evolved into procaryotes later on not without presenting supporting evidence that such an event COULDN'T POSSIBLY occur. ( and that would be a lot of work, indeed )


-How could we objectively test the hypothesis that eucaryotes evolved via procaryotic endosymbiosis?*

A: - Demonstrate an alternative mechanism that better explains the given process. Then it would be, for the most part, falsified. Then again, we have technology that can produce a synthetic carbon-crystal gem in a fraction of the time it takes to happen in nature. Maybe BOTH means are valid;sounds like more science is required to be conclusive, but that's fine. -Job security for the researchers.


-How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that true multi-cellularity evolved from colonies of single-celled organisms (i.e. the Volvox)?*

A: -Present evidence that suggests multi-celled organisms predate single celled organisms.

- How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that the eye could evolve?

A: -Demonstrate an alternative mechanism where evolution isn't required.

The field is wide open. The your imagination is the only limit. Go for it !!

Well, I just demonstrated some ( but not all ) of the ways to test and falsify your examples. Verification must develop over time as specific explanations are tested and eliminated. Those explanations that survive testing acquire more and more verification.right up until they too are falsified.

So the ToE CAN be objectively tested and verified. But you have to use the scientific method.

John Paul:
All told the grand sweep of the theory doesn't add anything to the advance of science. Darwin could have stopped before extrapolating what couldn't be observed or tested for and we would be no worse off than we are today.

jeff:
Perhaps, but why would he not voice the conclusions to which his observations lead ?

What did Darwin have to gain by lying about his observations and conclusions ?

What has YECism offered to the advance of science ? The opinions of scientists in peer reviewed science journals suggest YECism is an obstacle, an impediment to advance of science because it denies the very methods upon which science is based- Primarily by beginning with a conclusion, then examining evidence that would support or contradict the conclusion.

I realize you are less than impressed with the positive impact that evolution has had on biogenetics, disease theory & treatments but I predict that we will find more and more practical applications as time goes on. Not less and less. ( We've put terrestrial entropy on suspension until the sun burns out )

Paul of Eugene:
DNA sequencing showing degrees of chemical similarity are objective, not subjective.

John Paul:
Then they obviously point to a Common Creator. Thank you.

jeff:
How so ?

Hypothetically speaking, how does a 98% genetic similarity between chimps and humans and a 40% genetic similarity between humans and snails - indicate a common creator ?

Logic would ( after exhausting natural explanations ) suggest multiple creators were responsible. Otherwise it's embarrassingly awkward to explain the varying degrees of genetic similarity.

Why would there be ANY genetic similarity ?

Why would there be ANY genetic difference between plants & animals, insects & fungi, Lennon & McCartney ??

How is a creator's creating bound by genetic similarity / dissimilarity ?

How is attributing this varying degree of genetic similarity to varying degrees of relatedness not objective ?

In this specific example, we're dealing with ratios; numbers, values- that correlate closely with one another. These numbers suggest a relationship.

Paul of Eugene:
The fact that the implied kinship confirms the independently derived "tree of life" is an objective finding, not subjective.

John Paul:
The 'implied kinship' confirms The Creator used similar parts for similar functions and that all life has to have some similarity in order to survive. It (the similarity) also could have something to do with some underlying protocol inherent in the genome in all DNA based life.

jeff:
To claim: there must be some genetic sameness, in all organisms, in order for them survive seems (subjectively) logical to me. But when you attempt to use this hypothesis to explain why we see genetic DIFFERENCES.it falls flat.

Because It fails to answer the question:
Why can't ALL created organisms have identical genetic makeup ?

How could something like that have any influence over a creator ?

This begs the question how could you answer ANY question about the creator ? HOW do you investigate the creator so we may discover His/Her/Its limitations and mechanisms ?

The answer could be any of these:

The Creator's Personal Aesthetics - a fashion whim
The Creator is bound by the laws of physics as we understand them
The Creator is NOT bound by the laws of physics as we understand them - but accidentally or inadvertently caused genetic similarity to suggest common descent. It was unplanned.
There are actually infinite numbers of different Creators responsible for genetic diversity & similarity, all of them borrowing code from each other though they are NOT bound by the laws of physics as we understand them

Can you help me narrow this down a little ?

In its attempt to explain everything. it actually explains nothing.

But you said it CONFIRMS a common creator.
HOW ?

Homology in biology is easily evidence for a Common Creator. IOW the only way that the tests came out in the affirmative was because that is what the testee wanted (because any alternative was excluded a priori) and has nothing to do with objectivity.

jeff:
The only alternatives excluded by science are those that can't be tested ( let alone falsified ) due to their alleged supernatural references and sources. Science can't rule out God, nor anything supernatural. It can't touch, smell, hear, see or taste God or anything supernatural.

Since science cannot rule out God or anything & everything supernatural why consider it ?

Even if it is 'true', science is unable to evaluate, verify or falsify the notion.

It doesn't mean the assertion is false,it means the assertion isn't scientific.

Your common creator scenario can be absolutely true but it's still not scientific.

It doesn't have to be scientific to be 'true'.

But it has to be scientific, if it is going to be explained in a public school science textbook. Even if it's wrong, it has to be scientific.

This may mean, your truth doesn't exist in ( or can't be verified by ) science.

If we group all 'pursuits of truth' together, science would be a subset of All Pursuits of 'Truth'

But it would not be the only pursuit. Philosophy, Theology, Ethics, Politics, Aesthetics & good old 'Lord, Baptize me in the River'- Old Timey Religion are some other pursuits of the truth that enter the picture.

But science is different and separate from them.

Perhaps I'm mistaken. Please elucidate the scientific methods for evaluating the supernatural.

Paul of Eugene:
Consider feathers and hair. Why is their no bat with feathers and no bird with hair? A common creator making every species from scratch would have no a priori reason to make all bats with hair and never use feathers.

John Paul:
That's just ridiculous. Who are you to suppose what a Creator would do?

jeff:

I'm in total agreement. Yeah, that's what I'd like to know as well.

Who are YOU, John Paul to know the mind of a creator ? You've just supplied us even MORE reason to exclude God from scientific explanations.

John Paul:
It also assumes that at one time there wasn't any bats with feathers. Not everything that has lived and died gets fossilized.

jeff:
Can you cite evidence that bats ever had feathers ?
Can you cite a reason why we should consider it then ? ( as science )

John Paul:
And please do tell where bats got their echolocation system and birds got their migratory sense.

jeff:
Where ? They were born with them. It's encoded in their DNA.

Paul of Eugene:
We're talking about "homology being evidence for a common creator" here, aren't we? Instead, the patterns conform to what we would expect from common descent with opportunistic modification.

John Paul:
Creationists confirm 'descent with modification'.

jeff:
Not always. Not until recently would they grudgingly admit the obvious. But creationism didn't 'confirm'it. Science confirmed it. Creationists could no longer deny evolution entirely without loss of credibility so they 'copped' to limited 'micro' evolution.

But they still haven't identified the mechanism or obstacle that prevents the small changes they've acknowledged occur, from accumulating over multiple generations into new taxonomy. There still is no consensus definition of 'created kinds'.

John Paul:
We just disagree with you what from. Every kingdom is it's own orchard on one big symbiotic plantation that is the planet Earth.

jeff:
Disagreement is fine. Skepticism and factual challenges only sharpen the conclusions of science. But where you see trees in an orchard, science sees below the ground and suggests there's more to the story than just what is apparent.

John Paul:
The 'tree of life' means very little if it cant be objectively tested or verified. The trunk is virtually non-existent. Nothing but theoretical musings in there.

jeff:
Well ? It's Theoretical science. The same science we rely upon to: predict the weather, the paths of orbital bodies, the age of various geologic layers and to determine who killed Nicole Simpson.

Theoretical Science is more comfortable with reasonable doubt than with absolute certainty. This must be why theories are never proventhey are only DISproven. It's worked fine until now. Why should we want to change it ?

Why would you criticize Theoretical science which at least has supporting evidence in favor of a fanciful notion that can't be falsified and has no supporting evidence ?

John Paul:
Theoretical musings that humans are descended from some ape-like organisms has not helped us one bit in any field. Life is better explained by the 'orchard of life' as proposed by Creationists.

jeff:
And how has this 'orchard of life' explanation as proposed by Creationists helped us one bit ?

I can think ways it has HURT us. The scientific literacy in this country is already criminally inept. Creationist attempts to redefine science to meet their religious agenda only makes matters worse. They waste time and resources that could otherwise be devoted to ADVANCING our knowledge. Instead, some of our brightest scientific minds are relegated to the non-intellectual activity of warding off the political advances of those groups with a theological objection to the conclusions of science. Science is being forced to take and defend the same hill - again and again. YECism is a waste of time and precious resources for BOTH sides in this issue.

Paul of Eugene:
Their characteristics were postulated in advance and then the fossils that matched the postulates were found. That, my friend, is prediction and objective verification of the prediction.

John Paul:
If you have an alleged starting point and an alleged end result, postulating what might be expected in between would be pretty much a no-brainer, wouldn't it? 'What might we find if the cetacean evolved from some ungulate?' uhhhhh, 'remnants of legs!' Which is what they think they recently found.

jeff:
You've neglected to consider WHY such a question would be asked in the first place.

Previous evidence allowed us to make a prediction. If a common creator was responsible for whales, why are they not fish or reptile or arthropod ?

Science addressed a conundrum:

-Whales are mammals

-Mammals are almost exclusively land based.

-Whales live their entire lives in water

This begged the question: Did whales descend from land mammals whose behavior saw them adapt to sea locomotion over millions of generations ? or did a common creator make them that way for no apparent reason or pattern ?

Well, since science can NEVER address the second part of that question, they saved time, money and brain cells and just cut to the chase and attempted to answer the only part of the question that science is equipped to answer.

It turns out, there are fossil specimens of land mammals, land mammals with few water based adaptations, mammals that are equally adept at walking and swimming, and finally Sea mammals that are fully adapted to life away from land.

These specimens shared similar morphology, similar geographics, and were found in the respective geologic layers to indicate change over time, form land mammal to Whale. Even if you reject radiometric dating techniques, the SEQUENCE would still support their conclusion.

Does it PROVE, absolutely, that is what actually happened ?
No.

Have we any evidence that the explanation is IMPOSSIBLE ?
No.

Does it fit the same pattern of change over time as countless other examples ?
Yes.

So, at this point the theory IS explaining the evidence. At no point does the evidence PROVE the theory.

Do we have a better explanation for this evidence ?
No.

Do we have ANY other explanations for this evidence ?

Well

The Common creator hypothesis that suggests:

-a creator created the whale to dwell in the water.for no reason - or with His own unknown reason(s)

-a creator might have certain limitations regarding design and genetic code used

-the creator has absolutely no limitations and need not observe the laws of physics as we know them

-we can detect the evidence of the creator's creating mechanisms, except when there is no evidence of these mechanisms

-we can conclude the creator was creating despite evidence of evolution

-the creator creates using discernable patterns and mechanisms

-the creator is not bound to any set pattern or restricted set of mechanisms while creating

-the creator created all life forms- suddenly in the last 10000 years

-the creator is not obliged to make all evidence agree with a young earth

-the creator ( when allowed to ignore all known physics ) can cause global events that leave no trace

( so how did know about it ?)

-a designing creator explains the self evident increase in complexity of living things from non-complex elements

-the creator, although complex enough to design and form living things, is exempt from needing His own designerfor no apparent reason

-the creator may have created the universe 3 seconds ago, complete with dead & dying stars, Billions of years of Geological activity and our personal memories that deceive us into thinking we existed before He created us three seconds ago

-the creator may have created the universe billions of years ago but due to a divine cover-up ( for reasons known only to HIM ) , planted false evidence to deceive certain groups of people into believing the earth is less than 10000 years old and to reject the studies of how HIS universe behaves

-we can never presume to know the mind of the creator

-we can understand the intentions of the creator without real evidence

Add to this the standard attacks of how insufficiently the ToE explains the evidence, as if that adds support to only one other alternative instead of EVERY other alternative

Well since the Common creator hypothesis is not forced to demonstrate any pattern, method or time table.it explains nothing and everything at the same time. It also doesn't do so.

But it does. Except when it doesn't.

It sounds like this model needs work.

So, of the two explanations.only one seems to follow patterns, leaves discernable traces in such a way that we can even predict the type of evidence that we may find, based on previously discovered evidence.

The other doesn't.

Does this mean there is no God ?

No

It means God cannot be detected with scientific methods, because He is not bound by them.

Is Science BAD or evil because it cannot evaluate God ?

No, science is just insufficient or ill-suited to explain God.

Perhaps, this is why we have philosophy & theology ?

Yes,

 

[Administrator2]

JOHN PAUL

-How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that progenotes evolved into procaryotes?

Jeff’s answer: - Present evidence that the existence of prokaryotes, predates the existence of progenotes. But this doesn't rule out the possibility that some progenotes evolved into procaryotes later on not without presenting supporting evidence that such an event COULDN'T POSSIBLY occur. ( and that would be a lot of work, indeed )

John Paul:
Grin… There isn’t any evidence that progenotes ever existed. They are the hypothetical link in the sequence of non-life-to-life. IOW, abiogenesis ends in the formation of progenotes and that is where the ToE allegedly begins. Even if we did have evidence of progenotes, and that evidence shows they predated procaryotes in the evolutionary timing scheme. That still wouldn’t be an objective test that one evolved from the other.

-How could we objectively test the hypothesis that eucaryotes evolved via procaryotic endosymbiosis?*

jeff’s answer: - Demonstrate an alternative mechanism that better explains the given process. Then it would be, for the most part, falsified. Then again, we have technology that can produce a synthetic carbon-crystal gem in a fraction of the time it takes to happen in nature. Maybe BOTH means are valid;sounds like more science is required to be conclusive, but that's fine. -Job security for the researchers.

John Paul:
Nice non-answer. Why should I have to demonstrate an alternative mechanism to better explain something that has never been demonstrated? Do you think science is governed by “the first person to come up with an explanation doesn’t have the onus of demonstrating that explanation- The onus falls on those whose explanations come after that.”?

BTW, I never said stop any research into procaryotic endosymbiosis. This seems to a recurring theme amongst evolutionists.

-How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that true multi-cellularity evolved from colonies of single-celled organisms (i.e. the Volvox)?*

jeff’s answer: -Present evidence that suggests multi-celled organisms predate single celled organisms.

John Paul:
Please stay focused. We are looking for positive evidence to support the premise that true multi-cellularity evolved form single-celled organisms (or colonies of single-celled organisms).

- How could we objectively test and falsify the hypothesis that the eye could evolve?

Jeff’s answer: -Demonstrate an alternative mechanism where evolution isn't required.

John Paul:
Again why do I have to demonstrate an alternative to something that has never been demonstrated?

You have failed to even answer one question. What’s up with that? That was pretty much a complete waste of time.

Jeff:
The field is wide open. The your imagination is the only limit. Go for it !!

John Paul:
It appears that is all the ToE is- imagination.

Jeff:
Well, I just demonstrated some ( but not all ) of the ways to test and falsify your examples.

John Paul:
I asked for ways to objectively test some examples. You have failed to do so.

Jeff:
Verification must develop over time as specific explanations are tested and eliminated. Those explanations that survive testing acquire more and more verification.right up until they too are falsified.

John Paul:
Objective tests are what I am looking for. Something you have failed to provide. Verification is something historical sciences (like the ToE) will most likely never have.

Jeff:
So the ToE CAN be objectively tested and verified. But you have to use the scientific method.

John Paul:
You have failed to demonstrate the ToE can be objectively tested. Scientific method is pretty hard to apply to alleged past events. The further removed from the event the harder it becomes until all that is left is conjecture based upon one’s biases.

 

[Administrator2]

HELEN

Good gravy! I just copied onto a Word file all the posts since my last one: all 93 pages of them! No wonder the Administrators are asking us to keep our responses shorter! 93 pages is a young book!

A lot of what seems to be going on is game-playing, not discussion. For instance, when I mentioned to Earl Detra that the basic point of ancestor/descendant relationship was implied by the fossil record and that the fossils lower in the strata represent ancestors of animals higher up, he avoided the question entirely and said it was too general and that he was not a descendant of a starfish.

Then he said that the ancestor/descendant relationship by strata was “a conclusion based on evolutionary theory.” I’m grateful for his honesty. That conclusion is impossible to reach if one does not already suppose evolutionary theory. And yet, over and over again on this forum as well as every other creation/evolution forum I have ever seen, the fossil record is given as evidence supporting evolution, not as a conclusion drawn from it. But Detra is right. It is a conclusion, or interpretation of the fossil record based on the presupposition that life evolved from simple to complex through time. Given another presupposition, different interpretations are not only possible, but equally valid.

Now that we have started with the statement that ancestor/descendant relationships are a conclusion from the presupposition of Darwinism, I would ask “What is the ‘overwhelming evidence’ which evolution is supposed to have going for it? I can’t find it.

Earl asked me what made me think the Archaeopteryx was a true bird. Here are some mainstream science links regarding that:
http://www.carnegiemuseums.org/cmnh/exhibits/feathered/confuciusornis.html
http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/dinos/de_4/5c60bbe.htm
http://www.nature.com/nsu/981217/981217-4.html
http://www.dges.tohoku.ac.jp/museum/meso.html

etc. etc.

In response to other points from him:
1. Dinosaur fossils are not found in the Cambrian because dinosaurs did not live on the sea floors.
2. Did humans life in the East African Rift area? Out of curiosity, I put this into Google: “East African Rift” “Homo sapien” remains. I got only one reference: http://exn.ca/hominids/wherethebonesare.cfm It seems a lot of supposed ancestors of humans as we are now were found there, but no H.sapiens. So my first indication, and quite in line with Barry’s model, would be “probably not.”
3. Yes, there are pollen grains which are found ‘out of order’ in the fossil record, but why don’t you read the summary I put up of Barry’s work before you ask questions about it?
4. Pompeii and Herculaneum were to the Flood Catastrophe as a hiccup is to Mt. St. Helens. There is no way to correlate the two in terms of remains and ruins left behind.
5. You want evidence of creation? Look at a cell.

As far as evolutionary evidence is concerned, evolution remains an idea for which there is no known mechanism, no beginning (for those who separate it from abiogenesis), no extant operational evidence, and yet draws conclusions from the presuppostion that it is true. Why shouldn’t I believe that, without any physical evidence going for it, it is not based on metaphysical reasons?

You wrote: It seems pretty logical that someone who does not believe in evolution would not take the time to become particularly conversant in mechanisms or spend time trying to devise them. Except I was taught evolution, believed evolution, and taught it myself… It was looking for mechanisms which started me on a reading path that ended up landing me in the creation camp.

In a later post, Earl Detra wrote: The great transformations are right there in the fossil record. They can be tested over and over. And this has been done. No one is trying to 'prove evolution' any more. Earl, how do you test this? The fossil record shows different animals and plants in different layers. Evolution interprets this to mean great transformation. If by testing you mean you can find more and more fossils, that is not testing the assertion that these fossils represent great transformations of one kind to another. So I must be missing something in your statement. HOW do you TEST for these transformations in any way which is not an interpretation and only an interpretation of the data? Tests are not interpretations. One can lead to another, in either direction, but they are not the same thing.

Next Scott Page replied to me. I had stated that not all hereditary factors were found in the genome and gave the illustration of the shape of E.coli. Scott then stated that was not a matter of heredity at all; that physical constraints are not hereditary. Oh baloney. The reason I don’t grow to ten feet tall is because that physical constraint is hereditary! The reason a tulip is not shaped like a fern is because its shape is hereditary. Of course, the actual deal here is whether or not ‘hereditary’ is going to be defined as only having to do with DNA and the genome, in which case the definition precludes anything else being passed down from parent to offspring as being hereditary! However if what is passed down from parent to offspring physically, whether cell or cow, is going to fall under the definition of heredity, then, indeed, not all heredity is based in the genome.

By the way, I HAVE read Harold’s book, Scott. All of it. It’s right here on my desk. In my opinion, he is spending time speaking from both sides of his mouth. He mentions a number of things which defy a naturalistic explanation and then says that self-organization did it. Unless self-organization is something supernatural in his book, he has spent a lot of time trying to talk himself out of the very corners he spends time backing himself into where cellular complexity is concerned.

As far as canines go, yes, basically one kind. I don’t know about foxes. But I know wolves, coyotes, and dogs can and do interbreed readily. No doubt they are one basic biblical kind.

Going on to another post of Scott’s – the biblical kind is probably best represented by the family level in current taxonomy.

You also asked how one would ‘objectively test’ the concept of creation ex nihilo. That’s not even a real question. The point of creation ex nihilo is that it started with nothing. We don’t have any nothing to start with, number one; we are not God, number two; and creation was a one-time only event, number three. This is VASTLY different from the claims of evolution that it involves purely naturalistic processes through time. If this is true, then it should be possible to show something of that besides the variations we all know and work with on a daily basis.

In a later post, Scott asked ”I wonder – what criteria are employed to determine the extent to which descent has occurred?“

The simplest, but not terribly reliable, test is hybridization. That will always show that the two species interbreeding are from the same kind, but because mating cues are different for different kinds of animals, animals depending on sight rather than smell will often refuse to interbreed with others which are obviously of the same kind, for example, hummingbirds. Todd Wood has been working with genetic similarities in a somewhat different fashion than evolutionists, and this is showing some interesting results as well. However, since we know that members of the same species can have different chromosome counts (dogs, for instance, and horses, too, I think), even genetic similarities tends to be much too rough a way to go. Morphology is a big help, certainly, and involved ‘common sense,’ but I personally think a lot is going to stay unknown simply because we have no way of actually testing for it that I know of.

And, Scott, it is fallacious to state that because creation was accepted for so long that that is the same thing as being investigated for the same amount of time. It wasn’t. It was simply accepted. The actual scientific work on it is probably less than about fifty years old, or a hundred at the most. Evolution is not far ahead of it with only about 50-70 years seniority, if you include Lyell. There were bits and pieces of explanations both ways for a time before that, such at with Paley, but neither official investigation – evolution or creation – has actually been around that long.

Galatian, in his response to John Paul, seems to feel that the interpretation of a fossil is the same as objective evidence. It’s not.

Paul of Eugene seems to have adopted the “millions of universes” idea in order to explain how something as improbable as life had to happen in one of them: ours. While there is no limit to what the imagination can do, or doesn’t seem to be, the fact is that imagination is ALL there is for this ‘millions of universes’ idea. It has nothing else going for it except the ‘necessity’ of explaining the highly improbable (actually, mathematically impossible) events and phenomena on planet earth.

He then says chemical similarities in DNA among different life forms here on earth are only explainable by evolutionary theory. No, Paul, that is not true. What is true is that that is the only explanation you are willing to accept. One creator fashioning an interdependent system of living things is an equally good explanation.

When asked where bats get their echolocation systems and birds their migratory sense, Paul of Eugene simply stated they evolved. From what, Paul? Your statement “from less highly refined abilities to do the same things more crudely” is no answer at all. What sort of animals did these things more crudely that the bat and bird evolved from?

And Paul, this is one ‘adamant creationist’ who denies point blank that life can form with the proper collection of atoms. Life is a series of processes unnatural to atoms in any combination.

And, finally, Jeff!

Jeff, God is not limited as to how or what He chooses to do. It is just that with something that is already done, and His Word on what it was He did, we have some pretty good guides to go by. I think you will find that creationists accept naturalistic explanations for most phenomena; it is just that where God says He did something on His own, outside of nature, we accept that. It is not a matter of hitting a spot with no apparent explanation and saying “God did it” and giving up! We simply believe He did what He said He did and that we are free to explore naturalistic causes for everything else. However, He DID say that He made the stars…

Nor do we have to prove or even demonstrate that abiogenesis did not occur. Life is more than a conglomeration of the right materials. It is, as I mentioned a bit ago, a series of processes. The processes involved a high degree of specified complexity which is totally against what we see actually happening in nature. We are simply taking was we do see and saying that we have no evidence for anything else. For those of us who believe in the God of the Bible, however, we also believe Him when He says He created life. Ex nihilo. Out of nothing.

However, your faith that all that is needed by man is more time and more experiments is admirable. You asked for a source that life has so far not been produced from non-life. Good gravy! This list doesn’t have the room for the number of papers written describing efforts in this area which have not yielded life!

You stated that organic chemistry has provided ‘considerable insight’ into abiogenesis. Here is part of a private email from someone who studied in that field:

I was a chemistry major in college, and was particularly captivated by the Stanley Miller origin of life experiments. I reasoned that if amino acids could be formed by an electric spark and isolated, one could simulate the formation of proteins by taking the process further. I had an elaborate mechanism by which I sparked amino acids in various environments trying to coax them into forming the peptide bond. Simple amino acids like glycine and alanine did nothing, but the aromatic ringed amino acids tryptophan and tyrosine formed some interesting non-biological goo. Zapping amino acids produces burnt amino acids, if anything.

And Jeff, the reason abiogenesis is linked with evolution is that they both share the same foundation: the presumption of naturalistic materialism – or that there is a natural, material answer to all physical phenomena. Thus, the only possible way evolution could have started is via abiogenesis, and that is why these two are often argued together.

You stated that evolution was just common sense. No, it isn’t. It is a denial of everything we actually see occurring in real life everyday. It requires a total suspension of common sense.

Objective testing, by the way, means the kind of test that can be repeated by anyone, apart from presuppositions, and still come up with the same results. This is why we don’t need to ‘hope’ Pluto will come round. It can be observed and the math done. Both of those are objective. If viruses were optical illusions then different microscopes would show different things. But they don’t. We know their shape and their activity and have worked with them.

As far as atoms and electrons go, we have different models of them, but they can be and have been objectively worked with for quite some time now! You don’t need any presupposition or interpretation for the atom bomb to work.

So I think you may have the wrong idea about what objectivity means.

You asked, “wouldn't it be best ( and simplest ) to go about eliminating possibilities rather than attempting to 'prove' others ? “ I agree. That is exactly what the experiments in abiogenesis keep on doing. “This doesn’t work…this doesn’t work….this doesn’t work….etc. etc.”

Yu added, “Can we accurately conclude that a specific phenomenon is absolutely impossible simply because we haven't seen it ? Couldn't it also mean that our expertise is currently insufficient to verify the possibility ?” And I absolutely agree with you. What used to be called chaos in physics is now recognized as something different. So yes, let the experiments continue!

In your answers to the questions raised by John Paul (I think), you retreated over and over to “we don’t know that it can’t happen, so therefore it might happen, and that is no reason not to suppose that it did happen.” In other words, pure imagination based on extremely small probabilities. This is not good science!

Your other answers were simply not answers, simply returned challenges. Some of which did not even apply to the question asked!

The eye, by the way, was created by God.

And no, the field is NOT wide open and your imagination is NOT the only limit. Imagination is NOT science! I don’t mind science being limited to natural causes, because that is all we humans can work with. But imagining things is not the same thing as actually working to find those causes. Imagination is not fact or even evidence of anything but your brain functioning. In addition, I would like to add that science is not the determiner of truth, either, simply because it is so limited in scope.

Disease treatments, to continue down your post, have nothing to do with evolution. Evolutionary presumptions, however, have caused a LOT of unnecessary medical trauma. Look up “thalidomide babies” in your favorite search engine. A hundred years ago, evolutionists declared that over a hundred different parts of the human body were vestigial, meaning at that time not needed and non-functional. Surprise surprise – they are all functional and some are downright necessary for life! But that did not stop surgeons from removing some of these bits and pieces at different times, quite convinced they were unnecessary!

OK, on to the next point – are you trying to tell us that mainstream science does NOT begin with the conclusion of evolution and then going from there where the evidence is concerned?

And WE’VE put “terrestrial entropy” on suspension until the sun burns out? You have GOT to be kidding! We can control entropy? Us??? Leave a bicycle out in the rain and it will still rust. People still die. It is, in fact, the entropy we observe in everyday life which led us to postulate the laws concerning it. P.W. Atkins has a small book out, published by Scientific American, called The Second Law, Energy, Chaos, and Form. Here is a quote from page 38:

Just as the increasing entropy of the universe is the signpost of natural change and corresponds to energy being stored at ever-lower temperatures, so we can say that the natural direction of change is the one that causes the quality of energy to decline: the natural processes of the world are manifestations of this corruption of quality. (emphasis in the original)

He repeats this idea in various forms several times in the first chapters of the book. Entropy here on earth is very much the norm still!

You asked why there should be any genetic similarity if there were a Creator. It is because He created all life to be interrelated in terms of dependencies, not in terms of heredity. Where would food come from if the plants and lower animals were so dissimilar that our bodies could not assimilate them for energy?

However, different degrees of genetic similarities are indicated by the different types of structures and functions of the different living things.

You then asked, “How is attributing this varying degree of genetic similarity to varying degrees of relatedness not objective ?”

It is not objective precisely because you are attributing it. You are interpreting it. When you are depending on an interpretation to make your point, you have moved from objective to subjective. The numbers may, indeed as you say, suggest a relationship. Or they may not. They may suggest simply similar design with no relationships involved at all!

Nor is it a matter of genetics having influence over a Creator, but rather the Creator designing the genetics. But He has no limitations outside of His own Person and character. Nor can the creation investigate the Creator. It is up to the Creator to reveal what He chooses to reveal to a cognizant creation. He has, aside from your list, revealed a pretty reasonable amount through three things: creation, the Bible, and Jesus Christ.

You are right in saying that even if an assertion is false it can be scientific, simply because it can be tested scientifically. I would say, then, that given all the tests that evolution has been involved in, that it is definitely a false assertion!

In the meantime, I have to admit I am far more concerned with what is true than with what man, with is ever so limited abilities and mind, can discern ‘scientifically.’

When John Paul asked where bats get their echolocation system and birds their migratory sense, you stated they were born with them, that it was encoded in their DNA. Encoded is an interesting word. It implies that someone or something did some coding….

In the meantime, the question really referred to where did the echolocation of the bats come from? Or the migratory sense of the birds? It is creation to say they were created with these attributes by God. Fully formed; ready to go. How do you think evolution produced them?

As far as creationists ‘grudgingly’ admitting to diversification, please think about something: creation belief was the standard belief for thousands of years. During those thousands of years, people were breeding horses, dogs, cats, sheep – all for specific qualities. Diversification has been known and understood for an awfully long time, regardless of evolution ideas!

However there is not one tiny little shred of evidence either in verified history (not fossil interpretations in other words) or current life or research which shows that these variations which are quite natural would EVER add up to produce some new kind of thing. We have been working with E.coli bacteria for well over a hundred years now. That is easily 2.5 million generations which we have bombarded with every chemical and mutagent known to man and probably others as well! You know what we got? E.coli. Some mutations. All E.coli. Mostly dead. But all E.coli.

They never changed basic type. If we can’t get a change of that kind out of a tiny little prokaryote, what on earth makes anyone think a fish can change into a man? I don’t care how slowly or how many supposed transitionals are involved – it just ain’t gonna happen.

And yes, there is a consensus on created kinds: they are the progeny of the originally created populations of plants and animals.

You asked how the “orchard of life” explanation has helped us at all. It doesn’t have to, Jeff. What matters is if it is true or not, not what benefit we may or may not get out of it!

And don’t blame us for scientific illiteracy in this country. Evolutionists have been in solid control of science education for several generations. Scientific illiteracy lies squarely on YOUR shoulders, not ours! We would sincerely like to change that!

[ June 16, 2002, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

[Administrator2]

SCOTT PAGE

Scott Page:
The time constraint issue is a flim-flam

John Paul:
Things take time that much is for sure. Science is NOT in the habit of producing instant results. Surely a person in your position would understand this. The only flim-flam is the passing of the ToE as science.

Science does take time. But as you just admitted, creation had been the reigning paradigm since well before the ToE. Regardless of your personal distaste for and inexperience in the sciences, the ToE is, in fact, scientific and it has in its support data from numerous fields of science. These repeated charges of the ToE not being science and such smack of desperation and an ignorance of the available data.

Scott Page:
As for the ‘questions’ posed to evolutionists, they are largely of the type that there will probably be no answers for, as they seem to be in the realm of the origin and very early diversification of life. Not coincidentally, I’m sure, an area that there is very little physical evidence for.

John Paul:
Thank you. Then the ToE is out of the realm of science and out of reach of scientific method.

Now THAT is a non-sequitur. Please produce documentation that abiogenesis is the pillar of the ToE that you seem to be making out to be. If this one tangential issue is inaccessible to the normal routes of investigation, I fail to see any logic or rationale in proclaiming that the ToE is therefore not scientific. A dearth of physical evidence means simply that any given hypothesis will benefit from only a small amount of evidence. Your ‘conclusion’, therefore, is quite unwarranted.

Scott Page:
The questions have little to do with evolution as such.

John Paul:
They show the grand sweep of the ToE can’t be objectively tested.

No, they show that you have latched onto an area of research for which there is very little physical evidence and have proclaimed it the most important such area, and that if none of the handful of lurkers or participants on this discussion board can answer the ‘questions’ to your satisfaction – and I doubt you would accept any answer as valid regardless of the source or the amount of documentation – that, therefore, evolution must be wrong/unscientific/etc.

John Paul:
No it doesn’t. The EVIDENCE when applied objectively indicates a shared (i. e. Common) Creator. We have different number of chromosomes. That, taken objectively, would say we didn’t share a common ancestor unless chromosomal fusion could be objectively tested.

What do you mean “chromosomal fusion could be objectively tested”? Again, it appears that you believe that chromosomal fusion was the linchpin of the descent of humanity from an ape-like ancestral stock. While such a line of reasoning might seem to have merit to the underinformed, in reality, it is a non-starter.
For example, the chromosome numbers in the Primate superfamily Cercopithecoidea vary from 2n=46 and 2n=72 (Primate Anatomy, An Introduction, 2nd Ed. 2000.)
This guenon (C. mona) has 2n=66.
http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/images/img4697.gif
This one (C. mitis) has 2n=72.
http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/images/img4284.gif
Should we conclude:

1. That chromosomal fusions/splittings/rearrangements are paramount in the microevolution of these guenons?
2. That if we cannot “objectively test” whether or not such events can explain the descent of these guenons from an ancestral stock that they were independently created?

2a. If yes to #2, how then can any karyotypic evidence be used as evidence of any type of descent?

Scott Page:
Even creation science confirms this - see http://creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum34_4.html
wherein the objective (molecular) data indicates a human-ape ancestry, but this is rejected in favor of SUBJECTIVE (morphological and ecological) data, even though the same data they rejected had been used as a ‘reliable’ indicator for other groups. I had some personal communication with one of the authors of the linked study, and made some disturbing discoveries regarding their use of morphological data as well, that I will expand on if necessary…

John Paul:
As I have stated several times now, Baraminology is a relatively new research venue. The current molecular data can easily point to a Common Creator. I am confident that once we decipher the genome, that premise will be borne out.

What does that have to do with Baraminology’s inability to apply criteria in an unbiased and arbitrary manner? These are supposed to be the ‘rising/shining stars’ of creation science. ReMine and Wise were consulted and/or used as references in these papers. I am confident that the more we learn about genome evolution, the more descent will be indicated. My confidence is being borne out on nearly a daily basis. Yours first needs to be filtered through the lenses of creationists who discard and wildly extrapolate what evidence there is to fit their preconceived notions.

Scott Page: What are the objective criteria upon which the exception for humans is premised?

John Paul: Baraminology is relatively new. But, unlike the ToE, I would hope it could be objectively tested before its conclusions are considered to be scientific dogma.
Scott Page:
So you have no answer then, fine. The methods employed by those using ToE-based hypotheses of descent have been tested on knowns.

Science 1991 Oct 25;254(5031):554-8
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice.

Atchley WR, Fitch WM
“Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains.”

John Paul:
Wow, mice evolving into mice. Producing a genealogy tree? That’s what you are offering? Are you saying that because this appears to work on “knowns” that it is OK to extrapolate to unknowns? This is the crux of the debate- extrapolating from “knowns”. It is hardly a given.

You failed to grasp the significance of the results I cited. It is not a question of “mice evolving into mice” – it is an issue of the testing of the methodology employed examining hypotheses of descent. The methods employed in molecular phylogenetic analyses were used on a known geneaology of inbred mouse strains to see whether or not these methods would reproduce the known relationships. Pretty straightforward.
I am saying that when a methodology works on knowns, that it is standard procedure to then be confident that the conclusions based on these methods, when applied to unknowns, is valid. That is how science – and even, I would hope, engineering – works. Or do you, in designing software, have to continually re-invent the various methods of writing software?

Scott Page:
One example of many.

John Paul:
That’s great. So far it looks like evidence for variations within a Created Kind.

Please then explain how one would test a methodology on a ‘known’ set of evolutionarily related non-intraKind creatures to your satisfaction. All I see here is the common creationist tactic of setting up no-win situations for the ToE. Were I to cite a study in which a methodology had been tested on, say, whales and hippos, doubtless the authors would be accused of circular reasoning and the whole issue hand-waved out of existence. There is simply no way to meet the ever-changing, arbitrary, biased ‘demands’ of the non-scientifically oriented ideologue.

John Paul: Do you have a reference? [re:whale legs]
Scott Page:
I do . Here is one, though not on Minke whales specifically:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html

John Paul:
It doesn’t mention a femur. The alleged “hind limbs” are actually only that in the view of evolutionists.

The pelvis is discussed a bit. What do you suggest a long bone associated with a pelvis be called?

Do we have any genetic evidence that would show that legs can be “erased” like that?

Let me explain: If these bones were at one time femurs that did form hind limbs, then what happened to the rest of the leg? For example, can we, with genetic engineering, alter some organism’s (with legs) genome and see if we can get an organism with only femurs for hind limbs? Or maybe take a whale and using genetic engineering splice the necessary sequence into the whale’s genome (or whatever was necessary) to see if fully formed legs appear?

What is this ‘genetic engineering’ all about? There are plenty of genetic conditions that result in the formation of stunted limbs (or no limbs at all). Meromelia is a condition in humans that results in limb malformations. Caudal dysgenesis results in the absence of the coccyx and in some cases the sacrum in humans. It is no real surprise that such anomalies exist. In the case of terrestial bipeds, these conditions are of course non-adaptive. So, yes, there is evidence that limbs or parts of limbs can be un-developed.

Wouldn’t they only be femurs if they belonged to legs? So by calling these femurs it is being assumed they are legs or were from legs.
Scott Page:
Grin… They are called femurs because they are attached to or associated with pelvi which are attached to or associated with the sacral portion of the skeleton, just like in us… and mice… and other mammals.

John Paul:
From Britannica:
FEMUR: limb or appendage of an animal, used to support the body, provide locomotion, and, in modified form, assist in capturing and eating prey (as in certain shellfish, spiders, and insects). In four-limbed vertebrates all four appendages are commonly called legs, but in bipedal animals, including humans, only the posterior or lower two are so called.
Are you changing the definition of “femur” to suit your needs? Do you have a definition of “femur” other than the one Britannica offers?

I wasn’t aware that
1. Brittanica is the ultimate authority on scientific terminology
2.That shellfish, spiders, and insects have femurs (they have exoskeletons).
3. that a femur is a “limb or appendage”
Looking into point 2 above should make it clear what I think of my point 1.

I prefer to use ‘definitions’ that are relevant to the discussion at hand and that are produced in the proper context. From Kardong’s “Vertebrates”, 2nd Ed., 1998. In the section on the basic parts of the appendicular skeleton:
“The limb region closest to the body is the stylopodium, with a single element: humerus of the upper arm, femur of the thigh.”
A few pages later, there is some detail on the anatomy of living and fossil tetrapods and bony fish. On p. 314, Fig. 9.13 has drawings of the limb (fin) structure of some living sarcopterygians. In particular, the Neoceratodus fin/limb structure has a femur explicitly indicated. It is a single bone that connects the pelvic fin to the pelvic girdle (with a ball and socket joint, no less). I would dare say that such an arrangement – the presence of a femur in this fin/limb assemblage – has nothing to do with a leg. Of course, you should have paid more attention to your preferred Britannica definition (emphasis mine):
“FEMUR: limb or appendage of an animal, used to support the body, provide locomotion, and, in modified form, assist in capturing and eating prey (as in certain shellfish, spiders, and insects). In four-limbed vertebrates all four appendages are commonly called legs, but in bipedal animals, including humans, only the posterior or lower two are so called.”

Scott Page:
You responded with the above. It is a non-sequitur because it is clear in your quote (“I assume this hasn’t or isn’t being tried because of politics. With our genetic engineering we should be able to duplicate that.”) that you think that the chromosomal fusion event was pivotal, indeed, perhaps caused the speciation event in question.

John Paul:
Not so. I think chromosomal fusion is part of it and a part we should be able to duplicate.

Duplicate what? What would we perform this fusion in? I was unaware that the ape-like ancestor from which humans and apes descended had been identified, much less that it is still alive and available for us to perform chromosomal fusion experiments on (please re-read the demolition of this premise above).

Alleged chromosomal fusion also just happens to be evidence used by evolutionists to claim humans and the great apes share a common ancestor.

It is but a small aspect, and it is certainly not used in the way that you seem to be implying. See my example of the guenons above. Are you going to claim that these Old world monkeys cannot possibly be related via descent because of the difference in chromosome number?

Even IF I did think what you said I think it still wouldn’t make it non sequitur as it still would follow the question. Do you have any information that the alleged chromosomal fusion was NOT pivotal or didn’t cause the speciation event in question?

I guess the only way to get around this issue is to do the experiment.

I have good reason to believe, based on the observations of obviously closely related species, that such a fusion was not pivotal nor did it cause any speciation event in the human historical lineage.
I, of course, would like to see some experiments that verify NREH in multicellular eukaryotes - and NOT anecdotes, phenotypic plasticity extrapolations, etc.

Scott Page: There is no reason whatsoever to suspect that the chromosomal fusion event caused and speciation event.

John Paul:
Chromosomal fusion would be a start. We have to start somewhere, don’t we?
Scott Page:
See my last response above.

John Paul:
See mine. It is obvious when one sets out to show something there has to be a starting point in the process (to test the hypothesis). If you want to start out by genetically engineering all the other differences in the genomes first, fine.

I believe that you do not understand how scientific experimentation – especially in the realm of evolutionary biology – is undertaken. From my previous readings of creationists, were someone to undertake the very experiments you now seem to want, and recreate the evolution of some species in a lab, I have absolutely no doubt at all that you would simply declare the results to be supportive not of evolution but of Intelligent Design. It is a no-win situation for the evolutionist, a win-win for the creationist. What you apparently see – or at least want others to see – as some sort of ‘objective test’ of evolution is nothing more than a rhetorical ploy.

As I can see little coming form continuing exchanges in this thread, and also due to the fact that I have additional responsibilities at my job, I doubt that I will be able to respond in any sort of depth on this forum in the foreseeable future.

 

[Administrator2]

EARL DETRA

A lot of what seems to be going on is game-playing, not discussion. For instance, when I mentioned to Earl Detra that the basic point of ancestor/descendant relationship was implied by the fossil record and that the fossils lower in the strata represent ancestors of animals higher up, he avoided the question entirely and said it was too general and that he was not a descendant of a starfish.

All this is very easy for Helen to say, if one is allowed to forget what my response referred to. For instance, what Helen said before my starfish statement was:

"Earl, you and other evolutionists are going to have to make up your minds about something: the argument is that fossils lower down in the strata represent ancestors of animals whose fossils are found higher up and of animals today."

Obviously this was a gross generalization intended to propagandize the issue. My statement was simply to show that things are not as simple as creationists would like them to be.

Then he said that the ancestor/descendant relationship by strata was “a conclusion based on evolutionary theory.” I’m grateful for his honesty.

Helen leaves out the context of my statement. It was preceded by Helen's remark that, "This is one of the main points said to support evolution." I was simply pointing out that ancestry is NOT a point in support of evolution. Evolutionists do not use ancestry to support evolution. They use the fossil succession to support evolution.

That conclusion is impossible to reach if one does not already suppose evolutionary theory. (emphasis added)

Here I need to point out (once again) that evolution was NOT presupposed when it was first promulgated to explain the fossil record. How do you explain this if evolution must be presupposed to obtain evolutionary conclusions? Your point is contrived.

And yet, over and over again on this forum as well as every other creation/evolution forum I have ever seen, the fossil record is given as evidence supporting evolution, not as a conclusion drawn from it.

Helen, please reread the thread carefully. You were discussing ancestry/descendant relationships, not the fossil record. The fossil record is explained by evolution. No other theory does this.

But Detra is right. It is a conclusion, or interpretation of the fossil record based on the presupposition that life evolved from simple to complex through time.

A given ancestor/descendant relationship is a conclusion base on evolutionary theory. On the other hand, evolution is an explanation of the fossil record. They are different things. You seem to confuse these points. And yes, in modern times, we assume that evolution is well-proven enough to use it as a premise. This is just as we use the premise that heavier-than-air flight is possible to build aircraft. We could spend the rest of our careers (and those of our descendants) "proving evolution," but I would personally prefer to move ahead.

Given another presupposition, different interpretations are not only possible, but equally valid.

Only if they do not conflict with the evidence presented by the fossil record.

Now that we have started with the statement that ancestor/descendant relationships are a conclusion from the presupposition of Darwinism, I would ask “What is the ‘overwhelming evidence’ which evolution is supposed to have going for it? I can’t find it.

The fact that it explains the fossil record and that no other theory does so with any credibility or accuracy at all.

Earl asked me what made me think the Archaeopteryx was a true bird. Here are some mainstream science links regarding that:
http://www.carnegiemuseums.org/cmnh/exhibits/feathered/confuciusornis.html
http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/dinos/de_4/5c60bbe.htm
http://www.nature.com/nsu/981217/981217-4.html
http://www.dges.tohoku.ac.jp/museum/meso.html

etc. etc.

Now, let's see what Helen actually said.

In the meantime, I think the general consensus now is that Archy was a true bird and not a transitional at all.(emphasis added)

And my response:

Which features lead you and others to that conclusion, the tail or the teeth?

So, once again, Helen has taken my comments out of context in that we were discussing Archy as a transitional and not necessarily whether it was a bird or a dinosaur. In fact, I did not ask why she thought Archy was a true bird. I only asked whether the tail or the teeth lead to the conclusion that this "true (Jurassic) bird" was not a transitional.

As the reader will note, all of Helen's references above subscribe to the evolutionary interpretation of Archy as a transitional. Nor do they describe Archy as a modern bird. Certainly it was a bird for its time. It was also a transitional fossil.

In response to other points from him:
1. Dinosaur fossils are not found in the Cambrian because dinosaurs did not live on the sea floors.

So there were no shorelines on which dinosaurs walked? No carcasses floating out to sea on the tide? No streams along which they fed? No other critters with dinosaur teeth marks? No nests? Besides, Helen, I thought your flood was over by the Cambrian.

2. Did humans life in the East African Rift area? Out of curiosity, I put this into Google: “East African Rift” “Homo sapien” remains. I got only one reference: http://exn.ca/hominids/wherethebonesare.cfm It seems a lot of supposed ancestors of humans as we are now were found there, but no H.sapiens. So my first indication, and quite in line with Barry’s model, would be “probably not.”

Okay, let's see what Helen actually said first along this line:

"All animals don’t live together now and they didn’t then. I would not expect men to be living in highly humid and warm and geologically active river valleys the way the dinosaurs did, for instance."

And my response:

So, no humans live in the East African Rift area?

Once again, Helen, you take my statements out of context. You said that men (humans, I assume) would not be expected to live in humid, warm, geologically active areas. I was simply pointing out that they seem to today. Do you have any evidence at all that humans do not live in such areas or never have?

3. Yes, there are pollen grains which are found ‘out of order’ in the fossil record, but why don’t you read the summary I put up of Barry’s work before you ask questions about it?

Please document this. I hope you are not talking about the Hakatai Shale again! We have been over this ground before and there is ample evidence that this is a fraud and that contamination is the only explanation.

4. Pompeii and Herculaneum were to the Flood Catastrophe as a hiccup is to Mt. St. Helens. There is no way to correlate the two in terms of remains and ruins left behind.

So, what did Helen actually say in this case:

I would also submit that the explosion of scalding waters carrying massive amounts of debris along with it would have produced the sort of destruction that very well might not leave any human structure recognizable afterwards. A town destroyed by a volcanic explosion, in the same vein, might not be expected to be recognizable as a town several thousand years and a lot of digging later.

Helen, do you actually have anything to support your statement? I have given you two examples of towns destroyed by a catastrophic volcanic eruptions, but have left behind easily recognizable remains. Where is the evidence of these scalding waters and debris flows occurring everywhere at the beginning of the flood? It seems to me awfully convenient that your evidence is all gone….

5. You want evidence of creation? Look at a cell.

How is that evidence of creationism? I could just as easily say that it is the culmination of many years of natural processes.

As far as evolutionary evidence is concerned, evolution remains an idea for which there is no known mechanism, …

Certainly not all mechanisms are known, but there are some possible suspects that we know can work.

…no beginning (for those who separate it from abiogenesis),

But you just gave us the beginning: after abiogenesis! That isn't so hard. Evolution occurred after the first organic material.

… no extant operational evidence,

Other than the fossil record, you mean? Just because you do not accept the fossil record and standard geological ideas, does not mean that there is no evidence. There are certainly plenty of people who see otherwise. Do you think it right to simply invalidate 99% of all scientists in the field?

…and yet draws conclusions from the presuppostion that it is true.

Wrong. You seem confused on the timing of events. This comes later, after the evidence has shown evolution to be a viable conclusion that has withstood the test of time. As I have said before, it is not the objective of most scientists to "prove evolution" any more. It is time to move on to other discoveries.

Why shouldn’t I believe that, without any physical evidence going for it, it is not based on metaphysical reasons?

Because of the evidence that most people accept. We cannot change the world because you do not understand the evidence or refuse to accept it. As far as any evolutionist is concerned you can believe what you want.

You wrote: "It seems pretty logical that someone who does not believe in evolution would not take the time to become particularly conversant in mechanisms or spend time trying to devise them." Except I was taught evolution, believed evolution, and taught it myself… It was looking for mechanisms which started me on a reading path that ended up landing me in the creation camp.

Well, it seemed pretty logical to me. So you do not agree that the average creationist has thought very little about the mechanisms of evolution, or tried to devise them? Are you saying that it would be logical to assume that the average creationist is conversant in the issue? Heck, I don't even assume that with evolutionists.

In a later post, Earl Detra wrote: "The great transformations are right there in the fossil record. They can be tested over and over. And this has been done. No one is trying to 'prove evolution' any more." Earl, how do you test this?

Two ways. One is to predict what fossils will be in a unit that correlates with one that has a known fossil community and then show this to be true. Then show that the same lithofacies, a few meters above the other one, has a different fossil community. Then show that this relationship is consistent throughout the world. This would be virtually impossible under your flood scenario. The second way would be to use the evolutionary model as a premise and see if your resource exploration model works. This happens every day and it works. Otherwise, oil companies and mining companies wouldn't use an evolutionary model.

The fossil record shows different animals and plants in different layers. Evolution interprets this to mean great transformation. If by testing you mean you can find more and more fossils, that is not testing the assertion that these fossils represent great transformations of one kind to another.

Actually, it is, but I don't really take that as a really strong line of evidence. If I find more and more fossils in the right place in the record, I can be more confident that the evolutionary interpretation is correct.

So I must be missing something in your statement. HOW do you TEST for these transformations in any way which is not an interpretation and only an interpretation of the data?

I would look for violations of the succession. Not all violations would be damaging, mind you, some (all actually) simply modify ranges, mostly in the recent direction. There are no credible instances of out of place fossils that are harmful to the evolutionary interpretation.

As we have seen above, Helen has taken numerous comments of mine and presented them in a different light so as to make my comments illogical or uninformed. I leave it to the reader to decide whether, as Helen says:

A lot of what seems to be going on is game-playing,

 

[Administrator2]

PAUL OF EUGENE

Paul of Eugene seems to have adopted the "millions of universes" idea in order to explain how something as improbable as life had to happen in one of them: ours. While there is no limit to what the imagination can do, or doesn't seem to be, the fact is that imagination is ALL there is for this 'millions of universes' idea. It has nothing else going for it except the 'necessity' of explaining the highly improbable (actually, mathematically impossible) events and phenomena on planet earth.

Actually, there are perfectly sound reasons to conclude reality is infinite rather than finite. For sure, based on observations along, we can tell it is very, very big! And we know that the Creator is infinite, and it would be natural to expect His creative activity to be infinite rather than finite, given how big we already realize it has to be. In my own mind, which admittedly can be mistaken, that is a certainty based perhaps on faith in Who God is, as much as anything. Now for those who believe there is no God, it is equally reasonable to assume that the nature of all things is infinite rather than finite. Many cosmologists have come to accept the notion of "many universes" theory of quantum mechanics, based on simply extrapolating the equations used. It would appear that in order to avoid the notion of many universes, one has to postulate something that can be everywhere at once and make sure that all the events of the universe correlate properly each with the other in a manner that demands some kind of influence on a universal above time approach. In other words, its either many worlds or God. Either way we've got an infinite situation on our hands! (Of course, God and the many worlds idea are NOT mutually exclusive. If the many worlds theory is true, God can still exist.)

He then says chemical similarities in DNA among different life forms here on earth are only explainable by evolutionary theory. No, Paul, that is not true. What is true is that that is the only explanation you are willing to accept. One creator fashioning an interdependent system of living things is an equally good explanation.

When I hear the phrase "interdependent system of living things" I think of such things as how bees and flowers need each other, and how plants and animals each provide what the other needs for nourishment. And that's all well and good, and by itself, not a compelling evidence for eovolution. But the chemical similarities I believe indicate evolution are of a different type. By way of example, consider the ability to synthesize vitamin C, possessed by our dogs and cats and most vertebrates. But we lack that ability, which many a sailor suffering from scurvy would attest we should have had. There are other species that also lack that ability. Is it merely a bit of misdirection on the part of a playfully deceitful Creator that this ability is lacking in our close relatives as previously determined by evolutionary theory? And we have even discovered the corrupted gene that no longer makes vitamin c - in fact, it does nothing - and we share that corrupted gene with chimps and bonoboes, for example.
Note that the use of the word INTERDEPENDENT is not a very good word to describe the fact that both chimps and humans can't synthesize vitamin C. Instead, it is an INDICATOR of something we have in common. Evolutionary theory explains that kind of discovery nicely. A common ancestor had the mutation that caused the loss of vitamin c manufacturing at time when its way of life, eating lots of fruit, allowed it to get along fine without it. It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the species would each be created with the same corrupted gene for making vitamin C. That is as odd as expecting a carpenter to make several houses each with a bullet hole through the same window in each house.

When asked where bats get their echolocation systems and birds their migratory sense, Paul of Eugene simply stated they evolved. From what, Paul? Your statement "from less highly refined abilities to do the same things more crudely" is no answer at all. What sort of animals did these things more crudely that the bat and bird evolved from?

Actually, Helen, less highly refined echolocation skills and less highly refined navigation skills are ubiquitous among the vertebrates. We even have them ourselves. Can't you drive home again after going shopping? Can't you shout and hear an echo and use that to draw some conclusion as to how big a space you happen to be in?

And Paul, this is one 'adamant creationist' who denies point blank that life can form with the proper collection of atoms. Life is a series of processes unnatural to atoms in any combination.

All right, Helen, this is a time for clarification here. Do you believe that scientists will ever be able to construct living beings from non living chemicals? Or do you believe that life has some vital principle given only by God that can never be duplicated by men working in a laboratory?. It seems to me you are pushing for the second idea here, but I don't want to misunderstand your position.

I think I can ask some rhetorical questions that would make my own point of view clear.
Can God create a universe in which life can arise by the laws natural to that Universe as He designed it? ( ) yes ( ) no The answer, of course, is yes.

Can God create an earth on which life could improve through a process of evolution to result in creatures as highly functional and intelligent as we are? ( )yes ( )no The answer again, of course, is yes. God could certainly do that any time He wanted to.

The evidence on the creation of life is still insufficient. The evidence on the evolution of life since life began is already sufficient to conclude that all life that uses DNA sprang from a common source over a period of at least a couple of billion years.

 

[Administrator2]

THE GALATIAN

When John Paul asked where bats get their echolocation system and birds their migratory sense, you stated they were born with them, that it was encoded in their DNA. Encoded is an interesting word. It implies that someone or something did some coding…

Actually, any animal that has hearing has some echolocation ability. Try this; go to a large, empty building like a gymnasium or an empty warehouse. Make sure you have someone with you to make sure you don't actually bump into things. The walk a bit with your eyes closed. You need to make a little noise, say like slapping the soles of your shoes on the floor. You'll find you can tell when you're close to a large expanse of wall. Some people are much better at this than others, but it's obvious that bats merely have a much more acute sense than most other animals. But it certainly can be improved incrementally.

In the meantime, the question really referred to where did the echolocation of the bats come from? Or the migratory sense of the birds? It is creation to say they were created with these attributes by God. Fully formed; ready to go. How do you think evolution produced them?

The obvious answer is above. Among other things, birds can detect polarization of light in the sky. But so can humans, a little.

For example, at sunset the light is most polarized directly overhead. You may be able to see this without having to use a polarizing filter. As the Sun is setting, look overhead and you may notice a faint, violet, bow tie-shaped area above you that points north and south. This is called Haidinger's Brush.

It's not hard to see how this could become selected for in migratory birds, or how it could be improved incrementally.

However there is not one tiny little shred of evidence either in verified history (not fossil interpretations in other words) or current life or research which shows that these variations which are quite natural would EVER add up to produce some new kind of thing.

No, we certainly have the example of therapsids evolving into mammals to show that new classes of animals can evolve. We can show that there are, in just the right places in the fossil record, incremental transitionals between reptiles and mammals.

Does anyone really doubt that there could be a transitional between mammals and reptiles, say an reptile that had fur, reproduced by laying eggs, had a primitive cloaca instead of the mammalian urogenital system, and had a reptilian limb girdle, but was warm blooded? Wouldn't that be a transitional?

We have been working with E.coli bacteria for well over a hundred years now. That is easily 2.5 million generations which we have bombarded with every chemical and mutagent known to man and probably others as well! You know what we got? E.coli. Some mutations. All E.coli. Mostly dead. But all E.coli.

Actually, that's not true, either. There are quite a number of species of bacteria that have evolved from E. Coli. It would be truly remarkable if they would suddenly become metazoans, but they evolve rapidly in their own way.

If we can’t get a change of that kind out of a tiny little prokaryote, what on earth makes anyone think a fish can change into a man?

Evidence. We have found that limbs evolved in fish before there were land creatures. We find fish with the same limb bones in the same place as ours. And we see numerous transitionals in the process. Oh, and we see that the genetic and biochemical affinities of fish are precisely what evolutionary theory predicted them to be. That's pretty good evidence.

And don’t blame us for scientific illiteracy in this country. Evolutionists have been in solid control of science education for several generations. Scientific illiteracy lies squarely on YOUR shoulders, not ours! We would sincerely like to change that!

Evolutionists have not been in control of science education in many parts of the country. One way to test this idea is to take a look at the results of the Third International Mathematics and Science Survey. It involved the US and about 40 other countries, with identical tests being give to representative samples of students from each country. (The latest 8th grade results showed the U.S. to have scored slightly better than average in both math and science).

But the most interesting thing is the distribution of scores by state. It tells us something very important about science education and where it is deficient. You might go and check it out. I have an Excel map showing the U.S. results for the second competition, if someone is interested in seeing it.

 

[Administrator2]

SCOTT PAGE

Helen:
Next Scott Page replied to me. I had stated that not all hereditary factors were found in the genome and gave the illustration of the shape of E.coli. Scott then stated that was not a matter of heredity at all; that physical constraints are not hereditary. Oh baloney. The reason I don’t grow to ten feet tall is because that physical constraint is hereditary! The reason a tulip is not shaped like a fern is because its shape is hereditary.

You mentioned E.coli, I replied regarding E.coli. Here is what I wreote:

“What you are speaking of is not heredity at all. Physical constraints are not hereditary. If we were to physically alter the shape of an E.coli bacterium, would its progeny have a similar shape? I doubt it. But what happens if we alter its DNA content?”

Do you really think that if your genes had it that you should be 10 feet tall that you would be? Speaking of baloney, how, EXACTLY, a physical constraint hereditary? I did not realize that gravity effects, air pressure, etc., were hereditary. I shall like to see the documentation for this – this is a revelation!

Of course, the actual deal here is whether or not ‘hereditary’ is going to be defined as only having to do with DNA and the genome, in which case the definition precludes anything else being passed down from parent to offspring as being hereditary! However if what is passed down from parent to offspring physically, whether cell or cow, is going to fall under the definition of heredity, then, indeed, not all heredity is based in the genome.

Well, that is what I have asked you about before, and the best you can come up with is E.coli end caps. For years you have been writing things like “There is more to it than genes”. Well, what is it? I am aware, of course, that things like mitochondria and other organelles get passed along (at least at first), but how much does that really affect phenotype? Seems you know, but are not telling…

By the way, I HAVE read Harold’s book, Scott. All of it. It’s right here on my desk. In my opinion, he is spending time speaking from both sides of his mouth. He mentions a number of things which defy a naturalistic explanation and then says that self-organization did it. Unless self-organization is something supernatural in his book, he has spent a lot of time trying to talk himself out of the very corners he spends time backing himself into where cellular complexity is concerned.

Self-organization is a real phenomenon. Ever heard of cellular automata? Of course, I have Wells’ book, and ReMine’s book, and Sarfati’s book, and those authors seem to spend a great deal of time talking out of orifices other than their mouths, so I understand your frustration.

As far as canines go, yes, basically one kind.

Seems awfully matter of fact. Whats your evidence?

I don’t know about foxes. But I know wolves, coyotes, and dogs can and do interbreed readily. No doubt they are one basic biblical kind.

What about dingos? Jackals?

Going on to another post of Scott’s – the biblical kind is probably best represented by the family level in current taxonomy.

You also asked how one would ‘objectively test’ the concept of creation ex nihilo. That’s not even a real question.

Yes, it is a real question, and it was in response to the usual about ‘objectively testing’ abiogenesis.

The point of creation ex nihilo is that it started with nothing. We don’t have any nothing to start with, number one; we are not God, number two; and creation was a one-time only event, number three. This is VASTLY different from the claims of evolution that it involves purely naturalistic processes through time. If this is true, then it should be possible to show something of that besides the variations we all know and work with on a daily basis.

I was unaware that evolution indicates multiple speciation events leading to the same species. That is, of course, logical extension of what you seem to be saying.
Oh – what processes, by the way, are responsible for getting wolves, dogs, and coyotes form the original dog-kind?

In a later post, Scott asked ”I wonder – what criteria are employed to determine the extent to which descent has occurred?“

The simplest, but not terribly reliable, test is hybridization. That will always show that the two species interbreeding are from the same kind, but because mating cues are different for different kinds of animals, animals depending on sight rather than smell will often refuse to interbreed with others which are obviously of the same kind, for example, hummingbirds. Todd Wood has been working with genetic similarities in a somewhat different fashion than evolutionists, and this is showing some interesting results as well. However, since we know that members of the same species can have different chromosome counts (dogs, for instance, and horses, too, I think), even genetic similarities tends to be much too rough a way to go. Morphology is a big help, certainly, and involved ‘common sense,’ but I personally think a lot is going to stay unknown simply because we have no way of actually testing for it that I know of.

Where is Wood’s work published? And I suggest that you hook up with John Paul and the two of you decide which side of your mouths the creationism angle is going to be argued from. You see, he says that chromosome numbers are a big deal, you say they are not. It is easy to ‘win’ an argument when you argue both sides of the same coin, no?

 

[Administrator2]

JOHN PAUL

Scott Page:
Science does take time. But as you just admitted, creation had been the reigning paradigm since well before the ToE.

John Paul:
That’s a little deceptive. According to the Creation model there was a time when man & woman had a direct personal relationship with the Creator therefore having direct knowledge this was a Special Creation. Then (as far as our knowledge goes) there was a time when man (i.e. the Greeks 2,500+ years ago), far removed from that Creation event and the Creator, first thought about and dismissed the possibility of all this (life) arising & diversifying via purely natural processes from some simpler organism. What this shows is those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Scott Page:
Regardless of your personal distaste for and inexperience in the sciences, the ToE is, in fact, scientific and it has in its support data from numerous fields of science. These repeated charges of the ToE not being science and such smack of desperation and an ignorance of the available data.

John Paul:
The reality is I love science, have at least 30 years experience (more if you count my numerous entries into various science fairs starting in the late 60s) using scientific methodology forming hypotheses and conducting experiments in several scientific venues- chemistry, biology, physics, electricity, electronics (technology), to name some. I come to understand phenomenon by the systemized observation of and experiments with said phenomenon and phenomenon related to the studied phenomenon. Design (and design review), debug/ fault analysis, research and development have been my career. Also I understand the available data and I also understand the grand sweep of the ToE is out of the reach of science and scientific method. So when you say “…the ToE is, in fact, scientific and it has in its support data from numerous fields of science”, I see guy lines to a non-existent tower. I also see how the same evidence when viewed under a different framework, i.e. the Special Creation, can be used to infer that premise is correct.

That evolution occurs is not the debate, no matter how much you (all evolutionists) want to make it the debate. Also, what you may fail to realize, science comes into play after all this came into existence therefore hypothesizing a supernatural origin in no way interferes with the systematic observation of and experiment (i.e. scientific investigation) with the Creation and all it contains.

Scott Page:
As for the ‘questions’ posed to evolutionists, they are largely of the type that there will probably be no answers for, as they seem to be in the realm of the origin and very early diversification of life. Not coincidentally, I’m sure, an area that there is very little physical evidence for.

John Paul:
Thank you. Then the ToE is out of the realm of science and out of reach of scientific method.

Scott Page
Now THAT is a non-sequitur. Please produce documentation that abiogenesis is the pillar of the ToE that you seem to be making out to be. If this one tangential issue is inaccessible to the normal routes of investigation, I fail to see any logic or rationale in proclaiming that the ToE is therefore not scientific. A dearth of physical evidence means simply that any given hypothesis will benefit from only a small amount of evidence. Your ‘conclusion’, therefore, is quite unwarranted.

John Paul:
Now THAT is a red-herring. My questions covered more than abiogenesis and I never stated abiogenesis was a pillar of the ToE. The following is a link to my thread-opening-post:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000158;p=1

BTW, my ‘conclusion’ was based directly on your statement.

Scott Page:
The questions have little to do with evolution as such.

John Paul:
They show the grand sweep of the ToE can’t be objectively tested.

Scott Page:
No, they show that you have latched onto an area of research for which there is very little physical evidence and have proclaimed it the most important such area, and that if none of the handful of lurkers or participants on this discussion board can answer the ‘questions’ to your satisfaction – and I doubt you would accept any answer as valid regardless of the source or the amount of documentation – that, therefore, evolution must be wrong/unscientific/etc.

John Paul:
It would appear I have “latched on” to several areas of research for which there is very little (or any) physical evidence. And I know I could come up with many, many more. BTW, I have posed my questions to many evolutionists on several discussion boards as well as Ken Miller- guess what; no one can give me an answer. If anything it shows there are people out there who accept something as being scientific when they don’t know why. It makes me wonder why people cling to it so tightly.

On the alleged whale evolution, specifically the alleged femur.

Wouldn’t they only be femurs if they belonged to legs? So by calling these femurs it is being assumed they are legs or were from legs.

Scott Page:
Grin… They are called femurs because they are attached to or associated with pelvi which are attached to or associated with the sacral portion of the skeleton, just like in us… and mice… and other mammals.

John Paul:
From Britannica:
FEMUR: limb or appendage of an animal, used to support the body, provide locomotion, and, in modified form, assist in capturing and eating prey (as in certain shellfish, spiders, and insects). In four-limbed vertebrates all four appendages are commonly called legs, but in bipedal animals, including humans, only the posterior or lower two are so called.
Are you changing the definition of “femur” to suit your needs? Do you have a definition of “femur” other than the one Britannica offers?

Scott Page:
I wasn’t aware that
1. Brittanica is the ultimate authority on scientific terminology
2.That shellfish, spiders, and insects have femurs (they have exoskeletons).
3. that a femur is a “limb or appendage”
Looking into point 2 above should make it clear what I think of my point 1.

John Paul:
1. Britannica might not be the ultimate authority, but it is an authority.

2. Yes, Scott, spiders do have femurs:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~ednieuw/Spiders/Info/spiderinfo.htm

and

http://www.museums.org.za/bio/spiderweb/anatomy.htm

or go to :

http://www.google.com/ and search on spider anatomy.

as do insects:

http://www.earthlife.net/insects/anatomy.html (about half-way down it discusses legs)

with a figure here:

http://www.earthlife.net/insects/images/scans/inslegb.jpg

or do a google search on insect anatomy

3. If it isn’t a “limb or appendage”, what is it?

This is inexcusable for someone with a Ph.D. from the department of anatomy and cell biology.

Scott Page:
I prefer to use ‘definitions’ that are relevant to the discussion at hand and that are produced in the proper context. From Kardong’s “Vertebrates”, 2nd Ed., 1998. In the section on the basic parts of the appendicular skeleton:
“The limb region closest to the body is the stylopodium, with a single element: humerus of the upper arm, femur of the thigh.”

John Paul:
OK taken in context, where is the whale’s thigh? We are discussing whales and their alleged femur aren’t we? Of course the whales alleged ancestor had a thigh, but that would mean you are calling that bone in a whale a femur because you think it was at one time part of a leg, just like I stated above.

Scott Page:
A few pages later, there is some detail on the anatomy of living and fossil tetrapods and bony fish. On p. 314, Fig. 9.13 has drawings of the limb (fin) structure of some living sarcopterygians. In particular, the Neoceratodus fin/limb structure has a femur explicitly indicated. It is a single bone that connects the pelvic fin to the pelvic girdle (with a ball and socket joint, no less). I would dare say that such an arrangement – the presence of a femur in this fin/limb assemblage – has nothing to do with a leg.

John Paul:
I was unaware that I said the femur had to be related to a leg. The only reason I referred to legs above is because the alleged ancestor of the whale (Ambulocetus) had them and that appears to be the only reason for calling the specified bone on whales a femur.
The femur in the example you gave provides locomotion, just like the Britannica article states. And in the ToE scheme of things it also provided support. The alleged femur in the whale does not provide locomotion or support, nor is it part of a thigh. And you still have provided no way to objectively test that what is seen in whales was once a fully functional rear limb used to walk on land.

BTW, I noticed the word limb appears in the reference you gave.

Do we have any genetic evidence that would show that legs can be “erased” like that?

Let me explain: If these bones were at one time femurs that did form hind limbs, then what happened to the rest of the leg? For example, can we, with genetic engineering, alter some organism’s (with legs) genome and see if we can get an organism with only femurs for hind limbs? Or maybe take a whale and using genetic engineering splice the necessary sequence into the whale’s genome (or whatever was necessary) to see if fully formed legs appear?

Scott Page:
What is this ‘genetic engineering’ all about? There are plenty of genetic conditions that result in the formation of stunted limbs (or no limbs at all). Meromelia is a condition in humans that results in limb malformations. Caudal dysgenesis results in the absence of the coccyx and in some cases the sacrum in humans. It is no real surprise that such anomalies exist. In the case of terrestial bipeds, these conditions are of course non-adaptive. So, yes, there is evidence that limbs or parts of limbs can be un-developed.

John Paul:
Perfect. We should be able to check a whale’s genome for signs of this genetic condition. Hopefully this condition became fixed in the whale population after it became fully aquatic. Nice timing. Also much more than a loss of part of the rear limbs was taking place:

What is the genetic evidence that can objectively tested that would show us a fore-limb used for walking can evolve into a flipper used for aquatic locomotion?

What is the genetic evidence that can objectively tested that would show us a nose at the end of a snout can evolve into a blowhole?

What is the genetic evidence that can objectively tested that would show us a tail can evolve into a fluke?

On chromosomal fusion

As for chromosomal fusion, this has turned into a red-herring (i.e. a distraction) as far as this thread is concerned. I brought up chromosomal fusion in response to a question by Paul of Eugene as a possible way to objectively test the hypothesis that man and the great apes shared a common ancestor. Why would a Creationist know how objectively test something Creationists say didn’t occur? Why is it that evolutionists can’t come up with a way for objectively testing their theory? I am telling you if it could be objectively tested it wouldn’t have the opposition it has today.

But anyway, my objective was that event (chromosomal fusion) could be duplicated via genetic engineering:

Scott Page:
Duplicate what? What would we perform this fusion in? I was unaware that the ape-like ancestor from which humans and apes descended had been identified, much less that it is still alive and available for us to perform chromosomal fusion experiments on.

John Paul:
It would appear you are guilty of doing what you accuse Walter ReMine of doing. If we don’t know what the alleged common ancestor is how the heck can we know random mutations culled by natural selection would be enough to give rise to its alleged descendants?

So now my question would be: What would be an objective test to the hypothesis that humans and apes are descended from some unknown common ancestor?

As for the number of chromosomes an organism has in relation to other organisms as the basis for relationships, until we decipher the genome of the organisms being compared, each case would have to be looked at separately, using various methods. After all humans with Down Syndrome may have an extra chromosome (not all people with Down have the extra chromosome) but they are still human. IOW, with our current understanding, chromosome number alone may not be enough to determine a relationship of descent with modification. But if evolutionists are going to continue use the chromosomal fusion argument as evidence for common descent (human/ apes) they had better find a way to objectively test that premise.

On extrapolating knowns to unknowns using phylogenetic analysis

Scott Page:
So you have no answer then, fine. The methods employed by those using ToE-based hypotheses of descent have been tested on knowns.

Science 1991 Oct 25;254(5031):554-8
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice.

Atchley WR, Fitch WM
“Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains.”

John Paul:
Wow, mice evolving into mice. Producing a genealogy tree? That’s what you are offering? Are you saying that because this appears to work on knowns that it is OK to extrapolate to unknowns? This is the crux of the debate- extrapolating from knowns. It is hardly a given.

Scott Page:
You failed to grasp the significance of the results I cited.

John Paul:
I grasp them but I think you are making too much from them.

Scott Page:
It is not a question of “mice evolving into mice” – it is an issue of the testing of the methodology employed examining hypotheses of descent. The methods employed in molecular phylogenetic analyses were used on a known geneaology[sic] of inbred mouse strains to see whether or not these methods would reproduce the known relationships. Pretty straightforward.

John Paul:
Yes it is pretty straightforward and I am not debating that.

Scott Page:
I am saying that when a methodology works on knowns, that it is standard procedure to then be confident that the conclusions based on these methods, when applied to unknowns, is valid.

John Paul:
Sorry, it’s not always that neat.

Scott Page:
That is how science – and even, I would hope, engineering – works.

John Paul:
Applying knowns in explosives to the atomic bomb (itself an explosive) didn’t work. Do you think I can apply the knowns of climbing Mount Monadnock (3100+ feet to the summit) in Southern New Hampshire to the unknowns of climbing to the summit Mount Everest? One thing for sure I couldn’t apply the knowns of my 11 years of driving in Florida to the unknowns of driving in a New England snowstorm. And applying knowns about hijacking didn’t help out the crew and passengers of 3 flights on September 11. Granted there may be some times it works out, but it is far from being a given. (I can give many more examples if you like)

I do know (first hand knowledge) that in engineering (applied science) extrapolating knowns to unknowns most often will get you in trouble.

Scott Page:
Or do you, in designing software, have to continually re-invent the various methods of writing software?

John Paul:
It would all depend on the scenario. There are various software languages, each invented separately and each with its own purpose. I know I can’t apply the knowns of the computer language BASIC to the ‘unknowns’ of C++. I have to learn C++. I can’t then apply the knowns of C++ to the unknowns of some company’s proprietary language.

I do know (first hand knowledge) that sometimes it is just plain necessary to start all over. Starting from scratch is not to be confused with ‘re-inventing’. The Wright brothers didn’t ‘re-invent’ transportation, they just invented another mode of it. Seeing that there were no other (known) airplanes at the time they had to start from scratch.

Homology in biology and the alleged universality of the genetic code are supposedly strong evidence for descent with modification (from alleged genetically simpler unknown population of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate, or at the very least had the ability to share genetic material with other populations, which led to reproduction). However both can easily be used to infer a Common Creator or at the very least a common plan.

 

[Administrator2]

SCOTT PAGE

John Paul:
…Also I understand the available data and I also understand the grand sweep of the ToE is out of the reach of science and scientific method.

What, exactly, do you mean by “grand sweep”? You realize, do you not, that evolution has several aspects to it?

So when you say “…the ToE is, in fact, scientific and it has in its support data from numerous fields of science”, I see guy lines to a non-existent tower. I also see how the same evidence when viewed under a different framework, i.e. the Special Creation, can be used to infer that premise is correct.

And what, exactly, is this ‘tower’ supposed to represent? See http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignment1.htm and please explain how the patterns of synapomorphy can be ‘explained’ (or inferred) via common creator, given that: 1. it is known that mutations occur; 2. it is known that mutations are passed on via descent.

That evolution occurs is not the debate, no matter how much you (all evolutionists) want to make it the debate.

I do not think that this is a correct representation. It has (had) long been the creationist’s staple argument that NO evolution at all occurs. … now they need evolution to occur, and plenty of it!

Also, what you may fail to realize, science comes into play after all this came into existence therefore hypothesizing a supernatural origin in no way interferes with the systematic observation of and experiment (i.e. scientific investigation) with the Creation and all it contains.

I don’t believe that I addressed such an issue, but in fact, I do realize this. The problem with such a program is: At what point does Divine intervention have a place? For example, using such a framework, I can envision ‘olden day’ scientists postulating divine intervention as an explanation for how plants convert sunlight into energy. Would the discovery of photosynthesis falsify Divine intervention? Or just push it back some? Would continued investigation render the Divine irrelevant? Or would convention dictate that the original postulate be all that is necessary, i.e., the ‘determination’ that the Divine was required for plants to make energy be the end of it?

Scott Page:
As for the ‘questions’ posed to evolutionists, they are largely of the type that there will probably be no answers for, as they seem to be in the realm of the origin and very early diversification of life. Not coincidentally, I’m sure, an area that there is very little physical evidence for.

John Paul:
Thank you. Then the ToE is out of the realm of science and out of reach of scientific method.
Scott Page
Now THAT is a non-sequitur. Please produce documentation that abiogenesis is the pillar of the ToE that you seem to be making out to be. If this one tangential issue is inaccessible to the normal routes of investigation, I fail to see any logic or rationale in proclaiming that the ToE is therefore not scientific. A dearth of physical evidence means simply that any given hypothesis will benefit from only a small amount of evidence. Your ‘conclusion’, therefore, is quite unwarranted.

John Paul:
Now THAT is a red-herring. My questions covered more than abiogenesis and I never stated abiogenesis was a pillar of the ToE.

I never wrote that you stated such a thing. However, that you think this is obvious from what you have been writing, for if you did not think that abiogenesis was a ‘deal breaker’ for ToE – the ‘grand sweep’ – I can see no reason whatsoever for your statements:
“Then the ToE is out of the realm of science and out of reach of scientific method.”
“…and I also understand the grand sweep of the ToE is out of the reach of science and scientific method…”
since these were in response to my statements about abiogenesis. Abiogenesis may very well be “out of the reach of science”. However, as the ToE as a whole does not require a ‘proven’ naturalistic, objectively tested abiogenesis, your ‘grand sweeping’ claims are quite beside the point.

On the alleged whale evolution, specifically the alleged femur.

2. Yes, Scott, spiders do have femurs:
[snip links to insect exoskeleton anatomy]

Well, I stand corrected. I am not, afterall, an entomologist.

3. If it isn’t a “limb or appendage”, what is it?

This is inexcusable for someone with a Ph.D. from the department of anatomy and cell biology.

What is inexcusable? That a primate anatomist didn’t know that spiders have femurs? Of course, I DO know that a FEMUR is NOT a “limb or appendage.” Check out your spider links – not one of the them shows a femur as an appendicular entity unto itself. A femur is, contrary to your preferred source of anatomical knowledge, part of a limb. There is a difference between a part and a whole.

Scott Page:
A few pages later, there is some detail on the anatomy of living and fossil tetrapods and bony fish. On p. 314, Fig. 9.13 has drawings of the limb (fin) structure of some living sarcopterygians. In particular, the Neoceratodus fin/limb structure has a femur explicitly indicated. It is a single bone that connects the pelvic fin to the pelvic girdle (with a ball and socket joint, no less). I would dare say that such an arrangement – the presence of a femur in this fin/limb assemblage – has nothing to do with a leg.

John Paul:
I was unaware that I said the femur had to be related to a leg.

I don’t recall writing that you had. Please, point it out for me. Your entire argument on this topic seems to be your own personal dislike of the bones in whales being called femurs. You erroneously cite an encyclopedia trying to ‘prove’ your dislike. My point above should have been obvious – the single bony element of the stylopodium of a tetrapod is called a femur. Tetrapod refers to the number of appendages. Not all appendages are weight bearing, not all are legs or arms. So no assumption of a ‘leg’ need be warranted in calling the bones in question ‘femurs.’ (ignoring, of course, the fossil and developmental evidence for the sake of discussion here).

The only reason I referred to legs above is because the alleged ancestor of the whale (Ambulocetus) had them and that appears to be the only reason for calling the specified bone on whales a femur.

Erroneous, as the Kardong quote indicates.

The femur in the example you gave provides locomotion, just like the Britannica article states. And in the ToE scheme of things it also provided support. The alleged femur in the whale does not provide locomotion or support, nor is it part of a thigh. And you still have provided no way to objectively test that what is seen in whales was once a fully functional rear limb used to walk on land.

I did not realize that it was my charge to provide you specifically with a way to ‘objectively test’ the hypothesis that whales have what deserve to be called femurs. – a way to objectively test that what is seen in whales was once a fully functional rear limb used to walk on land.

BTW, I noticed the word limb appears in the reference you gave.

Yeah, and apples still fall from trees even though I personally have not observed gravity nor tested it objectively…
I am not an expert on whale evolution. I am not a genetic engineer. I cannot provide you with the ‘objective’ tests that you seek to these questions.
But I am still waiting to see YOUR methods to ‘objectively test’ the various things you apparently believe to be true…

But anyway, my objective was that event (chromosomal fusion) could be duplicated via genetic engineering

and? What would that demonstrate? As I pointed out with my guenon example, which, tellingly, John Paul deigned not to respond to and omit form this reply, chromosomal fusion is most likely not a major evolutionary event.

Scott Page:
Duplicate what? What would we perform this fusion in? I was unaware that the ape-like ancestor from which humans and apes descended had been identified, much less that it is still alive and available for us to perform chromosomal fusion experiments on.

John Paul:
It would appear you are guilty of doing what you accuse Walter ReMine of doing. If we don’t know what the alleged common ancestor is how the heck can we know random mutations culled by natural selection would be enough to give rise to its alleged descendants?

I am? The evidence is that evolution occurred. You not only admit that, but have stated that to imply that creationists don’t think this is deceptive. But for some reason, the evolution stops at certain points. For that caveat, the creationist offers no plausible explanations.
But you are garbling in toto my accusation directed at ReMine. ReMine claims that 1667 beneficial mutations (plus some number of neutral ones) is not enough to account for human evolution from an apelike ancestor in 10 million years. He does not know what the apelike ancestor was, thus he cannot know how few is too few to account for human evolution. I made no explicit claims as to a proposed ancestor. I have no idea what the ancestral primate that gave rise to human and apes was. Nor do I need to know, since genetic evidence indicates that such an ancestor did exist, and that extant apes and humans descended form it.
You are conflating disparate ideas – one premised on personal opinion and incredulity, the other on actual data.

So now my question would be: What would be an objective test to the hypothesis that humans and apes are descended from some unknown common ancestor?

Explain exactly what you mean by objective test. Recreating it in a lab? That’s a non-starter – the creationist would use it as evidence for design (see Wysong’s book). DNA evidence is about as objective as you can get. It has already been done.
What, again, is the objective test for special creation of humans?

But if evolutionists are going to continue use the chromosomal fusion argument as evidence for common descent (human/ apes) they had better find a way to objectively test that premise.

You misrepresent the way in which evolutionists use the chromosome fusion issue. Indeed – you have it just about backwards. It is not used as evidence of descent, rather chromosomal fusion explains why, if common descent occurred, humans and chimps have a differing chromosome number.

On extrapolating knowns to unknowns using phylogenetic analysis
Scott Page:
You failed to grasp the significance of the results I cited.
It is not a question of “mice evolving into mice” – it is an issue of the testing of the methodology employed examining hypotheses of descent. The methods employed in molecular phylogenetic analyses were used on a known geneaology[sic] of inbred mouse strains to see whether or not these methods would reproduce the known relationships. Pretty straightforward.

John Paul:
Yes it is pretty straightforward and I am not debating that.

Then what are you debating? Let me guess – since this does not ‘objectively test’ macroevolution to your specifications, it is irrelevant?

Scott Page:
I am saying that when a methodology works on knowns, that it is standard procedure to then be confident that the conclusions based on these methods, when applied to unknowns, is valid.

John Paul:
Sorry, it’s not always that neat.

Great. Provide some real life examples.

Scott Page:
That is how science – and even, I would hope, engineering – works.

John Paul:
Applying knowns in explosives to the atomic bomb (itself an explosive) didn’t work. Do you think I can apply the knowns of climbing Mount Monadnock (3100+ feet to the summit) in Southern New Hampshire to the unknowns of climbing to the summit Mount Everest? One thing for sure I couldn’t apply the knowns of my 11 years of driving in Florida to the unknowns of driving in a New England snowstorm. And applying knowns about hijacking didn’t help out the crew and passengers of 3 flights on September 11. Granted there may be some times it works out, but it is far from being a given. (I can give many more examples if you like)

Please do. Of course, driving in Florida for 11 years is better than never driving at all. Who would do better climbing Everest– the person that climbed Mount Monadnock or someone that had never climbed a mountain before?

I do know (first hand knowledge) that in engineering (applied science) extrapolating knowns to unknowns most often will get you in trouble.

Too bad thast doesn’t hold in research science, from which applied science gets all of its underpinnings.

Scott Page:
Or do you, in designing software, have to continually re-invent the various methods of writing software?

John Paul:
It would all depend on the scenario. There are various software languages, each invented separately and each with its own purpose. I know I can’t apply the knowns of the computer language BASIC to the ‘unknowns’ of C++. I have to learn C++. I can’t then apply the knownsof C++ to the unknowns of some company’s proprietary language.

Red herring. You are comparing different methods of writing software to each other. My question was:
“Or do you, in designing software, have to continually re-invent the various methods of writing software?”
In other words, if you were writing a program in C++, do you have to re-invent C++ each time? Or does the fact that C++ has been used in the past by other program writers sufficient?

I do know (first hand knowledge) that sometimes it is just plain necessary to start all over. Starting from scratch is not to be confused with ‘re-inventing’. The Wright brothers didn’t ‘re-invent’ transportation, they just invented another mode of it. Seeing that there were no other (known) airplanes at the time they had to start from scratch.

Sure, you start form scratch/start over. But you do not re-invent the tools each time. The Wright brothers did not need to reinvent ‘transportation.’ Others had been doing research in gliders. Others had done the R&D in internal combustion engines. They took already established principles (Lord Kelvin be darned) and did something different. That is actually my argument. The equations and models used by the glider enthusiasts of the time (I forget their names) worked well, they just had no propulsion systems. The Wrights did not have to reinvent the wing, or the internal combustion engine. They did not have to reformulate the principles established by Bernoulli and Venturi. They just extrapolated them to meet their needs.

 

[Administrator2]

HELEN

Scott Page stated that “it has (had) long been the creationist’s staple argument that NO evolution occurs…now they need evolution to occur, and plenty of it!” This is a half truth. The argument by creationists has been consistently that the type of evolution which causes one kind of organism, such as a fish, to change into another kind of organism, such as an amphibian or mammal, is impossible and never happened. However evolutionists changed the rules by changing definitions when they began defining variation, which we see everyday, as evolution. We freely admit variation not only happens, but is quite evident. But this was never the argument. To say that suddenly we ‘need’ evolution is presenting a carefully worded untruth. We have never argued variation, and just because evolutionists suddenly decided that, too, was evolution, does not mean we have changed our position at all. Variation and speciation (which used to be defined as “kind” and has changed definitions – and rightly so, by the way – as well). The creationist position regarding the common idea of evolution, or the change from one kind to another, has remained constant despite evolutionists’ changes of definitions.

He also asked when Divine intervention took place. It took place exactly when God says it did in the Bible. We do not have to suppose anything here; that is a matter of revelation from Him to us in writing.

Later he wrote that “the ToE [Theory of Evolution] as a whole does not require a ‘proven’ naturalistic, objectively tested abiogenesis…” This is true. However it is required to presume it, and that is the point. The fact that it cannot be duplicated in any lab under any conditions at any time is a bit of a sticky wicket, but that doesn’t stop the steady faith of evolutionists that evolution, nevertheless, happened.

 

[Administrator2]

JOHN PAUL

John Paul:
…Also I understand the available data and I also understand the grand sweep of the ToE is out of the reach of science and scientific method.

Scott Page:
What, exactly, do you mean by “grand sweep”?

John Paul:
Life, starting out as some unknown population(s) of (simpler) single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate or share genetic materials that led to reproduction, via random variations culled by natural selection, gave rise to life’s diversity, extinct and extant. There doesn’t seem to be any way of objectively testing any of the alleged great transformations required if the ToE was indicative of reality.

Scott Page:
You realize, do you not, that evolution has several aspects to it?

John Paul:
Yes I do and that is why I specify the grand sweep. I also know some aspects are objectively testable and most are not.

Evolution- deception of omission:

http://www.trueorigins.org/to_deception.asp

So when you say “…the ToE is, in fact, scientific and it has in its support data from numerous fields of science”, I see guy lines to a non-existent tower.

Scott Page:
And what, exactly, is this ‘tower’ supposed to represent?

John Paul:
The alleged overwhelming evidence that would indicate the ToE is indicative of reality. The reality is the only evidence for the grand sweep is circumstantial at best, the extrapolation from the known evidence which can’t be verified using scientific method and is only inferred when coupled with the bias of evolutionism.

Scott Page:
See http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignment1.htm and please explain how the patterns of synapomorphy can be ‘explained’ (or inferred) via common creator, given that: 1. it is known that mutations occur; 2. it is known that mutations are passed on via descent.

John Paul:
Let’s see, we only have four possible nucleoside selections for a nucleotide: Adenine (A); Thymine (T); Cytosine (C); and Guanine (G). Not only that but these are restricted as A will only bond with T and C will only bond with G. The bond makes up 1 rung of a DNA ladder (base pair).
Knowing this, statistics would tell us there would be nucleotide sequences that would match. That DNA also appears to be directly related to morphology, that humans & simians share some morphology, it would be safe to say that some nucleotide sequences should match, or be pretty darn close.

Also, as you (obviously) know, serum albumin is a blood protein, so if two differently Created organisms had a similar blood-type (why would a Creator re-invent blood-types for every Created Kind?) one/ some/ most (all?) of the proteins contained in that blood-type should be similar (or even exact copies). Seeing that amino acids make up a protein, we should see a strong resemblance of nucleotide sequence if the protein is being used for the same thing even in different organisms. Again why would a Creator create different proteins that would do the same thing, especially in similar organisms?

That evolution occurs is not the debate, no matter how much you (all evolutionists) want to make it the debate.

Scott Page:
I do not think that this is a correct representation. It has (had) long been the creationist’s staple argument that NO evolution at all occurs. … now they need evolution to occur, and plenty of it!

John Paul:
Just so we are all clear about this--- Carolus Linnaeus (Karl von Linne, 1707-1778) was a prominent Swedish physician and botanist. He was also a Creationist and just happens to be the man responsible for our classification system (started with binomial nomenclature- Genus species). At first he thought that the species were the forms that were Created, but later changed that to the genera level. So Creationists have known for over 200 years that evolution occurs.

Creationists generally do not like using the word evolution because of the confusion caused by the above mentioned deception. So instead of saying evolution Creationists use the phrase variations within/ of the Created Kind. The main ‘problem’ is the word evolution can be used in several contexts (as you noted) and just because there is a change in allele frequency over time doesn’t equate to the grand sweep of the ToE.

Creationists have known for many years that just because evolution occurs doesn’t mean life’s diversity owes its existence to some unknown genetically simpler population(s) of organisms.

John Paul:
Now THAT is a red-herring. My questions covered more than abiogenesis and I never stated abiogenesis was a pillar of the ToE.

Scott Page:
I never wrote that you stated such a thing.

John Paul:
The following are your words: “ Please produce documentation that abiogenesis is the pillar of the ToE that you seem to be making out to be.”

I rest my case.

Scott Page:
However, that you think this is obvious from what you have been writing, for if you did not think that abiogenesis was a ‘deal breaker’ for ToE – the ‘grand sweep’ – I can see no reason whatsoever for your statements:
“Then the ToE is out of the realm of science and out of reach of scientific method.”
“…and I also understand the grand sweep of the ToE is out of the reach of science and scientific method…”
since these were in response to my statements about abiogenesis.

John Paul:
If you were responding to me (which obviously you were) I was talking about all the questions I posted and therefore any response that wasn’t directly indicated would be viewed in that scope. Also from your own words:
Scott Page:
As for the ‘questions’ posed to evolutionists, they are largely of the type that there will probably be no answers for, as they seem to be in the realm of the origin and very early diversification of life.
It is clear you knew the subject covered more than abiogenesis. Or did you fail to read my questions?

I know the difference between abiogenesis and the ToE. I am also realizing why evolutionists try to distance one from the other. I never said, or thought, abiogenesis was a “deal-breaker” for the ToE. It is a “deal-breaker” for materialistic naturalists.

Scott Page:
Abiogenesis may very well be “out of the reach of science”. However, as the ToE as a whole does not require a ‘proven’ naturalistic, objectively tested abiogenesis, your ‘grand sweeping’ claims are quite beside the point.

John Paul:
Anytime you would like to answer my questions pertaining to evolution would be fine by me. Seeing that there isn’t any evidence for progenotes I don’t see how any alleged evolutionary step involving them can be objectively tested.

The point is life exists. In lieu of what we do know about life to say it is unscientific to infer or conduct research into the possibility that it is here by direct (intelligent) intervention is to place unnecessary & unwarranted limits on science itself. Never mind the limits that are being placed on knowledge and the pursuit thereof.

On the alleged whale evolution, specifically the alleged femur.
So that we are clear, I cited Britannica because I wanted to make sure of the terminology being used. If you go back and read I went on to ask if Scott had another definition. I really wanted to know why anyone would say that particular bone in a whale is a femur.

2. Yes, Scott, spiders do have femurs:
[snip links to insect & spider exoskeleton anatomy]

Scott Page:
Well, I stand corrected. I am not, afterall, an entomologist.

John Paul:
Neither am I. I knew Britannica was right from what I learned in high school biology, some 28 years ago. However I did use the Internet to verify it before posting it. Ya never know what can change in 28 years.

What is inexcusable is that you would rather blast Britannica and/or a Creationist instead of taking 2 minutes to type spider anatomy (or insect anatomy) into a search engine and do a little research. I’m not an anatomist and I knew spiders & insects had femurs.

Scott Page:
Of course, I DO know that a FEMUR is NOT a “limb or appendage.” Check out your spider links – not one of the them shows a femur as an appendicular entity unto itself. A femur is, contrary to your preferred source of anatomical knowledge, part of a limb. There is a difference between a part and a whole.

John Paul:
Grin… Not if the part is the whole, as in a human without a lower leg. If a spider was missing the part of its leg lower than the femur, would the femur (the only remaining part be a limb or appendage? Sure it would.

As a matter of fact the link YOU linked to pertaining to whales that got us down this tangent referred to what YOU called a femur as “hind limbs”.

Scott (earlier on page 2):
Funny - I have read that Minke whales have rudimentary pelvi and femurs embedded in their abdominal wall musculature.

The forelimbs are specialized to form flippers, and the hind limbs and pelvis are extremely small and do not normally extend out of the body wall of the animal.

(bold added)

So it appears YOUR reference thinks that this alleged femur is a limb. Or is the whole leg still there with the femur just being part of it?

John Paul:
I was unaware that I said the femur had to be related to a leg.

Scott Page:
I don’t recall writing that you had. Please, point it out for me.

John Paul:
This sentence would have something to do with what I wrote:
” I would dare say that such an arrangement – the presence of a femur in this fin/limb assemblage – has nothing to do with a leg.”

There would be no other apparent reason for you to say that.

Scott Page:
Your entire argument on this topic seems to be your own personal dislike of the bones in whales being called femurs.

John Paul:
Your entire argument seems to be your personal dislike for Creationists and your willingness to protect your dogma at any cost, as well as your like for talking in the same way you accuse Wells, ReMine & Sarfati.

Scott Page:
My point above should have been obvious – the single bony element of the stylopodium of a tetrapod is called a femur.

John Paul:
What should have been obvious is that I am challenging you on that, especially when it comes to whales.

Scott Page:
Tetrapod refers to the number of appendages.

John Paul:
Tetra(four)pod(foot). What are the four pods of a whale? How about a porpoise?

Scott Page:
Not all appendages are weight bearing, not all are legs or arms.[ So no assumption of a ‘leg’ need be warranted in calling the bones in question ‘femurs.’ (ignoring, of course, the fossil and developmental evidence for the sake of discussion here).

John Paul:
Apparently not all appendages are appendages at all.

The only reason I referred to legs above is because the alleged ancestor of the whale (Ambulocetus) had them and that appears to be the only reason for calling the specified bone on whales a femur.

Scott Page:
Erroneous, as the Kardong quote indicates.

John Paul:
The quote about the thigh?

From Kardong’s “Vertebrates”, 2nd Ed., 1998. In the section on the basic parts of the appendicular skeleton:
“The limb region closest to the body is the stylopodium, with a single element: humerus of the upper arm, femur of the thigh.”

Does a whale have a thigh?

Scott Page:
I did not realize that it was my charge to provide you specifically with a way to ‘objectively test’ the hypothesis that whales have what deserve to be called femurs. – a way to objectively test that what is seen in whales was once a fully functional rear limb used to walk on land.

John Paul:
You made the claim that bone was a femur, it’s up to you to support that claim.

Scott Page:
I am not an expert on whale evolution. I am not a genetic engineer. I cannot provide you with the ‘objective’ tests that you seek to these questions.

John Paul:
I understand that. Most scientists assume someone else has done the proper research in their specific field. However all of the great transformations required if the ToE is indicative of reality are assumed because of the bias the ToE is indicative of reality.

Scott Page:
But I am still waiting to see YOUR methods to ‘objectively test’ the various things you apparently believe to be true…

John Paul:
If what I believed could be objectively tested it would no longer be a belief. BTW, I don’t want my beliefs taught as dogma in a science classroom using public funding.

On chromosomal fusion- including guenons

Even though Scott made the charge I did not answer his guenon segment, the following shows I did:

As for the number of chromosomes an organism has in relation to other organisms as the basis for relationships, until we decipher the genome of the organisms being compared, each case would have to be looked at separately, using various methods. After all humans with Down Syndrome may have an extra chromosome (not all people with Down have the extra chromosome) but they are still human. IOW, with our current understanding, chromosome number alone may not be enough to determine a relationship of descent with modification. But if evolutionists are going to continue use the chromosomal fusion argument as evidence for common descent (human/ apes) they had better find a way to objectively test that premise.

Guenon facts:

http://www.mindysmem.org/guenon.html

Taking a look at guenons specifically we would have to know if the chromosome number remained the same throughout each particular species. If it does and the only difference in the number of chromosomes is between different species, it would be logical to infer [/i] ”That chromosomal fusions/splittings/rearrangements are paramount in the microevolution of these guenons”[/I], until we have direct evidence to the contrary.

Seeing that guenons are hybridizing in the wild it would be interesting if we have noted each parent’s genome and the genome of the resulting union. Has this been tried in a lab? Has this been done with any organisms that have a differing chromosome number, yet appear in our taxonomy as the same species or under the same genus?

Also what would have to be determined is, was the (alleged) event (chromosomal fusion/ splitting/ rearrangement) a random event or was it directed (not by a higher entity but by the organism itself which sensed a changing environment and reacted to it, just like it was designed to do).

John Paul:
It would appear you are guilty of doing what you accuse Walter ReMine of doing. If we don’t know what the alleged common ancestor is how the heck can we know random mutations culled by natural selection would be enough to give rise to its alleged descendants?

Scott Page:
I am? The evidence is that evolution occurred. You not only admit that, but have stated that to imply that creationists don’t think this is deceptive. But for some reason, the evolution stops at certain points. For that caveat, the creationist offers no plausible explanations.

John Paul:
Plausible explanations have been given. The basic explanation is that we observe limits in life so why not to life itself? Also David Plaisted has a plausible explanation pertaining to protein structure, as does Michael Behe (not a Creationist) with irreducible complexity. And we can include Mike Gene who also notes limits exist, Werner Gitt, Lee Spetner and William Dembski on information.

Scott Page:
But you are garbling in toto my accusation directed at ReMine.

John Paul:
Nope, the door swings both ways.

Scott Page:
ReMine claims that 1667 beneficial mutations (plus some number of neutral ones) is not enough to account for human evolution from an apelike ancestor in 10 million years. He does not know what the apelike ancestor was, thus he cannot know how few is too few to account for human evolution.

John Paul:
Beneficial is a relative word. As Dennett so eloquently put it on the PBS series Evolution, ”There is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time.” Obviously it takes much more than beneficial mutations for some ape-like organism to evolve into a human. Also if you don’t know what the alleged common ancestor was there is no way you can say that random mutations culled by natural selection led the diversity we see today.

Scott Page:
I made no explicit claims as to a proposed ancestor. I have no idea what the ancestral primate that gave rise to human and apes was. Nor do I need to know, since genetic evidence indicates that such an ancestor did exist, and that extant apes and humans descended form it.

John Paul:
Of course you don’t need to know. That is how belief systems work. Sometimes it is not that you don’t need to know as much as it is you don’t want to know or will never know because it isn’t indicative of reality.
What is this alleged genetic evidence that such an ancestor did exist? What is the genetic evidence that random mutations culled by natural selection lead to the split and the diversification? Is there any genetic evidence that shows bipedal locomotion can come about via random mutations culled by natural selection starting with an organism that walked on all fours?

Scott Page:
You are conflating disparate ideas – one premised on personal opinion and incredulity, the other on actual data.

John Paul:
Then provide the data. I would wager it is not exclusive to your conclusion.

So now my question would be: What would be an objective test to the hypothesis that humans and apes are descended from some unknown common ancestor?

Scott Page:
Explain exactly what you mean by objective test. Recreating it in a lab? That’s a non-starter – the creationist would use it as evidence for design (see Wysong’s book). DNA evidence is about as objective as you can get. It has already been done.

John Paul:
Recreating it in a lab would be a start, sure it would. Then we could at least analyze what intervention was necessary.
The DNA evidence isn’t very objective if it can be looked at as being evidence for an Intelligent Designer, Common Creator or random mutations culled by natural selection.

Scott Page:
What, again, is the objective test for special creation of humans?

John Paul:
The obvious- that we are very different from other organisms, that we can’t reproduce with other organisms, but the ultimate test will be once we decipher the human genome.
The ToE started because of our ignorance at the molecular level. It has advanced precisely for the same reason, even though what we know today is far more than what was known in Darwin’s time.

On extrapolating knowns to unknowns using phylogenetic analysis

John Paul:
Yes it is pretty straightforward and I am not debating that.

Scott Page:
Then what are you debating? Let me guess – since this does not ‘objectively test’ macroevolution to your specifications, it is irrelevant?

John Paul:
Seeing that macro-evolution is defined as evolution at or above the level species, it is not the debate either.

]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html[/b
quote: Scott Page:
I am saying that when a methodology works on knowns, that it is standard procedure to then be confident that the conclusions based on these methods, when applied to unknowns, is valid.

John Paul:
Sorry, it’s not always that neat.

Scott Page:
Great. Provide some real life examples.

John Paul:
I did. Now I have provided more.

Scott Page:
That is how science – and even, I would hope, engineering – works.

John Paul:
Applying knowns in explosives to the atomic bomb (itself an explosive) didn’t work. … applying knowns about hijacking didn’t help out the crew and passengers of 3 flights on September 11. Granted there may be some times it works out, but it is far from being a given. (I can give many more examples if you like)

Scott Page:
Please do.

John Paul:
How many more do you require? I would bet 1,000 wouldn’t be enough.

Scott Page:
Of course, driving in Florida for 11 years is better than never driving at all.

John Paul:
You missed the point. The point is applying the knowns of driving in Florida to the unknowns of driving in a New England snow storm would most likely get that person in an accident. A person with no driving experience, driving in a New England snowstorm may just drive slow enough and avoid an accident. The person with experience driving, but not in a snowstorm, may feel that experience will aid in this new experience and in applying that knowledge not be able to avoid an accident.

Scott Page:
Who would do better climbing Everest– the person that climbed Mount Monadnock or someone that had never climbed a mountain before?

John Paul:
Again you miss the point. Climbing Mount Monadnock would not prepare a person to climb Mount Everest.

Here are some more examples:
Applying the knowns of driving an automatic would ruin a standard shift automobile.

Do you think extrapolating the knowns of taking care a pet goldfish would prepare someone for the unknowns of caring for a pet horse?

I’ll tell you one thing, the knowns of piloting a ship did not apply to the unknowns of piloting the Titanic.

The knownsof playing computer games don’t apply to the unknowns of writing them.

I wonder how far the Japanese got when the tried to apply the knowns of code-cracking to the unknowns of Dine (Navajo language). {movie plug}

Jean Baptiste Lamark once (falsely) extrapolated the knowns of acquired traits to the unknowns of inherited traits.

How about applying the knowns of life to the unknowns of death?

Or even the knowns of observing organisms arise from decaying organic material to the unknown of spontaneous generation?

I do know (first hand knowledge) that in engineering (applied science) extrapolating knowns to unknowns most often will get you in trouble.

Scott Page:
Too bad thast doesn’t hold in research science, from which applied science gets all of its underpinnings.

John Paul:
Science always has and always will have failures. Research science can only go as far as the current knowledge and technology. Back in Darwin’s day the cell was thought of as a “blob of protoplasm.” This ignorance allowed those scientists to extrapolate that since cells were so simple it would be easy for them to evolve. Sequencing the human genome hasn’t allowed us to decipher it, but it is a good step in that direction.
More often than not a hypothesis is shot down because of falsely extrapolating knowns to unknowns.
Research is part of research & development. Like I said I know first hand that extrapolating knowns to unknowns isn’t as neat as you would have us believe, not in the real world anyway. IOW I don’t care what appears to work on paper as that is just part of the process.

Scott Page:
Or do you, in designing software, have to continually re-invent the various methods of writing software?

John Paul:
It would all depend on the scenario. There are various software languages, each invented separately and each with its own purpose. I know I can’t apply the knowns of the computer language BASIC to the ‘unknowns’ of C++. I have to learn C++. I can’t then apply the knownsof C++ to the unknowns of some company’s proprietary language.

Scott Page:
Red herring. You are comparing different methods of writing software to each other.

John Paul:
Then your question is ambiguous.

Scott Page:
My question was:

“Or do you, in designing software, have to continually re-invent the various methods of writing software?”

In other words, if you were writing a program in C++, do you have to re-invent C++ each time? Or does the fact that C++ has been used in the past by other program writers sufficient?

John Paul:
Sorry those are not the same. But yes depending upon the scenario, the methods may not be the same even if the language was the same. For example a C++ program that I would download into a PROM that contains start-up diagnostics for a computer would not be the same as a C++ program that would run an ATM. They may not even use the same libraries. So yes in that sense any C++ program may have to be ‘re-invented’. Also another programmer may use a different method than I for both programs. That is how one of my professors used to tell if someone copied a program from someone else instead of writing it from scratch.

Scott Page:
Sure, you start form scratch/start over. But you do not re-invent the tools each time.

John Paul:
Those of you that have worked on cars, boats, bikes, motorcycles or anything mechanical as much as I have know that some applications take special tools, tools designed for one and only one function. So yes sometimes it is necessary to invent/ re-invent new tools. Do you think all the different wrenches currently used were all invented at the same time?

Scott Page:
They did not have to reformulate the principles established by Bernoulli and Venturi. They just extrapolated them to meet their needs.

John Paul:
Sorry, the Wright brothers had to do more than extrapolation. If it were so easy as to just extrapolate they wouldn’t have had to go through so much testing (trial & error).
The following is from Wilbur: http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/WrBr/Aeronautical.html

As long ago as 1884 a machine weighing 8,000 pounds demonstrated its power both to lift itself from the ground and to maintain a speed of from 30 to 40 miles per hour, but failed of success owing to the inability to balance and steer it properly. This inability to balance and steer still confronts students of the flying problem, although nearly eight years have passed. When this one feature has been worked out, the age of flying machines will have arrived, for all other difficulties are of minor importance.

snip

The balancing of a gliding or flying machine is very simple in theory. It consists in causing the center of gravity to coincide with the center of pressure. But in actual practice there seems to be an almost boundless incompatibility of temper which prevents their remaining peaceably together for a single instant, so that the operator, who in this case acts as a peacemaker, often suffers injury to himself while attempting to bring them together. If a wind strikes a vertical plane, the pressure on that part to one side of the center will exactly balance that on the other side, and the part above the center will balance that below. But if the plane be slightly inclined, the pressure on the part nearest the wind is increased and the pressure on the other part decreased, so that the center of pressure is now located, not in the center of the surface, but a little toward the side which is in advance. If the plane be still further inclined the center of pressure will move still farther forward. and if the wind blow a little to one side it will also move over as if to meet it.

I’m not sure extrapolating from Bernoulli would get the job done :

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bernnew.html

[ July 10, 2002, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Administrator ]