Questions for Evolutionists

SCOTT PAGE

As much of ‘John Paul’s’ last post was tangential and did not add much to the discussion at hand, I will respond only to those issues which seemed substantive.

Please explain how one would go about objectively testing an historic event(s). We cannot – and need not - replicate JFK’s assassination to understand that it occurred – to objectively test the notion that the president was assassinated. As I indicated previously, there is no way to objectively test abiogenesis , and I will append the alleged great transformations, to the creationist’s satisfaction. Any such testing had been pre-rejected by Whysong in the early 1970’s. Indeed, Wysong for some reason believed that “life” had already been created in the lab (testing abiogenesis?), but claimed that this was, in fact, evidence for Design rather than naturalistic abiogenesis.
Therefore, I see no reason to even pursue this line of reasoning and research

Please provide the documentation that DNA is or appears to be directly related to morphology. This is a common creationist mantra, yet none have been able to provide any sort of support for this. Why, for example, should the DNA sequences for blood proteins match due to morphological similarities? There is no logical reason for that other than descent.

You did not even attempt to address the issues I suggested. I asked:

“…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.

Your replies above did not deal with this at all. Perhaps I should explain – a synapomorphy is a unique shared locus between individuals (typically of differing taxa). For example, John Paul has unique mutations in his genome that are shared with members of his family, and some of these can be traced back to his ancestors. John Paul has them because mutations are heritable. Had you actually followed the link and looked at the actual data, you would see clearly definable patterns of such ‘shared mutations’ across species. The patterns observed in the data at the link match quite nicely evolutionary hyotheses of descent. Coincidence? No.
The creationist claims that it can be logically interpreted as evidence of a Common Creator using a Common Design. And putting patterns of synapomorphy into the taxa – patterns that mimic evolutionary hypotheses of descent – apparently just for fun?

The pectoral fins represent the forelimbs. The vestigial pelvi-associated bones are the hindlimbs.

See http://imiloa.wcc.hawaii.edu/krupp/BIOL101/present/lcture15/sld034.htm
Embryology is very interesting…

In the embryo, yes. (note: A limb bud contains all of the primordial necessary for a limb to develop, including a ‘thigh’)

This is at best tangential. The guenons in questions are far more similar morphologically than are humans and chimps, yet their chromosome numbers can differ by 6. If what you believe has merit – that chromosomal fusions and rearrangements are in fact very important in evolution (were it true, of course), then it stands to reason that the guenons in question should be worlds apart morphologically, if not behaviorally as well.

You can start by looking at the data in the link I provided before.

Again, I cannot provide you with the answers that you would possibly accept on these ultra-specific challenges. Therefore, you have an out. Perhaps you or one of your creation scientist contacts can tell us what genes affect such things as bipedal locomotion and your challenge can be taken up by the proper authorities. 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.

Yet it cannot rationally be done as you describe. As I have already explained, if one follows logically from observable premises (mutations occur and can be passed on) to analyses of sequence data, only one conclusion can logically be reached. In order for alternative conclusions to be drawn, one has to insert Divine caveat and whim into the mix. This may be theologically satisfying, but scientifically it is a dead end.

Those are not tests, by any stretch of the imagination. They are observations. The same criteria can be applied to pretty much ANY other organism.

What do you mean ‘decipher’? Are you claiming that we do not understand the genetic code or something? I know that you have not been following this, but evidence, in fact, continues to accumulate that evolutionary hypotheses of descent (and other things) are correct. Direct sequence analyses have continues to verify earlier estimates and conclusions drawn form DNA-DNA hybridization studies. Creationists have been claiming for some time now that information gleaned from the HGP will sound the death knell for evolution. I’m listening, but hearing nothing.

[ July 16, 2002, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

JOHN PAUL

Scott Page:
As much of ‘John Paul’s’ last post was tangential and did not add much to the discussion at hand, I will respond only to those issues which seemed substantive.

John Paul:
Impressive. The evolutionist cuts his losses and initiates damage control in one sentence.

Scott Page:
Please explain how one would go about objectively testing an historic event(s).

John Paul:
That is the whole point and that is why most of the ToE is out of the realm of scientific method, therefore not scientific. And yes I agree the door swings both ways.

Also archaeology & anthropology help us verify history (documented or not) but only to an extent.

Scott Page:
We cannot – and need not - replicate JFK’s assassination to understand that it occurred – to objectively test the notion that the president was assassinated.

John Paul:
The fact JFK was assassinated hasn’t helped us find who did it. Science and eyewitness testimony shows the Warren commission’s conclusion was a joke. If it wasn’t for science & observation Lee Harvey is guilty as sin as the lone assassin.

Scott Page:
As I indicated previously, there is no way to objectively test abiogenesis , and I will append the alleged great transformations, to the creationist’s satisfaction. Any such testing had been pre-rejected by Whysong in the early 1970’s. Indeed, Wysong for some reason believed that “life” had already been created in the lab (testing abiogenesis?), but claimed that this was, in fact, evidence for Design rather than naturalistic abiogenesis.

John Paul:
Does Whysong represent all Creationists? Does that mean if I can find an evolutionist that says abiogenesis is part of the ToE it makes it so? Mine is from the 1960s.

And as I had replied and will repeat: Recreating it in a lab would be a start, sure it would. Then we could at least analyze what intervention was necessary.
At least by re-creating it in a lab would show it was possible. You can’t even do that.

Scott Page:
Therefore, I see no reason to even pursue this line of reasoning and research.

John Paul:
I understand why you feel that way. Better off leaving it alone. Sooner or later people are going to wake up and demand real science be taught in science class and leave the philosophizing for some other class.

Scott Page:
Please provide the documentation that DNA is or appears to be directly related to morphology. This is a common creationist mantra, yet none have been able to provide any sort of support for this.

John Paul:
Grin… The theory of evolution tells us that or do you think our morphology is similar to the alleged starting population(s)? The ToE tells us that changes in the genome (DNA) led to the changes in the organism that led to the diversity we observe. If DNA isn’t responsible for those changes the ToE needs to be rewritten.

Scott Page:
Why, for example, should the DNA sequences for blood proteins match due to morphological similarities? There is no logical reason for that other than descent.

John Paul:
Again you misrepresent what I posted. Continue reading:

Scott Page:
You did not even attempt to address the issues I suggested. I asked:

“…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:

I know what synapomorphy is. That mutations occur and may get passed on doesn’t mean humans and chimps share a common ancestor. That similar organisms share similar DNA sequences is evidence for a common design. I know this for a fact. You don’t go reinventing when there is no need to do so. If the primates in the study all had similar blood types then it would stand to reason that some proteins would have similar structure, therefore similar amino acid layout and thus similar nucleotide sequences. Similar nucleotide sequences, similar function could mean similar areas prone to mutations that can be tolerated.

As for apparent similar mutations, again given that we have a restricted selection of possibilities for change to occur, it could be more of a coincidence than it is coinciding. Do you know what these mutations do, why would they be selected and become fixed?

Why don’t we look at the differing proteins and figure out how they could have evolved that way?

Like I said & shown before- extrapolating knowns to unknowns isn’t as neat as you want us to believe.

Scott Page
The creationist claims that it can be logically interpreted as evidence of a Common Creator using a Common Design. And putting patterns of synapomorphy into the taxa – patterns that mimic evolutionary hypotheses of descent – apparently just for fun?

John Paul:
They only mimic the evolutionary hypotheses of descent because of your bias towards evolutionism. Like I said similar organisms, with similar blood would have similar blood proteins. Why create or design a different protein for every organism? This confusing of the 2 models is what happens when alleged predictions are in reality post-dictions.

Scott Page:
The pectoral fins represent the forelimbs. The vestigial pelvi-associated bones are the hindlimbs.

John Paul:
You mean the alleged vestigial pelvi-associated bones. They do not connect like any other vertebrae’s femur does.

Scott Page:
See http://imiloa.wcc.hawaii.edu/krupp/BIOL101/present/lcture15/sld034.htm
Embryology is very interesting…

John Paul:
Yes, I know it allows the evolutionist’s imagination run wild.
We aren’t discussing whale embryos. We are discussing whales. I remember when evolutionists used to say (or do they still say it?) that human embryos have gill slits.

Scott Page:
In the embryo, yes. (note: A limb bud contains all of the primordial necessary for a limb to develop, including a ‘thigh’)

John Paul:
Again we are not discussing whale embryos.

Scott Page:
This is at best tangential. The guenons in questions are far more similar morphologically than are humans and chimps, yet their chromosome numbers can differ by 6. If what you believe has merit – that chromosomal fusions and rearrangements are in fact very important in evolution (were it true, of course), then it stands to reason that the guenons in question should be worlds apart morphologically, if not behaviorally as well.

John Paul:
It doesn’t stand to reason. No one ever said that chromosome number would give you morphology that is world’s apart. (it could but until we can test such a premise we won’t know) However it would be logical to infer chromosome difference means something if the only difference in the number of chromosomes is in different species. That much should be obvious.

Scott Page:
You can start by looking at the data in the link I provided before.

John Paul:
I did and like I said the same evidence is used to infer a Common Creator.

Scott Page:
Again, I cannot provide you with the answers that you would possibly accept on these ultra-specific challenges. Therefore, you have an out.

John Paul:
That’s the rub. If evolutionists can’t tell us what part(s) of the genome allows for bipedal locomotion then how can they be so sure it evolved via random mutations (culled by natural selection) starting in the alleged ancestor’s genome? As I have stated evolutionists are too busy telling us it did happen without even knowing if it can. That is NOT science.

Scott Page:
Yet it cannot rationally be done as you describe. As I have already explained, if one follows logically from observable premises (mutations occur and can be passed on) to analyses of sequence data, only one conclusion can logically be reached. In order for alternative conclusions to be drawn, one has to insert Divine caveat and whim into the mix. This may be theologically satisfying, but scientifically it is a dead end.

John Paul:
That mutations occur and can be passed on does NOT mean that all we observe owes it common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate. As I have already explained & shown, extrapolating knowns to unknowns doesn’t always work.
The only rational basis for the ToE is to exclude ID and Special Creation a priori. Despite what you say neither Special Creation or ID is a scientific dead end. The fact that you would say such a thing shows your lack of understanding of both.

Scott Page:
Those are not tests, by any stretch of the imagination. They are observations. The same criteria can be applied to pretty much ANY other organism.

John Paul:
Grin… Observations are part of scientific method. And yes that is part of how we would determine which are of the same Kind.

Scott Page:
What do you mean ‘decipher’? Are you claiming that we do not understand the genetic code or something?

John Paul:
From http://www.idthink.net/back/evid/index.html

That is what I mean by decipher. We might understand the syntax but not the message (instructions). I will save discussing the alleged genetic code for a new thread.

Also this is relevant:

Approaching Biology From a Different Angle:
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/approachingbiology041701.htm

Scott Page:
I know that you have not been following this, but evidence, in fact, continues to accumulate that evolutionary hypotheses of descent (and other things) are correct.

John Paul:
I don’t know how you would know such a thing.

Scott Page:
Direct sequence analyses have continues to verify earlier estimates and conclusions drawn form DNA-DNA hybridization studies. Creationists have been claiming for some time now that information gleaned from the HGP will sound the death knell for evolution. I’m listening, but hearing nothing.

John Paul:
Some people can’t see the forest because of the trees-

Human Genome Map Has Scientists Talking About the Divine:

http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/genome021901.htm

Evolution will never die- it will just be rewritten.

 

HELEN

John Paul is right. We have only sequenced the human genome. That is a long shot from deciphering it. We have not even decided how many genes we humans have! Sequence and meaning are very different things.

 

JOHN PAUL

Phylogenic analysis has been offered as an objective method to test descent with modification (as in chimps & humans having a common ancestor being a branch (or part of a branch) that diverges on the evolutionary bush-like tree of life). In that light the following two questions were asked:

1. Do you believe that mutations are heritable?
2. Do you believe that the patterns of such heritable mutations can be used to infer relatedness?

1) Is tricky. Yes mutations are heritable. Neutral, harmful and beneficial, mutations can be passed on. However in sexual reproduction they don’t always get passed on. I’m not as tall as my grandfather was, but I am taller than my parents (were). My father was color-blind, I am not, nor are my sisters and brothers, but I have a nephew that can’t see green (not the Special Agent). However his brother’s vision is OK.

In humans this is evident- not every organism that is born gets a chance to mate and not every mating couple can conceive. No mating or conception no chance of passing on of the DNA. Take an organism born with a beneficial mutation that its parents didn’t have, nor do its siblings. Not only does this organism have to live long enough to reproduce, it has to do so successfully in order just to have a chance of that beneficial mutation being passed on, never mind becoming fixed. Another factor would be having a genetically impaired mate such that any combination would give you offspring less functional than the better parent is (was). You know, basic Punnett Square stuff and Mendelian genetics.

That said, if adaptive mutations were the norm (Dr. Lee Spetner), they would become more readably fixed because they would occur population wide due to the organisms’ DNA reacting directly to environmental pressure(s). However adaptive mutations, unless applied to cleverly written evolutionary algorithm acting with an incrementally sequenced genetic algorithm, couldn’t account for the grand sweep of the theory of evolution.

What we would have to determine is what was it about the alleged shared mutations that allowed them to be fixed in the populations? IOW why were they selected for (kept in the population) over this alleged span of time (5+ millions years)?

2) I don’t think that every person with sickle-cell anemia is related to the first person that got the mutation that caused that disease and was able to pass it on. (Sickle-cell anemia is caused by a point mutation in a specific locus- a substitution of a T for an A in the codon for the sixth amino acid of the beta chain in the human hemoglobin protein. That mutation changes a glutamic acid to a valine.) Is everyone with Downs syndrome related? The same goes for all genetic diseases. Do you think that every person with the same genetic disease is related to each other? That DNA gets passed on to the offspring doesn’t mean chimps and humans share a common ancestor.
As I previously stated “As for apparent similar mutations, again given that we have a restricted selection of possibilities for change to occur, it could be more of a coincidence than it is coinciding.” I would like to change that to most likely be more of a coincidence…

Mutations occurring and getting passed on is just part of the problem. And a mutation getting fixed in a population is another. What the theory of evolution requires is for mutations to accumulate in such a way as to eventually give rise to new structures and organs (assuming of course the alleged starting population(s) didn’t have arms, legs, a spine or a brain). Is there even a way to test if that premise is feasible?

Until we have actual evidence that those great transformations can occur, the evolutionist position that they did occur is a matter of personal belief or disbelief. Evolutionists often accuse others of disbelieving evolution out of personal incredulity. The tables can be turned here too. Evolutionists exhibit personal incredulity that anything other than what they claim at the moment (and the claims change with time) can be true.

[ July 24, 2002, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]