麻豆约拍

A C McIntosh wrote:
鈥淚t is a straightforward case of testable science versus the modern evolutionary 鈥榡ust-so鈥� story telling.鈥�
鈥淏ut natural selection has no power to create new functional structures. It does not increase information and does not build machines which are not there already (either fully developed or in embryonic form).
The principles of thermodynamics even in open systems do not allow a new function using raised free energy levels to be achieved without new machinery. And new machines are not made by simply adding energy to existing machines.......鈥�

I find this "clarification" extremely vague!
Shouldn't any discussion of the relationship between TSLOD and biological systems, reference chloroplasts and the photosynthetic ability of these plant organelles, which harnesses sunlight energy resulting in the splitting of a water molecule, be at least mentioned. I have heard Professor McIntosh never seems to mention this addition of solar energy into this biological system. To my mind this would be a must when discussing any relationship between TSLOD and biological systems.???

鈥淚f anyone was to take an existing chemical machine and produce a different chemical machine which was not there before (either as a sub part or latently coded for in the DNA template) then this argument would have been falsified.鈥�

How about a gradual build up in complexity, and therefore in the properties of simple organic molecules, adding functionality to organic molecules? This would result in more complex biochemical reations I assume.

Quite a coup to get the official response from Andy M on the Will and Testament blog. Unfortunately, I think these comments will simply add fuel to the fire. Any chance of getting a response to these latest comments from Richard Dawkins?

Setting aside for a moment the amusing fact that Andrew McIntosh wrote "I do not on principle enter into any ad hominem attacks..." in one paragraph and then immediately launches an ad hominem attack on evolution by characterizing it as ""just-so" story telling" in the next, I repeat my question which I posed in my entry #109 in the blog called "Andy McIntosh"; in the formation of which chemical bond of a DNA molecule in nature from inert matter is the second law of thermodynamics violated?"

Re post 2 David (Oxford) wrote: "Any chance of getting a response to these latest comments from Richard Dawkins?"

Why? The McIntosh statement speaks for itself! I'm waiting to hear each of your rational responses. I know what Dawkin's position is - I've read his books - what is your response? I can go to Dawkins' website and watch the fun there for myself - please leave him over there.

Re post 3 Mark wrote: "Setting aside for a moment the amusing fact that Andrew McIntosh wrote "I do not on principle enter into any ad hominem attacks..." in one paragraph and then immediately launches an ad hominem attack on evolution".

Mark: Do I need to explain 'ad hominem' to you before we get to discuss the McIntosh statement?

Everyone: While Mark is off looking up one of his dictionaries let me say that I don't see where McIntosh has rejected evolution on 2nd Law grounds or any other grounds for that matter! And I'm not even in his camp on his basic thinking re creationism.

In fact I think what he is saying is he believes that evolution occurs driven by a 'supernatural intelligence' or "GOD" as he calls "IT".

Dawkins says it is driven by the "Energy" of the universe be it 'dark' or 'hidden' or 'observable' or 'whatever' his latest form of 'energy' is.

Beats me what the discussion is about we are back to where I came in - Does God exist? - No he doesn't, Yes he does, no he doesn't, Yes he does ..... I can't prove he does, I can't prove he doesn't, I can't prove .....

But who is disputing evolution? I'm not - can I speak for you PB?

I'm supposed to be the stupid one here (Mark get up off the floor!) so can someone 'dumb me UP, Scotty?'

Listening in peace for enlightenment,

Maureen

Maureen:

You have learned well but then if anyone should know I should :-)

Let鈥檚 talk a little about fundamentalism and humility.

Colin McGinn was educated at Oxford University and writes widely on philosophy and philosophers. In one of his lectures (Timeless Questions: Timeless Approaches) concerning the mind/body problem he made the following points:

鈥淎 dog has a brain and is a fairly intelligent animal yet it can not understand Einstein鈥檚 Theory of Relativity or how to solve quadratic equations.鈥�

What I would say to fundamental scientists, and fundamental metaphoricists, is that we should consider the humble conclusion that as humans there are things (models, metaphors, concepts, etc.) that our brain in its present state of development can not comprehend.

McGinn further states:

鈥淲hy do we suppose that nothing in reality could exist unless it is represented in the human mind? After all, the human mind as it exists is just at one point in its continuous process of evolution. Surely there will be changes in the human mind, in the human brain in the millenia to come. So we shouldn鈥檛 go around thinking that what can be contained in the world, what is real, is limited by what we can understand. Perhaps the reason we have so much difficulty with the mind/body problem is precisely that there is something real out there, something real in our consciousness, something real in our brain, which happens to transcend our ability to discover it, to conceptualize it, to understand it.鈥�

McGinn extended this thought to the problem of free will:

鈥淥n free will we might wonder whether this type of approach, sometimes called 鈥榤ysteriousism鈥�, might help us out with the free will problem. Maybe free will contains something that radically goes beyond our ability to conceive of things. Maybe if we grasp that our theoretical understanding of the mind is a very primitive thing, it really doesn鈥檛 penetrate to the essence and heart of the phenomena, maybe then we would begin to see that free will might be possible it is just that we don鈥檛 have any way of conceiving how it is possible at the present state of our evolution. Things might be real even though they may not be things which we can conceive to be real, that we can make intelligible to ourselves.鈥�

I have stated before in these blogs that any scientist can easily model a 鈥済rand supernatural intelligence鈥� as follows:

Human beings are entities with about 25 thousands genes which gives our species a certain intellectual capacity, understanding, and control over its environment. Humans are both spiritual and material, i.e. there is a mind and a body. Bacteria have fewer genes than humans, viruses even less, and prions (which cause mad cow disease) have even less if any. As we approach zero for the number of genes that an entity possesses one approaches the idea of 鈥榥on life鈥� and 鈥榥on thought鈥�.

Now if we conceptualize going to the other end of the gene spectrum one can anticipate after millions of years of further evolution (if this universe lasts that long) a species will evolve with 8 million genes, or 8 billion genes or, to take the concept to its extreme, a species with an infinite number of genes. When such 鈥榖eings鈥� come into existence (evolve) then they will surely have a greater intellectual capacity, understanding, and control over their environment than humans have now. They will look at us the way I look at my dog 鈥� I love him, I will play with him, go for walks with him etc. but I won鈥檛 discuss algebra, relativity, the existence or non existence of 鈥榙ark energy鈥� with him.

This is a humbling thought. Our intellectual capacity is not yet sufficient for us to understand all things.

And that is why I am both an agnostic scientist and an agnostic Christian 鈥� I am humbled by recognition of the error fundamentalist thinking wreaks on my limited capacity to search for some little bit of knowledge that I know is mine.

Regards,
Michael

But Maureen
Never mind TSLOT for the moment - It's a very difficult topic to be argued by lay people. Anyone (IDiot)who believes in a 6,000 yr old earth can expect absolutely no credibility for any other assertions in science. Full stop.....
But then again he is not making scientific assertions - is he?
...but he is a scientist? - I'm off to a darkened room!

Maureen, as an aside, you don't need to explain the meaning of "ad hominem" to me, you need to explain it to dictionary.com. Apparantly they got it wrong and that's where I got my understanding of it from. Here's their definition;

"1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument."

And here is their reference to the definition of it given in The American Heritage Dictionary;

"Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason"

Of course, the translation of this Latin phrase into American English may be different than into English English, perhaps that is where the misunderstanding lies.

It seems to me that characterizing the theory of evolution by flippantly dismissing it as "modern evolutionary "just-so" story telling" meets that criteria to a tee. Now why don't you give us your source for your definition and tell us why it doesn't. BTW, this is not a metaphor.

As for the matter of substance which you apparantly missed completely; by asserting that the creation of DNA in nature from biologically inert matter violates the second law of thermodynamics, he is saying that life could not have arisen spontaneously as evolution asserts because DNA could only have been originally created by divine intervention; ie. creation by an intelligence...ergo, all life being dependent on DNA could not have arisen spontaneously from a primordial soup and evolution is therefore inconsistant with the natural laws of the universe. At least that is the ID and Creationists' argument.

BTW, that is not a metaphor either.

Congratulations to Will and all the bolggers here for getting McIntosh to reply. As David says, it鈥檚 quite a coup!

OK, two things:

1) 鈥淭he reason of course why this subject of origins will not go away is that there is a scientific case, whether Dawkins likes it or not, which is a challenge to the neo-Darwinian attempts to explain life in terms of common descent.鈥�

Muddled nonsense! The evidence for common descent is massive and overwhelming. It is most certainly not 鈥榡ust so鈥� story telling. Here is a rather good website which outlines just a tiny, tiny piece of the available evidence that can only be rationally interpreted in terms of common descent:

Note that this evidence stands independently of any proposed mechanism for evolutionary change (which most biologists accept is a combination of factors including natural selection, genetic drift etc 鈥� but that is a separate argument). I urge anyone who genuinely wants to see why biologists are so convinced that all life on this planet is related by genealogy to go to this website.

Look Professor McIntosh, if you鈥檙e intellectually honest, you can鈥檛 ignore or dismiss this evidence. If you want to be taken seriously you have to propose an alternative theory that not only explains all this mountain of data, but also predicts new classes of data that are not explicable in terms of common descent. Simply saying 鈥減oof, God did it!鈥� doesn鈥檛 count.

2) McIntosh reiterates his peculiar take on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Here鈥檚 the bottom line: Contrary to creationist propaganda, scientists are not all stick-in-the-muds who cling to their theories like dogma. On the contrary, there is nothing an ambitious scientist wants more than to show a previous theory wrong or at least incomplete. Now if McIntosh is correct, then he has made a profound discovery that will overturn major areas of biology (and chemistry too). Nobel Prizes have been won for less! So my question to Professor McIntosh is simple: Why are you wasting your time saying these things on a religious affairs webblog? Write your theory up properly and submit it to Nature or Science. Go to the annual meetings of the American or European Physical Society and present your ideas to your peers. I鈥檓 serious. After all, you鈥檙e a professor of thermodynamics and that surely carries some kudos. It is certainly possible to modify or even overturn existing scientific paradigms and there are good examples from all branches of science including evolutionary biology (eg, the neutral theory and the endosymbiotic theory come to mind). But you have to do it right! You do it by hard slog at the scientific coal-face and thereby convince your scientific colleagues that you鈥檙e on to something. You most certainly do not do it by whining to your lawyer (as your creationist friends try to do in America) or demanding that you have the right to teach your unproven ideas to school children.

Re post 6 alan watson wrote: "But Maureen, anyone (IDiot) who believes in a 6,000 yr old earth can expect absolutely no credibility for any other assertions in science. Full stop..... But then again he is not making scientific assertions - is he?
...but he is a scientist? - I'm off to a darkened room!"

Alan: Re scientific credibility and religious assertions, take a biography of Isaac Newton with you to a well lit room. "In the Presence of the Creator", Chapter 9 "The Treasures of Darkness" is a good place to start.

Incidentally "IDiot" is a very good example of ad hominem - Mark, are you there?

Still unenlightened.

Peace,
Maureen

Guys

Did I ever mention to any of you that answers in Genesis has a list of bios for over 200 phds and professors who have a creationist outlook, its quite interesting;-

The website also has quite an interesting archive of FAQs, if I hadnt mentioned that either...

;-)

cheers

PB

Re post 6 alan watson wrote: "But Maureen, anyone (IDiot) who believes in a 6,000 yr old earth can expect absolutely no credibility for any other assertions in science. Full stop..... But then again he is not making scientific assertions - is he?
...but he is a scientist? - I'm off to a darkened room!"

Alan: Re scientific credibility and religious assertions, take a biography of Isaac Newton with you to a well lit room. "In the Presence of the Creator", Chapter 9 "The Treasures of Darkness" is a good place to start. Newton鈥檚 religious views can be forgotten but his science remains strong.

Incidentally "IDiot" is a very good (bad) example of ad hominem.

Peace,
Maureen

Maureen, I'm leaving your planet now and going back to earth, my home world. I can only take so much of the surreal at one time, but I will look up at the sky and glance in your direction from time to time, I promise. Perhaps in the distant future, I'll fire up my rocket ship and come back for another visit.

Tony ref post 8

An apparent contradiction in what you are saying is that an ambitious scientist would love to show a previous theory wrong.

Come on Tony, you must know it is not as simple as that. Nobody in any field can just pop up and turn the world on its head. If science or the backers of science are not ready for a breakthrough in a particular field it will make sure it does not happen.

I could give you some practical exmaples but you dont need to go much further that Dawkins' ad hominem attack on ACM on SS and the pressure it has put on Leeds Unversity. I wont accept the suggestion that it was not ad hominem, Dawkins had to be pressed for over an hour to actually answer ACM's question on the show, instead he deliberately aimed to put pressure on ACM's employment. Clever but not intellectualy honest.

And again, even your own post supports my argument; why would any scientist need "kudos" to present a scientific paper if all the person submitting it and those receiving it were interested in was objective scientific truth? balderdash.

As you are portraying both sides of this argument yourself it is hard to see how you can be given the defence of genuine naivete.

So how intellectually honest are you?

PB

Re post 7 Mark wrote: "Maureen, as an aside, you don't need to explain the meaning of "ad hominem" to me, you need to explain it to dictionary.com. Apparantly they got it wrong and that's where I got my understanding of it from. Here's their definition......"

Mark: Lighten up! I'm going to leave you alone for a while - IMHO your skin is way too thin. Maybe I will redo post 9 and take your name off. OK?

Everyone: I promise to keep quiet for a while - I'm very interested to see how the rest of you will respond to McIntosh's statement.

Rational argument please without the ad hominems etc. ;-)

Peace,
Maureen

by the way Tony

as you are obviously up to speed with the mountain of scientific evidence for evolution, post 8

...can you tell why nobody has ever yet managed to find a half evolved feather?

Is this because they "just havent" or could it be because one never existed?

PB

lastly for tonight Tony

You cant fool me, all you have basically said in your entry is this;-

1) There is a lot of evidence for evolution.

2) McIntosh should prove what he has said.

But from what I can see the point McIntosh has made is that evolution cannot be demonstrated, so striclty speaking how can he prove this?

He says a biological machine cannot create a new type of biological machine without new information. And he said nobody has ever demonstrated that in a test.

While you raise fair questionsv
you have actually refused to engage whatsover with ACM on what he has said about this? why is this?

Ad hominem approach?

And as what he has said is being considered news and what you are saying is not, it is only fair you should do just that and give him a straight answer.

Surely there must be some sort of onus on the evolutionists to be able to demonstrate the verifiable test McIntosh is talking about?

If evolution is so rock solid then why doesnt somebody just do this and put ACM in his place??????

Or could it be it really is impossible and the evolutionists will not put their money where their mouths are because of fear?

PB

PB, you keep asking about half feathers. The evolution from reptiles to birds where scales became feathers must have taken place over 65 million years ago before the age of dinosaurs ended with the impact of a meteorite off the Yucatan Peninsula. Neither feathers no scales normally survive that long when exposed to air or water, just bones do. I think someone did find a very well preserved fossil some years back which was a transitional species. It will be rare to find fossil artifacts of this type but by searching enough, scientists do occasionally manage to find things that old and still well enough preserved to study for useful information. No more free lessons for pb you until Andy McIntosh answers my queston about which chemical bond in the natural formation of original DNA would violate the second law of thermodynamics.

And yes, the natural selection of drug resistant mutant variants of viruses and bacteria which resist drugs and their natural selection as the sole survivors which propagate successive generations is how they evolve. At least that's the way I learned it. Why don't you take some courses in basic biology or chemistry and educate yourself? In the US, these are taught in high school.

Maureen wrote
Newton said that Christianity went astray in the 4th century AD, when the first Council of Nicaea propounded erroneous doctrines of the nature of Christ.

But there was a bit of an excuse for his belief in a creator - He did live nearly 150 yrs before Darwin!!

And what about the credibility of a living scientist who thinks the earth is 6,000 yrs? Mac said it - I was there!

McIntosh will point you to Wilder Smith鈥檚 writings which explain his (McIntosh's) positon in more detail. McIntosh's and Wilder's point (which is the subject of his blog) revolves around their belief that the formation of new machinery from existing machinery is the crucial issue in the evolution/creation debate.

Wilder gave a lecture on this very topic. It is entitled "Evolution or Creation". About 10 minutes into the talk Wilder gets to the 'heart of the matter'. The lecture can be found at

It is lecture #3 under Christian viewpoint.

I supply this reference for your information only and it should not be read that I agree or support any of the views expressed.

Regards,
Michael

One must be careful when pontificating on matters of science, that one has the requisite scientific knowledge and understanding to speak authoritatively on the subject. This blog (and preceding ones concerning Andy McIntosh) contains numerous posts hammering a professor of thermodynamics for comments he made on the second law of thermodynamics, though this seems to have degenerated more into a general swipe at the same professor for his views on origins. I question whether those criticising Professor McIntosh are experts in thermodynamics. On the contrary, I suspect that few, if any of those commenting have a level of knowledge on the subject equal to that of Prof McIntosh. True, you don鈥檛 need to be a specialist to comment constructively, and I'm not a specialist in this area of science. But then, I don鈥檛 presume to mock one who is, at best using my own over-simplified explanations, and at worst, regurgitating the arguments of Dawkins et al, who evince a religious zeal in their promotion of atheism, which suggests they have moved away from the realm of true science.

Given the lack of ANY empirical evidence for macroevolution (*still* only a theory), I think a good dose of humility in the pro-Dawkins camp would be appropriate, for, there is much for which Dawkins and his supporters have no satisfactory explanation.

[the above is reposted on this most current blog, with corresponding modification, following the suggestion to move after I had just submitted my comments on the original one!]

How was it a coup? McIntosh was a guest on the original 麻豆约拍 NI Sunday Sequence panel, and it was to 麻豆约拍 NI that he went to defend that appearance. Unless it was a coup to get him in the first place, it's not a coup now. Now, getting Dawkins to attend: that was a coup.

Was this a coup because McIntosh was so reluctant to address any of the criticism regarding his comments in the first place? That should tell us more about McIntosh than it does about the 'coup'. And besides, a coup is usually something worth hearing about. This was no more than a vague repetition which clarified nothing.

As for the cop out in his last sentence, "As I receive much correspondence, I will not be able to enter into extended discussions either here or privately..." no wonder people don't take him seriously. One only needs to listen again to the exchange between him and Dawkins on Sunday Sequence to understand the dynamics of his approach to 'science'.

And finally, McIntosh mentions ad hominem, the most misused phrase in rhetoric. It's worthwhile pointing out that he made the same charge of Dawkins during the course of the programme -- Dawkins ably replied that he was not making ad hominem remarks, he was making them "ad professorium!"

N E
All creationists have a god agenda.

A sizeable minority of evolutionists have belief in a god.

So which group is more likely to have 'moved away from the realm of true science'?

* 20.
* At 11:55 PM on 30 Dec 2006,
* N E wrote:

"This blog (and preceding ones concerning Andy McIntosh) contains numerous posts hammering a professor of thermodynamics for comments he made on the second law of thermodynamics, though this seems to have degenerated more into a general swipe at the same professor for his views on origins. I question whether those criticising Professor McIntosh are experts in thermodynamics."

Shouldn't one also possess adequate basic knowledge about biological, including those of a molecular nature, processes before debating the relationship between these and the TSLOT though?
See my previous post.
I also noticed that some other interesting responses to the Professors post don't seem to have made it across.

N E #20, I think I have the requisite knowledge to ask Andrew McIntosh the question I asked. I've taken enough chemistry courses to ask a question pertinent to his comment about the formation of a chemical structure of a molecule. If you have a technical problem with my question, please tell me explicity what it is here and now. I am sick and tired of people who claim scientific and engineering backgrounds speaking in generalities. If he has the level of expertise you claim he has, then he should have no problem answering it. It is a very simple question which I will repeat again; in the formation of which chemical bond between which two atoms in the structure of the DNA molecule synthesized from biologically inert matter would the second law of thermodynamics be violated unless there were divine intervention? That is the subject, the ONLY subject at issue as far as I am concerned. It lies at the heart of his controversial assertion. Evasions, obfuscations, diversions, analogies, interpretations, metaphors, have no relevance here.

Re post 19 Michael N. Hull wrote:

"Wilder gave a lecture on this very topic. It is entitled "Evolution or Creation". About 10 minutes into the talk Wilder gets to the 'heart of the matter'. The lecture can be found at

It is lecture #3 under Christian viewpoint."

Well he certainly is an interesting and jolly speaker! He managed to hold my attention for the whole 75 minutes. As I understand the Wilder (and thus McIntosh) thesis it is not only the Second Law 'problem' but it also the 'problem' of the reversibility of enzymatic reactions which 'proves' we could not exist without an external intelligent designer.

His discussion of the Huxley/Wilberforce debate was quite charming - he could have made the points quicker but I guess he had to entertain a bit to keep the interest of the audience up. The example of the irreversible versus reversible typewriters seemed an excellent way to explain enzymatic reactions to a lay audience. MNH, you would say it was a good metaphorical example ;-)

I'll not bias the group with my analysis at this point until others have had a chance to see the lecture.

PB: you will love it!

Peace,
Maureen

I'm listening to this Wilder "stuff" and I've managed to get 20 minutes through it. I have only one question. I know you can use horse manure for growing strawberries, but what can possibly be done with this?

Can someone tell me an instance where the second law really could be in danger of being violated? How would the the violation be identified? Would it take the entire universe and perhaps all of the unknown dimensions to figure out if there were a possible violation or not?

So let me get this right, nothing can violate the second law, all events that happen by chance occurance will eventually just appear to be temporary local space-time violations.

However, taken all together, everything must get scrambled together, but in our little corner of the Univwerse order is allowable for as long of a temporary period as is needed to make unguided chance evolution credible or even possible.

Oh, I see it now, It's perfectly clear to me. Time and chance are on the side of evolution even though they are not on the same side as the second law. These two just must not be on speaking terms with each other.

But then how can one claim that the second law has any merit at all if apparent observations can't disprove it.

Isn't that called unfalsifiable science?

20.
At 11:55 PM on 30 Dec 2006,
N E wrote:
鈥淭rue, you don鈥檛 need to be a specialist to comment constructively, and I'm not a specialist in this area of science. But then, I don鈥檛 presume to mock one who is, at best using my own over-simplified explanations, and at worst, regurgitating the arguments of Dawkins et al, who evince a religious zeal in their promotion of atheism, which suggests they have moved away from the realm of true science.鈥�
My arguments came from a massive amount of research findings supporting the tenets of evolution and well the research supporting the predictability value of its tenets. Shall we start discussing the work of a quite a number of Nobel Laureates. Perhaps you may have heard of Walter Gerhring and/or his lab?
By the way I'd hadn't really heard of Professor Dawkins before these YEC/ID challenges to reputable scientific finding. I realize that they challengers would have everyone think that any of the biological sciences (medicine is quite heavily tied to molecular biology/microbiology by the way!) are some sort of religious movement to bring this 'so called 'debate down to their own level. You, yourself, fail your own criteria for comment, by attacking the person and not the science in the above quote!
鈥淕iven the lack of ANY empirical evidence for macroevolution (*still* only a theory), I think a good dose of humility in the pro-Dawkins camp would be appropriate, for, there is much for which Dawkins and his supporters have no satisfactory explanation.鈥�
Well, as I said above, I only became aware of Professor Dawkins after witnessing the number and viciousness of the unsubstantiated attacks on a couple of hundred years of scientific (of the reputable peer reviewed and tested kind that is) of those who basically claim that all scientific facts are the work of an invisible supernatural being. I have not read Riochard Dawkins books, and bow down to no dogma belief. I've never thought of myself as an atheist ( a term commonly used by the theists to insinuate immorality and belief in some type of creed?), but simply as a non-believer that an omnipresent being controls everything that happens in the world. As for that tired old warn out still only a theory claim, do you actually know the definition of a scientific theory. Antibiotics are designed using the tenets of this theory* as are many other medical procedures and treatments. Seems to be working OK.
Perhaps you would also like to discuss the non-evolutionary basis underlying genetic diseases with me?
My last point (I've been over all of these some old repetitive *arguments* before) is regarding your attack on Dawkin's supporters and their lack of humility. I had to smile at that, I suggest you visit any one of the forums on the Richard Dawkins site and witness some of the ouright vitriol and garbage spouted there by his opponents.
Oh, by the way, did I mention Walter Gerhing ans his lab? No less than six Nobel Prize Laureates came out of this lab! Google his name.
Excuse the length of the post, but, I've have seen no argument here that
warrants my time.

In post 26 Mark wrote: "I'm listening to this Wilder "stuff" and I've managed to get 20 minutes through it. I have only one question. I know you can use horse manure for growing strawberries, but what can possibly be done with this?"

I love this guy - he gets one quarter of the way through something and he's off and running with the scatological comments.

I can hardly wait to see what comes flying at us once he gets to the end!

Peace (and keep reading Mark)
Maureen

Here is a delicious article on the subject:

[b]The Blind Watch-Watchers or Smell the Cheese: An Intelligent and Delicious Argument for Intelligent Design in Evolution[/b]

You are welcome to participate the debate on the article at:

Peace,
Edip Yuksel

I've managed to do the impossible, I've endured the unendurable. I've suffered the insufferable. I hope I never have to listen to him utter one more word again. Were I to have the misfortune to sign up for a class and find that he was the professor who walked in to give the lecture, I would have to leave and transfer to something else immediately. He could never teach me anything...even if given infinite time and an irreversible typewriter he accidentally managed to get something right. I could hardly wait to slot him out. I'd sooner take my chances with the monkies.

Oh hello PB, I thought you might turn up鈥�

I have previously stated that I think McIntosh is confused on the SLOT and its relationship to evolution. There is nothing in his latest post that changes my mind. For example, he says:

鈥淭he principles of thermodynamics even in open systems do not allow a new function using raised free energy levels to be achieved without new machinery.鈥�

As I have previously said, I think this is misdirection. You will find no thermodynamics textbooks that talk about such 鈥榥ew machinery鈥�.

He also says:

鈥淏ut natural selection has no power to create new functional structures. It does not increase information and does not build machines which are not there already (either fully developed or in embryonic form)鈥�.

This is flat wrong. There are plenty of known cases where random mutation and cumulative selection can be shown to build new functional structures. To illustrate the principle, I鈥檒l deliberately choose something a bit different that you may not even realise is an example of this process. When you are infected with say a virus, special cells of your immune system called lymphocytes quickly produce proteins called antibodies that bind very tightly and very specifically just to the virus and nothing else and thereby help neutralise it. Now here鈥檚 the weird thing. Your immune system has the potential to produce an essentially unlimited number of different antibodies that are similarly specific to whatever happens to be presented to the immune system at any given time. How does the immune system 鈥榢now鈥� how to produce just the right type of highly specific antibody in response to whatever pathogens happen to appear in such an unpredictable way? Like all proteins, antibodies are encoded by genes (made of DNA). It turns out that there are several hundred different antibody genes arranged in pieces. During lymphocyte development, these genes are randomly scrambled, cut and pasted, chopped and changed and further mutated so that every lymphocyte (in a large population of lymphocytes) produces a different randomly generated antibody protein. Those lymphocytes that happen to produce antibody capable of binding pathogen divide and produce daughter cells that hence produce the same type of antibody as their parent cells. This is a Darwinian process of random mutation and cumulative selection. In a matter of days, your immune system quite literally evolves completely new antibodies THAT HAVE NEVER EXISTED BEFORE and that bind precisely to whatever pathogen happens to be present. It seems magical, but it isn鈥檛 - just the inexorable power of Darwinian logic.

re McIntosh鈥檚 reluctance to present his ideas to his peers:

鈥淐ome on Tony, you must know it is not as simple as that. Nobody in any field can just pop up and turn the world on its head. If science or the backers of science are not ready for a breakthrough in a particular field it will make sure it does not happen.鈥�

This is a conspiracy theory view of how science works. In fact the history of science is full of examples of scientists who have successfully overturned conventional theories. I mentioned two examples from evolutionary biology. Here鈥檚 an example from my own field of biochemistry. Forty-odd years ago, there was a major unsolved problem in understanding how the energy of foodstuffs was conserved in the chemical bonds of a molecule called ATP. This was and is a fundamental problem. The prevailing theory at the time was widely believed, but was running into problems. A biochemist called Peter Mitchell proposed a radical new theory that was totally different. At first Mitchell鈥檚 ideas were not widely accepted, and he certainly didn鈥檛 have an easy ride. But 鈥� and here鈥檚 the crucial point 鈥� he argued his corner with his peers, he did experiments and he published the results of his experiments in peer-reviewed journals. Importantly, his theory made explicit predictions that the other theory didn鈥檛 and when these predictions were confirmed by further experiments, others scientists started to listen. Guess what? Mitchell eventually won the Nobel Prize and the essential core of his theory is now accepted as correct and taught to undergraduate biochemistry and medical students. My point is this: I have already told you why I think McIntosh is wrong about the TSLOT. But if he is after all right, then he鈥檚 made a major discovery. If so, then like any serious scientist he should be forcefully presenting his case TO HIS PEERS in the technical scientific journals and at specialist scientific meetings. Significantly he鈥檚 not doing this. Instead he prefers to write letters to newspapers and send DVDs to over-worked school teachers. To be blunt, the difference between Peter Mitchell and Andy McIntosh is that Mitchell was the real thing and McIntosh isn鈥檛.

鈥渂y the way Tony
as you are obviously up to speed with the mountain of scientific evidence for evolution, post 8
...can you tell why nobody has ever yet managed to find a half evolved feather?
Is this because they "just haven鈥檛" or could it be because one never existed?鈥�

Yawn鈥︹�here is no such thing as a 鈥榟alf-evolved feather鈥� or a half-evolved anything else 鈥� that betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution (evolution is not 鈥榮triving鈥� for any distant goal). If however you are genuinely interested in learning what we do know about the evolution history of feathers see here:

And here:

And here:

And here:

And a non-technical summary (including other Evo-Devo examples as well), see here:

We don鈥檛 know everything about feather evolution. In science it鈥檚 OK to say 鈥渨e don鈥檛 know everything鈥�. But we do know quite a bit (and we鈥檙e discovering more all the time), and you can鈥檛 just blithely ignore what we do know.

Over on the 鈥�29 evidences鈥� website that I mentioned in my previous post (no 8), there is a wonderful quotation from the late, great physicist Richard Feynman. He was talking about his own field of quantum mechanics, but his point is a more general one that also applies to a type of mentality commonly shown by creationists:

"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.
I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "

(previously posted in old thread, so reposted here)

Andy McIntosh is wriggling but he can't get off the hook. He has asserted in the "Sunday Sequence" programme that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In his 麻豆约拍 blog entry he tries to set up an escape route by making a smoke-screen distinction between selection of existing structures, and creation of new structures. He tries to drop his claim of 2nd law violation for evolution by natural selection, in those cases where selection is choosing amongst existing structures, but maintain the claim in respect of creation of new structures.

Does he not realise that every mutation is the creation of a new structure? Does he not realise that every duplication of a DNA section is the creation of a new structure? Does he not realise that every new combination of genes is a new structure? Do these violate the 2nd law? Which of these mechanisms for creating new structures violates the 2nd law, 'Professor' McIntosh?

All it takes is enough natural variation due to mutations, duplications, and recombinations, for long enough, with natural selection, and new, more complex creatures are the end result.

McIntosh also claims that a book called "The natural sciences know nothing of evolution" is available on Amazon. I wonder how much McIntosh checks his facts before rushing into print. The book is listed, but NOT available, in Amazon UK. It has no sales rank, so perhaps has never been sold by Amazon UK. It has no reviews, despite being listed by Amazon UK as published in 1992. Another book with the same author and title is available from Amazon USA, but it has just one review (by a sycophant who says it presents the same ideas as his own, unpublished, manuscript and is therefore great). The USA book is listed as published in 1981, so neither version of this book will be informed by the tremendous advances in biochemistry in the last decade or so (and some recent impressive discoveries that reduce gaps in the fossil record). Is this obscure book the best McIntosh can recommend? And why does he say, of such an obscure book, unavailable from Amazon UK, that 麻豆约拍 blog readers should "read AGAIN if they have not done already"? Another matter on which he is out of touch with reality?

Opponents of evolution often quote this law which predicts the deterioration of order. Evolution seems to go against this because it posits an increase in order. Evolutionists often make the point that the Law only applies to closed systems. In some circumstances order can actually increases if the system is open to a greater order from which its draws order. So it in contended that the earth is open to the wider universe. But this argument assumes that the universe is itself orderly. So that leaves us with the question as to where its order came from in its beginning.

Thanks you very much Tony Jackson for an excellent post #32. There has been a lot of mud-slinging in this thread. By contrast, your post shows science in a very strong, positive, constructive light.

The abstracts of articles (that the feather-interested Creationists/IDiots could have looked up and read for themselves, had they taken the time or sincere, open-minded interest) are probably the best possible response from a scientist: these are the observations we have made, and this is our reasoning behind the conclusions we draw from our findings. The sentence in the third abstract says it wonderfully clear: "We first review a series of fossil discoveries representing intermediate forms of feathers or feather-like appendages from dinosaurs and Mesozoic birds from the Jehol Biota of China." Take that PB. This show just how much your earlier posts are based on a lack of knowledge, and one would assume also on a lack of interest in obtaining knowledge. Scientific literature is often available for free, as were the abstracts Tony included in his post. And individual articles can usually be obtained for free from one of the authors or for a small price from the publisher. You could have familiarised yourself with the matter before making your posts, but instead you chose to behave like a forum trol, spewing out unfounded nonsense.

I'm not very knowlegdeable in the area of fossil analysis, but I hope the abstracts are from peer-reviewed publications? Tony, if you could tell me that Creationists/IDiots could get small pieces from those fossils to do their own carbon dating verification, then it would be about as perfect as can be. This is how one should build a case: verifyable, reproduceable, irrespective of who does the measurements or the concluding. Not the Creationists/IDiots style of "I've never seen it, or I'm not knowledgeable enough to understand, so it's rubbish and therefor you have to take my untestable fairy-tale religious dogma over your own rational, reproduceable scientific evidence".

Thanks again Tony for one of only few quality posts in this thread.

A C McIntosh;
I regret that you have chosen not to answer my question about which chemical bonds in the natural formaton of DNA violates TSLOT in the theory of evolution. I hope you change your mind. Here's an easier question.

You claim that your assertion is 鈥渁 straightforward case of testable science.鈥� Good! Where can scientists find the publication of your experiments including your laboratory equipment set up, test procedures, raw data collected, data analysis, and line of reasoning which led you to conclude that you have proof that the spontaneous formation of DNA from biologically inert matter violates the second law of thermodynamics? I am sure your colleagues would find that most interesting. As before, I await your reply.

Re Posts 19, 25, 26, 31.

The McIntosh position on this thread is set out in detail in Wilder's lecture which I referenced in post 19.

Two people have now read it - Mark and Maureen. Neither have provided the rational, reasoned, non ad hominem answer that I am waiting for.

We have some very smart scientists (and theologians) in this thread. May I ask the science experts to look at the lecture and then take care of the science presented therein.

That way this issue can be put to rest. The issue comes down to the reversiblity of biochemical reactions.

My views have been made evident in previous blogs (I don't support the McIntosh position) but my point here is that there are a couple of scientific statements that are 'preached' at some length in this video that are worthy of extraction, analysis and disposal by some of the excellent minds in this thread. Stick to the specifics of Simth's science statements and answer them point by point.

Wilder Smith and creationist physicist Edgar Andrews debated biologists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith in the Oxford Union's Huxley Memorial Debate in 1986 where Wilder-Smith and Andrews lost by 198 votes to 150. So it is going to take more than a few ad hominem statements to get the Smith/McIntosh position falsified. Dawkins had his chance and failed to demolish their position for a large fraction of the attendees at the Oxford debate.

Dawkins has had his chance numerous times - here's yours!

Regards,
Michael

* 32.
* At 06:19 AM on 31 Dec 2006,
* Tony Jackson wrote:

"I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question."

Spot on post Tony with excellent references. NCBI is my favourite site. Bravo

And Bravo to you too Mark. I think you guys have pretty much nailed it!

Michael, are we going to get into another technical debate here? Does it all boil down to Wilder Smith's general asserton that enzyme catalyzed biochemical reactions are reversible...whatever that actually means? Is that the proof of the existance of god? Are we going to have another technical discussion of the "informed" and "uninformed?" I started working on calculations of thermodynamics of chemical reactions when I was 17 years old. It's not like I don't know at least something about it. Besides Wilder Smith being the most utterly repulsive individual I have ever experienced in my life bar none, IMO he is dead wrong in his scientific knowledge as well. Fine, you have a PHD in electrochemistry, lets get into it then. Whether organic or inorganic, whether catalyzed or uncatylized, all chemical reactions have an equilibium constant of K=K(forward)*K(reverse) which is not a function of a catylist (at least Wilder Smith got that right if nothing else) it's a function of temperature. Some reactions are highly exothermic, some highly endothermic, and some somewhere in between at a given temperature. How you define reversibility depends on what your limits on K are. This is where the uselessness and stupidity of metaphors and generalizations to explain science completely breaks down. Catalysts including enzymes, reduce the energy of activation, the energy kick needed to get the reaction started, that's all. Could you imagine if all biological reactions were reversible? Blood clots would disolve as fast as they are formed. Peptide bonds of proteien broken down by enzymes in your acidic stomach would recombine into protiens in your alkalii intestine and you couldn't absorb them as nutrition. The enzymes themselves would break down before they could perform their function. How about reversible reactions? The combination and release of oxygen and carbon dioxide with hemoglobin is one, the reaction goes one way if its in your oxygen rich lungs, the other if it's in oxygen poor CO2 rich metabolic byproducts elsewhere in your body. The only way these people get away with their nonsense is to talk to people who don't know anything. When they encounter people who do, the run like frightened rabbits. Dawkins picked up Andy McIntosh's gaff about the second law of thermodynamics immediately and McIntosh knew it. That's why he hesitated. He didn't know whether to go forward or into reverse. In the end, he chose to tie his fate to what he knew was a factual error and hope for the best. Do you think I will get a reply from Andy McIntosh? Don't hold your breath waiting, he's probably on the phone with his creationist friends at Leeds University right now trying to cook up a way to save his job and save face at the same time.

Tony (and Peter and Mark)

Just to be clear, I am not dismissing your expertise, knowedge or the points you are raising. As a non-scientist I must respect them.

I also think it does seem like a valid question as to why ACM does not engage more regarding his ideas. I dont defend him dogmatically. On the other hand though, there are many scientists who speculate on ideas on the time and dont get roasted in the way he has done. eg Dawkins believing in aliens.

But may I respond on several points;

1) Nobels and kudos-
Two extreme positions in our debate are that "the truth" about creationism is being kept from the world at large because an elite cabal of agressively anti-God scientists and their backers make sure of it. The opposite extreme is that all scientists from the most humble to those internationally renowned in their fields, and the Govts and MNCs that fund them are so ethically upright that they never, ever allow any financial, career advancement, financial, small "p" political or personal ideological prejudcies to influence what is researched and what the published results are. I dont think either of these two positions are realistic to anybody. Do you?After that I think it is only fair to ask the question whether, or to what extent, secular thinkers such as Dawkins and his ilk (evolutionists are by far in the majority in science, business and the developed world) may stifle true debate and research on evolution/creationism. I think that is a fair question that deserves, if not a fair answer, then at the very least some reflection.

2) Half evolved feathers-

Why dont you give me a straight answer, it appears you are avoiding it.
As a matter of fact I only have access to narrow band here and it is not easy to do alot of surfing right now. If allegedly transitional scales/feathers have been found just tell me where and when and I'll be happy. (Mark, are there lots of very delicate plant fossils?)

You say you dont know everything about evolution of feathers, but that sounds plausibly like a bit of a cop out that could be used on any awkward points. Maybe, maybe not.

Peter Klaver, you are taking a very arrogant approach here. Remember this is not a science blog (Tony and others too, take note). This was the follow up to a Sunday Morning radio show, a blog run by an ordained Presbyterian Minister with a background in philosophy. So its only fair that non-science types are in this discussion. And you are making a serious assumption in suggesting I would ask you to accept in blind faith something you believe contrary to science. That is ridiculous. This is an adult discussion among people of many backgrounds. It is not the inquisition.

I think I am on pretty safe ground to say that countless better qualified people than you Peter, (and you Tony) see all the evidence in exactly the opposite light (see post 10), so why all the *venom* for ACM?

"take that PB" from Peter Klaver for example. How objective Peter.

Venom is not scientific or objective. It is emotion and anger. If it was any other scientific subject I would have thought ACM would just have been dismissed as a crank and ignored.

Tony it is not just that my mind goes blank and I refuse to believe you. Much of this is above me. But as I said there are so many people equal and better than you who oppose you on this (post 10), I feel you might be a tad arrogant to suggest they are in irrational denial.

So please dont accuse me of being a closed minded bigot, anyone.

Personally, I am happy for everyone to go their ways and disagree politely and for evolution to remain the dominant understanding. It will. That is reality. I have no problem with that. My life or belief system doesnt hang on creationism, I assure you.

3) Dealing with McIntosh's test.

ACM does not seem to me to be talking primarily about thermodynamics in the main point he is making. When he says that a machine cannot build a new machine without new information. Why doesnt someone do the darned test he talks of and end the matter? As this is his key point this seems the most logical and least ad hominem approach to his argument; not just saying, "there is tons of evidence for evolution". Everyone knows that point is well made but it does not address his main point.

4) Human immune system and evolution.
Tony an interesting point you claim, that human immunity is evolution in action. But Dawkins said it was impossible to see evolution happening, that it was detective work looking at and interpreting data??? Who is right?
As a layman, I cant see why this has to be evolution, why cant it just be your immune system doing what it was designed to do? No doubt this is what the 200 phds and professors from post 10 would argue.
But I will look into it further as it is an interesting point and will come back.

So guys, lighten up, nobody is insulting your mothers, I respect your phds and just want an intelligent rational discussion with you OK?

cheers
PB

In post 39 Mark wrote:

鈥淢ichael, are we going to get into another technical debate here?鈥�

Mark:
I鈥檝e said repeatedly that we DON鈥橳 differ on the technical issues of the creation vs evolution debate but I think you hurt 鈥榦ur鈥� side when you continuously come up with statements such as 鈥淲ilder Smith being the most utterly repulsive individual I have ever experienced in my life bar none鈥�. This sort of statement is not credible from a rational person. What on earth does your personal opinion have to do with the truth or falsity of his scientific statements?

I can answer Smith from my chemistry background quite easily, others should be able to answer him from their own scientific disiplines, biology, physics etc. I would love to hear replies from those perspectives as they then serve to strengthen (or maybe weaken) by own belief about the Smith/McIntosh position which I have developed from a chemical perspective.

Now there is another way I can come at this which I have talked about before. It involves Conway鈥檚 Game of Life. You can download this program from any number of sites and prove the following points to yourself.

The following statement I pulled from Wikipedia.org .....

The universe of the Game of Life is an infinite two-dimensional orthogonal grid of square cells, each of which is in one of two possible states, live or dead. Every cell interacts with its eight neighbours, which are the cells that are directly horizontally, vertically, or diagonally adjacent.

At each step in time, the following transitions occur:
1. Any live cell with fewer than two live neighbours dies, as if by loneliness.
2. Any live cell with more than three live neighbours dies, as if by overcrowding. 3. Any live cell with two or three live neighbours lives, unchanged, to the next generation.
4. Any dead cell with exactly three live neighbours comes to life.

The initial pattern constitutes the first generation of the system. The second generation is created by applying the above rules simultaneously to every cell in the first generation -- births and deaths happen simultaneously, and the discrete moment at which this happens is sometimes called a tick. (In other words, each generation is based entirely on the one before.) The rules continue to be applied repeatedly to create further generations........

What happens is that order appears out of disorder, complicated patterns evolve, and 鈥榤achines鈥� are created (Glider Guns for example). The system is always in 鈥榚quilibrium鈥� i.e. always in concordance with the rules of the system. Thus what Smith says can鈥檛 occur can be shown to occur with a very simple example.

Smith makes the additional mistake that the pattern (in his case a depiction of a mountain) is already in existence (created by God?) and the question then becomes how does one get the jigsaw pieces to come together in the final pattern.

The 鈥榝inal pattern鈥� does not exist, the pattern is continuously being created, changed, destroyed, recreated etc. Creation of humans has not 鈥榟appened鈥� it is ongoing, it is evolving, it always will be ongoing. Humans are a 鈥減attern鈥� that have changed over millions of years and will change over the next millions of years. No one living today will look anything like a 鈥榟uman鈥� living several millions of years from now. Creation is an ongoing process!

This brings me back to a thought that I have expressed many times before. If we take it as a given that when one has 鈥榬ules鈥� one will get order from disorder and vice versa as the arrow of time proceeds, a fundamental question arises.

Why are there fundamental physical constants and why are there physical laws?

Once science or philosophy answers this question the whole discussion will be over. But as I mentioned in Post 5 I am very humble in my belief that we can answer this question given the present primitive state of evolution of our intelligence. Our intellectual capacity is not yet sufficient for us to understand all things and that is why I am both an agnostic scientist and an agnostic Christian who will continue to make models and metaphors in an attempt to search for some little bit of knowledge in this life that I know is mine.

As Ever,
Michael

Mr. Hull, you seem so terribly confused. OK, I'll ask you as a PHD in electrochemistry the same question I asked AC McIntosh; the formation of which chemical bond in the natural formation of DNA violates the second law of thermodynamics? Folks, creationists can't or won't answer that because to a chemist or chemical engineer, this is a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious to them and well known, NONE OF THEM VIOLATES IT. Actually I could have made a better although admittedly very weak case myself for the other side than they did since they made no scientifically viable case at all. McIntosh hasn't entered a debate, he's run away from it. What he has is a running monologue, he drops his bombs on non technical audiences and runs away. What would my case be? That the conditions for the occurrance of DNA to form, find itself in a sutible environment to assemble a cell from its surroundings, and establish a viable biospehere would likely be a very very rare one possible only under very unusual conditions. (at least there wouldn't be anyting around to eat the original cells up :>) How rare? So rare that it may have happened only once in one and a half billion years on earth between the formation of of the planet and the first known appearance of life. In fact I could make a case that it happened only once in 4 1/2 billion years since the planet was formed. How? Because of something called optical isomerism which Michael Hull and all chemists know very well, the fact that all life on earth (I'm fairly sure) revolves around L-amino acids and D-sugars. There was an equal probability that it could have happened the opposite way but it never did. If it had, there would exist two incompatible biospeheres where one could not feed on and be part of the food chain of the other. Once in 4 1/2 billion years is a very rare event but that is not the same as saying it is impossible. In fact most scientists alive today not only believe that this is what happened, they believe it is the only possible way it could have happened, they can offer no other rational explanation for it. Mr. Hull, you know very well that were the original creation of DNA a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, so would every single replicaton of it ever since no matter how it is formed, because as Wilder Smith said in the one thing he got right, the point of equilibrium doesn't change....and neither does the change in entropy.

"Professor A.C. McIntosh
Truth in Science" or A.C. McIntosh, obfuscation and evasion of pseudo-science in the service of religion? I've already made up my mind.

Professor McIntosh is quite right in all he says, but he does not go far enough.
Evolution exists nowhere in the entire universe, never has and never will or none of us would be here. The entire universe is devolving, the exact opposite and excluder of evolving, always has, always will, and billions of people have observed it trillions of times for thousands of years without a single exception.
Evolutionists like Professor Dawkins are anti-scientists using brass, bluff, frauds, forgeries, and totalitarian censorship. The proof is that he (#14) and 353,000 of his evolutionist colleagues have been coaxed for four years with $10,000 on a continuing basis for their scientific evidence and not one could produce any (see www.lifescienceprize.org).
Evolution and its alleged spontaneous generation origin were disproven by Dr. Francesco Redi in 1668, then more rigorously by Louis Pasteur in 1864, and most rigorously by John Tyndall in 1877. Those reproducible experiments have never been overturned.
After 1877, the vitalism humbug of evolution joined mysticism, astrology, and alchemy in the dustbin of history.
Evolution indoctrination was the greatest betrayal of my life and the greatest bane of my career in science.
Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, California State University, Long Beach.

Re Post 42 Mark wrote:

"Mr. Hull, you seem so terribly confused. OK, I'll ask you as a PHD in electrochemistry the same question I asked AC McIntosh; the formation of which chemical bond in the natural formation of DNA violates the second law of thermodynamics? Folks, creationists can't or won't answer that because to a chemist or chemical engineer, this is a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious to them and well known, NONE OF THEM VIOLATES IT. Actually I could have made a better although admittedly very weak case myself for the other side than they did since they made no scientifically viable case at all."

Can anyone else help this unfortunate person in re-reading post 41 where I told him that "we DON鈥橳 differ on the technical issues."

What is it that he doesn't get?

ONE MORE TIME.

I DON'T think the formation of ANY chemical bond EVER violates ANY of the laws of thermodynamics ANYWHERE.

I DON'T think evolution violates ANY of the laws of thermodynamics.

I BELIEVE that evolution is VALID.

I DON'T KNOW how the universe came into being.

Thus I remain AGNOSTIC and SKEPTICAL.

Thanks,
Michael

Loss of DNA information in mutations violates TSLOT

And now for something completely different ....

Watching the debate in this thread and doing a few anagrams along with my knitting it struck me that a 鈥榗reationist鈥� might be an 鈥榚rotic saint鈥� who thinks that an 鈥榚volutionist鈥� is 鈥榚vil out to sin鈥� spurred on by 鈥楻ichard Dawkins鈥� acting as 鈥楧arwin鈥檚 arch kid鈥� while 鈥楢ndy McIntosh鈥�, the 鈥榤ystic on hand鈥� calls on 鈥榃ilder Smith鈥� to be his 鈥榙im whistler鈥� sending 鈥楳ark and Michael鈥� on a 鈥榤achine mad lark鈥�.

Peace,
Maureen

Michael Hull #44
You said;

"I DON'T THINK the formation of ANY chemical bond EVER violates ANY of the laws of thermodynamics ANYWHERE."

"I DON'T think evolution violates ANY of the laws of thermodynamics."

"I BELIEVE evolution is VALID."

So, I see you still want to argue about it :>)

Now we're getting somewhere.

If I ruled the world, being Wilder-Smith would be a capital crime :>)

Tony

ref post 32

DOES A HUMAN IMMUNE SYSTEM RELY ON ACTIVE EVOLUTION TO FUNCTION?

You state that Darwinian "random mutation" and "cumulative selection" allows lymphocytes to create the right antibodies to counter viruses.

But my Encylopaedia Britannica gives a rather contrasting explanation with not even a hint of active evolution.

In fact I picked up two other rather interesting things from EB as well;-

1) By far the vast majority of mutations are harmful to the organism concerned.

2) The evolution of man has apparently stopped.

But getting back to the point, in fact, there is no mention of mutant or evolution in any entry relating to the workings of an active immune system.

EB says only that the lymphocytes "differentiate" not that they mutate ;-

"Lymphocytes originate, in postnatal life, from stem cells in the bone marrow; these stem cells divide continuously, releasing immature lymphocytes into the bloodstream. Some of these travel to the thymus, where they multiply and differentiate (i.e., acquire special properties and functions) into T lymphocytes.
The term T lymphocyte (or T cell) stands for thymus-derived lymphocyte (or cell), referring to the fact that these cells depend upon the maturation process that takes place in the thymus. Once they have left the thymus, T cells join the bloodstream and circulate to and within the rest of the lymphoid organs, where they can multiply further in response to appropriate stimulation. About half of all lymphocytes are T cells.
The other lymphocytes do not pass through the thymus; instead, they differentiate within the bone marrow itself and then go directly to the lymphoid organs. They are termed B lymphocytes, or B cells, and they, like T cells, can mature and multiply further in the lymphoid organs when suitably stimulated."

Surely the measureable reactions of the human immune system demonstrate that it is much more systematic than random?

PB

PS I can only guess what this creationist immunologist might make of your explanation of evolution in human immune systems. Might you consider him better qualified than you in the field? From AIG website;-

Dr Geoff Barnard
Creationist immunologist/immunochemist, UK

Ph.D. (University of London), M.A. (Theol.), M.I. Biol., C. Biol.

Dr Barnard has worked as a clinical biochemist, a research scientist, a senior research fellow, and a senior lecturer (equivalent of a professor in the United States) in various universities in the United Kingdom and around the world. He has been a visiting research scientist at the Weizmann Institute, Israel. His specialty is immunology/immunochemistry. He is currently (2005) Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Veterinary Science, University of Cambridge, UK. He has consulted for various biotech companies, such as Monoclonal Antibodies Inc., Cambridge Life Sciences, Wallac Oy (Finland), PerkinElmer Life Sciences, Unilever Research, as well as the World Health Organization.

Dr Barnard has published over 50 peer-reviewed research papers and written nine chapters for academic science textbooks. He holds five patents, mainly in the field of immunoassay techniques. He also holds a Master's degree in theology.

PB:

You have previously asked me to provide evidence for the evolutionary history of feathers. I have provided you with some examples of papers from the primary peer-reviewed scientific literature on precisely this topic - you really can't get better than that. I have also given you a reference to a fine popular article by the award-winning science journalist Carl Zimmer that mentions feather evolution within the broader context of the new discoveries in evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-Devo).

So what do you do? You come straight back (post 40) and claim that I haven't answered your question! I have to say that I think this is a fine example of exactly the point Richard Feynman was making in the quotation I gave at the end of my previous post (no 32).

PB. re your post no.48:

Please read this:

No really... please read it - read THE WHOLE THING!

Tony

No offence meant...

If read my post 40 again it actually said;

"Why dont you give me a straight answer, it appears you are avoiding it."

I very deliberately used the term "appears" because I dont know you and dont want to assume that.

The next point that I only have narrow band and dont really have the time to surf alot tonight.

I was merely asking for a brief answer, which I do believe you are capable of. I did not mean to come across as abrupt or rude. Please understand that. :-(

I appreciate your time, you have put a lot of text in, which I have evidently taken the time to read and look into, if you read post 48. I'm not just a closed mind...

Genuinely appreciate your time

PB

PB said
"Dr Barnard has published over 50 peer-reviewed research papers and written nine chapters for academic science textbooks. He holds five patents, mainly in the field of immunoassay techniques. He also holds a Master's degree in theology."
.
PB Could you cite the references for those papers in which Dr Barnard challenged the current excepted understanding of the immune system? This way I can look those papers up and also look over the
reviews of this research.
To return the favour, I will reference you some of the peer reviewed papers in the peer journal database reguarding this topic.

Tony

I did have a stab at your mutations debate page, but to be honest, it is late, the article was pretty long and involved, please understand.

A few observations;-

1) It does not pretend to be a neutral article.
2) He states that creationists argue that most mutations are harmful, but EB is hardly creationist and yet states this clearly.
3) He states that very rarely some mutuations can be helpful, which in principal sounds logical to me, but I am not qualified to evaluate that, only theologically (ie the garden of eden was perfect and could not be improved on???).

I honeslty appreciate you entering into this discussion with me, but I got to go now.

Perhaps your case would be stronger about claiming immunity involves evolution if you had a reputable objective authority to support your assertion?

cheers
PB

48.
* At 10:44 PM on 31 Dec 2006,
* pb wrote:
"You state that Darwinian "random mutation" and "cumulative selection" allows lymphocytes to create the right antibodies to counter viruses."
Might I suggest you are putting your own intrepretation on these terms.

Cumulative selection refers to the increased number of different genes sequences resulting from the above mentioned processes,in particular recombination. The evolutionary unit
is functional gene, whether this is a abherrant function or normal functions. A functional abherrant gene results in the addition of a novel protein into the physiological biochiomcal metabolism of the system and may affect one or more pathway cascades in this system.
This is an addition of variation in the system and therefore the addition of new information. Once again, a lack of understanding of evolutionary tenets seems to underly these misinterpretations.

PB, the challenge to the evolutionary basis, of processes of the immune system, has already been fought and decided:
"Annotated Bibliography on the Evolutionary Origin of the Vertebrate Immune System"

Questioner

I do understand the theory of mutation and natural selection.

My question is why Encyclopaedia Brittanica does not mention any nuance whatsoever of these terms in its numerous articles on lymphocytes and the immune system.

Neither do searches for mutuation or evolution turn up any articles on immune system processes.

Why is this?

PB

53. At 12:35 AM on 01 Jan 2007,
pb wrote:
鈥淧erhaps your case would be stronger about claiming immunity involves evolution if you had a reputable objective authority to support your assertion?鈥�
.
PB, the challenge to the evolutionary basis of processes of the immune system has already been fought and decided.
I wonder, would you consider the following extraction and references, objective?
.
鈥�...Most of the citations and abstracts below were found using the PubMed MEDLINE search engine and microbiology database. A simple search reveals that there are over 13,000 articles that contain "evolution" as a major subject keyword - hardly the dead silence that Behe proclaims. Granted many of these do not directly address the problem of adaptive complexity in biochemical systems, but many of them do....鈥�.
.
The above can be scourced at:
"Annotated Bibliography on the Evolutionary Origin of the Vertebrate Immune System"
Publish or Perish
Some Published works on Biochemical Evolution

.
Could all these research papers and their peer reviews, be part of some imagined, massive 鈥渆vilutionist鈥� conspiracy, perhaps?
.
And if we are talking numbers and authorities, try some of this:
.
鈥�.....Most of the citations and abstracts below were found using the PubMed MEDLINE search engine and microbiology database. A simple search reveals that there are over 13,000 articles that contain "evolution" as a major subject keyword - hardly the dead silence that Behe proclaims. Granted many of these do not directly address the problem of adaptive complexity in biochemical systems, but many of them do.Note that I have excluded papers that discuss sequence comparisons being used solely to determine lines of descent. Michael Behe already admits that common descent is reasonable......鈥�
.
This above link also contains numerous references to published and peer reviewed papers.

If you have trouble understanding some of the concepts underlying the evolution of the immune system, might I suggest this link:

While, you are hopefully reading some of the above, maybe you should also like to consider what Behe's own university said about the issue (keeping with the 'argument from authority' theme that you are fond of)
.
Statement released by Lehigh Department of Biological Sciences
鈥淒epartment Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"

.
鈥淭he faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.鈥�
.
I've also noticed that you continually aim broad, ill defined and un-researched questions to others on this forum and then expect them to educate you on the details and intricacies of the topic at hand.
I think if you are to going to continually ask others to spend large amounts their time answering your questions/suggestions in detail, that you should at least use your own time to, first do a little more background research yourself. Try reading some of the research papers suggested, as well as peer reviews of those papers, if you seriously want to debate their findings, rather than just try to pick holes in, what could be cosidered the large, and extremely intricately woven, evolutionay history of life.

* 56.
* At 01:36 AM on 01 Jan 2007,
* pb wrote:
"Neither do searches for mutuation or evolution turn up any articles on immune system processes.
Why is this?"

Hmm seems that most of my previous post disappeared???
I don't know why yougot no hits!!!!
Here are the results of my own search:
"Results 1 - 10 of about 1,670,000 for Evolution of the immune system. (0.17 seconds)"
.
Never mind, note the number 13,000 in the following extract:
鈥淧ublish or Perish鈥�
Some Published works on Biochemical Evolution
鈥淢ost of the citations and abstracts below were found using the PubMed MEDLINE search engine and microbiology database. A simple search reveals that there are over 13,000 articles that contain "evolution" as a major subject keyword - hardly the dead silence that Behe proclaims. Granted many of these do not directly address the problem of adaptive complexity in biochemical systems, but many of them do.鈥�

There are references there for the plethora of resach papers dealing with this exact topic at that link.
Enjoy!!!
Oh by the way, this site includes details of research, on this subject, submitted at the Dover Trial.
I don't understand why you think that trying to pick a hole in evolutionary principles will support the offered opposing hypothesis. This is not how the mechanism of scientific enquiry functions. Supporting evidence must be produced for peer review before any alternatives are even deemed to be challenging. Just proffering alternative ideas or criticisms of the status quo just doesn't doesn't cut it!

It is always helpful in a debate to use unambiguous terms. Problem is that Dawkins means something different when he uses the term evolution than McIntosh, even though McIntosh has tried to make it clear. could help. Bottom line: natural selection is NOT evolution.

Prof McIntosh is quite right. The argument goes like this:

1. DNA contains information, with a coding hierarchy.

2. Information cannot arise from physical processes but must have an intelligent source. This, as McIntosh suggests, is a consequence of the second Law of Thermodynamics.

3. Therefore the information in DNA has an intelligent source.

This is a refutable scientific statement since it can be overturned by any experiment shown to generate information from physical processes alone.

To quote Lord Kelvin (who knew a thing or two about thermodynamics):

'But overpoweringly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie all around us; and if ever perplexities, whether metaphysical or scientific, turn us away from them for a time, they come back upon us with irresistible force, showing to us through Nature the influence of a free will, and teaching us that all living things depend on one ever-acting Creator and Ruler.'

Creationists accept that on occasions DNA information is lost or scrambled and a mutation occurs. Most mutations are harmful and do not survive but very occasionally the resultant change benefits the organism making it better fitted to its environment and to pass on this advantageous adaptation to its offspring. The point of contention, as I understand it (and I have an 鈥淥- Level鈥� in Biology) is that for classical Darwinian evolution to have occurred the additional information necessary cannot be accounted for by the addition of external energy (the Sun) alone. Sir Frederick Hoyle鈥檚 analogy of a whirlwind blowing through a junkyard and a fully assembled 747 fuelled and ready for flight resulting springs to mind. And in response to a successive step by step explanation I would have thought that same whirlwind incapable of forming any functioning component.

* 59.
* At 08:37 AM on 01 Jan 2007,
* Tas Walker wrote:
"It is always helpful in a debate to natural selection is NOT evolution."

Natural slection is the driving force
underlying evolutionary processes.

* 60.
* At 10:25 AM on 01 Jan 2007,
* Dr David Walton wrote
2. Information cannot arise from physical processes but must have an intelligent source. This, as McIntosh suggests, is a consequence of the second Law of Thermodynamics.

Fascinating, would you care to explain.

McIntosh recommends a book by Wilder-Smith (also see comment 33). Another poster referred to a recorded lecture by Wilder-Smith (comment 19). So I looked at the video. Ugh. An unpleasant experience. Here's why.

I had no objection to what Wilder-Smith was saying until about 9 minutes 40 seconds into the lecture. I didn't agree with everything he said, but all that was just a matter of opinion. From 9:40 it was different. I was appalled.

Wilder-Smith started to mislead the audience, relying on their ignorance of some aspects of science.
It started with his definition of machine.
He said, pausing for emphasis, that a machine was "something for a purpose". He repeated it. "A machine has a purpose". He gave examples of (human-designed) machines with a purpose (cars, sewing machines, milking machines).
The word "purpose" appeared in every sentence. He said "a machine is per definitionem [by definition] purposeful".
He then asked, having given this archaic and faulty definition of machine, "did [the audience] think a machine could arise by chance". What a rigged question!

In fact scientists have a much broader definition of machine. Here are some more examples of machines.
The solar system (the planets trace out their orbits with mechanistic precision). A whirlpool (the water rushing down a hole can suck floating objects down the hole). A quasar (the rotating mass creates jets along the axis that can reach across the universe). The nuclear furnace which is the Sun. All the above arise from an initial state in whch matter is scattered randomly with random motions, after which the action of gravity eventually results in those local machines.

All around us are assemblies of atoms, molecules, lumps and clumps, all moving (some slowly over geologic time, some too fast to see) that are "machines". Pick any collection of adjacent atoms. It's a machine. Pick any collection of adjacent biological molecules. It's a machine. It is not only possible, but easy, to believe that nearly all such "machines" have no purpose.

One might, of course, believe that the whole setup, the whole universe, was designed. However, each individual "machine" that I've mentioned comes into being from the random motions of a chaotic initial state, and a single law of gravity. Those "machines" are not designed individually.
Only an unimaginably tiny proportion of all the local machines in the universe are of interest to humans and get discussed. Nevertheless any local portion of the universe is a machine, because all the matter in the universe follows universal physical laws. This is the great discovery of science.

Are some machines in the universe designed? Well, if all the machines we inspect turn out to have have no need of a designer, because they can arise naturally, there is no need to believe in a designer, only in the physical laws and a random chaotic initial state.

Back to W-S.

W-S concludes his misleading discussion of machines by saying he had " proved that you have got to have an engineer to make them [machines]". He didn't prove that at all. He merely proved that with a faulty premise (faulty definition of machine), you can reach a faulty conclusion (all machines have a designer).

To reinforce his faulty conclusion W-S went on to say "matter is not purposeful". True (assuming we are looking at individual atoms and don't count following universal physical laws as purposeful). He goes on to say "matter does not have concepts". Now he is preparing to mislead again. Individual atoms and molecules do not have concepts. They are too small a fragment of the universe. But vast assemblies of atoms and molecules CAN have concepts. Computers have programs, cells have genes, animals have emotions and simple thoughts, humans have detailed thoughts and abstract concepts. All these are understandable as patterns in the arrangements and movements of numerous atoms and molecules. Just as one water molecule is too small to form a whirlpool, but billions of water molecules can form a whirlpool, so it is that one biological molecule is too small to have concepts, but vast assemblies of billions of biological molecules can form representations of the world, can perform actions that assist survival, and in the case of humans, can perform abstract thought and deliberately design machines.

W-S has misled his audience by omitting to mention the difference between matter in the sense of individual atoms, and matter in the sense of vast assemblies of atoms. The larger the collection of atoms we consider, the more they can have what philosophers call "emergent properties". All collections of adjacent atoms form a pattern. Most patterns are completely uninteresting and bring nothing new. But some patterns lead to new behaviour at a higher level. When hydrogen and oxygen atoms stick together they make a particularly important pattern - they form water. Water has quite different properties from hydrogen and oxygen or any mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. When water is combined with carbon it forms hydrocarbons. Again new properties. But no designer - just new behaviours when atoms stick together to form larger molecules. Add nitrogen and amino acids and bases occur. Lightning sparks will do that. Again new properties, but no designer. So it goes on, with larger and larger molecules, larger and larger assemblies, with new properties emerging along the way. Humans are currently the most complex entities we know - they are so complex they have internal patterns which we call concepts and purposes, but there is no need to assume a designer, because science has now discovered the main mechanisms that can create such complex entities as ourselves.

W-S then gets worse. He tries to impress the audience (and talk down to them) by introducing the word teleonomy and explaining it in a very condescending way. He asserts that matter does not have concepts (apparently unaware of the notion of "emergent properties"), and then presents a new idea as if it were fact - that matter can "take" a concept if it is inserted from outside. He goes on to assert that matter can "store" a concept, and that matter can "store" a machine, but he also asserts that matter can't "make" a machine, and that information has got to be put in "from outside".
All unproved assertions. All inconsistent with mainstream science. These are extraordinary claims, and require more than W-S's assertions to be taken seriously by scientists.

It carries on getting worse.
W-S next asserts that the "second law of thermodynamics shows that matter has no concept in it". Excuse me? Pardon? Did I just hear a blatant non sequitur? Replaying the recording shows that I did. That's what W-S said. The second law of thermodynamics actually shows nothing of the sort. Could W-S be trying to impress and bamboozle his audience? Is this the same Wilder-Smith that wrote the book that 'Professor' McIntosh recommends? Yes, and yes.

The W-S lecture carries on getting worse. W-S goes on "matter doesn't have the concept of machine in it, but it does have the concept of conservation of energy". (Did he forget he said earlier that matter couldn't have concepts at all?)
Next comes "well if matter can't make machines, then a designer had to put the information onto matter to make it a machine". More faulty premises, more faulty conclusions.

At about 14:30 I couldn't bear to listen to any more. W-S is a superficial thinker and a religious nutter. Waste of time.

Ok, yesterday I was gone for a while to a New Years eve party. Let me now respond to a part of pb's post #40. Tony Jackson and forum posters 'Questioner' and 'Observer' already took care of the science as good as or better than I could have. Thanks guys, again you show science in a very strong, positive, constructive light. The data base searches instantly disspel the allegded holes in the scientific story. That only leaves me to respond to pb's more personal charge of me being arrogant and venomous. And that my statement of 'Take that PB' was was not objective. I think I will readily agree to the latter charge. I admit that it may have been better if I had phrased it in another way. Similarly, I admit that my first post in the thread about Dawkins winning the person of the year election by a mile was mostly me being a poor winner. On the other hand I don't think I'm venomous. Some of us (certainly me) may occasionally get a bit worked up when writing our replies and I admit I have relished taking shots at Andy McIntosh for stating that the Earth is 6000 years old. But believe me, even when I'm writing a strong-worded post, I have a smile or at least a naughty grin on my face. No harsh angers felt on my part.

Returning to the earlier posts in this thread now. Pb, you mentioned half-evolved feathers a number of times, so I assume you really care about the subject. Has your internet connection downloaded the articles on them yet and have you had time to read them? If so, what are your conclusions? Do you go along with the data presented and the conclusions drawn from them? If so, does this mean that you are 'on board' with the scientific community on the existence of half-evolved feathers? And if you are, does it only change your views on half-evolved feathers or does it have wider implications for your world view? If you don't agree with the data or conclusions presented in the papers, could you give us specific points where you think the authors are wrong, and why?

Peter, Observer, Questioner

1) This is not a science blog it is relion and ethics. So there is no shame in not having a good depth of science.

2) If you dont want to answer my questions just ignore them, they wont hurt you.

3) I am not disputing there is research on evolution in immune processes. I am asking why there is no reference to it AT ALL in encyclopaedia Brittanic ref lymphocytes.
The wikipedia entry on lymphocytes similarly used the term "differentiation" not evolution or mutation.

4) Would I be correct in saying that many research papers are published on many subjects with many contrasting viewpoints? So could it be that the evolutionary viewpoint you hold has not been accepted yet by encylopaedia brittanica and wikipedia?

5) I notice that many scientists attacking ACM here do so with prejorative language towards ANY faith whatsoever. But strictly speaking these scientists are straying WAY outside their fields of expertise.
And as these seem to be largely the type of people going out of their way to attack ACM, it would appear they could well be motivated primarily by anti-faith sentiment. It certainly would appear to show you enter your labs with strong unverifiable presuppositions.

6) Ref the peer reviewed papers of the creationist immunologist please understand my point; he is better qualified than any of you three on the immune system and he does not believe in evolution. And if you are going to cynically respond "he is wrong" then you are only displaying unjustfied and cynical prejudice about his views and work. No I am not familair with his life work, if YOU guys are really open minded and interested perhaps there is also an onus on you to seek him out yourselves in the same way you are firing loads of information at me and demand I digest it all.

7) How ridiculous does it sound to expect me to convert to belief in evolution after an hour reading a dozen hyperlinks from three cynical athiests with declared agendas? wise up.

8) Conspiracy theories. Nice one, always adds to a debate to raise this doesnt it? Six months ago I uncovered some information that should have been known by the head of a sister dept of ours. I went through the correct channels and brought it to light of my company, which used the info to its benefit. My colleague from the other dept now carries a chip on his shoulder against me. Conclusion; I am not refuting evolution on the basis of this but if you are going to tell me that you three and thousands of others like yoou have not staked a lot of professional pride on evolution being right then I just dont believe you.
Therein lies a so far undeclared bias in the entire discussion.

PB

...and yes, I will look up some of your feathers info this week and read it.

Perhaps some of you guys might have a browse through my hyperlinks in post 10 as a mark of mutual respect?

PB

AC McIntosh has professed an entirely wrong notion of thermodynamics and the lectures he referenced by Wilder Smith profess an equally wrong notion of living organisms.

1.The term thermodynamics misnomer. It is NOT the study of dynamic processes, it is a study of comparisons of quasi static or stable conditions of state at the beginning and end of processes, or at intermediate states which are also stable for a time. The only exception is the processes in the hypothetical idealized Carnot cycle engine. The macroscopic properties of matter which thermodynamics concerns itself with such as mass, temperature, pressure, volume, internal energy, entropy, Gibbs free energy are acknowledged to be the result of microscopic processes which are not in themselves static by terming them to be in 鈥渄ynamic equilibrium.鈥� The way in which a particular event occurs between these stable states is of no concern to thermodynamics. In chemistry that study is reserved to 鈥渃hemical kinetics.鈥�
2. The formation of any and all chemical bonds in the synthesis which constitute living organisms and any reactions any of them undergo does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. That law is not specific to any defined part of matter and energy, it refers to the entropy of the universe as a whole. To restrict it by looking at only one aspect or part of the universe is a factual error and mis-statement of the second law of thermodynamics. The notion that DNA contains 鈥渋nformation鈥� is a human interpretation and has no application to thermodynamics which does not address it. If the spontaneous synthesis of information were a violation of natural law in chemical formations such as DNA, it would be a violation of natural law everywhere else such as in a computer.
3. Wilder Smith鈥檚 thesis that living organisms including human beings are machines is factually incorrect. Living organisms do not exist to perform a specific function. Instead they are a collection of molecules which carry on chemical reactions within the limitations of certain chemical and physical environmental conditions which are characterized as the living state. The principle attribute of this process is stable existence called biostasis long enough to produce near mirror image replications of itself which carry on the same processes in the same or similar ways. The characteristic of these arrangements which allow them to apply their properties to other purposes is secondary to their principle characteristics, biostasis and reproduction.

Therefore the thesis which claims living organisms are machines created for a purpose and could not have come into existence without divine intervention because to do so would have violated natural law is without factual basis. It is obfuscation by deliberately misstating scientific principles, applying them incorrectly, and drawing unfounded conclusions, all in the service of a religion based on anti-science. The refusal to openly debate these issues with true scientists exposes so called creation scientists as intellectual frauds and cowards who do not have the courage of their convictions because they know that their line of reasoning is false and is only credible to those whose scientific training is limited or non existent. Their methods are those of intellectual intimidation, not fair and open scientific debate and reasoning.

Re Mark's posts: 3,17,36 and 42.

Mark,

I am not clear what you are arguing...
Are you saying that DNA can form without a template and without enzymes and that such a formation is not a violation of the SLOT?

Andrew

Re Tony Jackson's post 32

Just two brief points.
1. I thought that your example of antibody production was not the best example as this is one of the systems that Behe argues displays irreducible complexity.

2. You argue that there is no scientific "establishment" view which is seeking to supress dissenting views on the origin of life and biological complexity. The case of Richard Sternberg seems to indicate that there is some substance to this idea. The continuing use of a pseudonym by "Mike Gene" is also an interesting phenomenon for observers like myself.

Hello pb,

Let me respond to some of your latest posts, just a few of your points, don't have time to answer them all right now.

First the refs in your post #10. Yes, I've looked at them. So there are over 200 scientists who do not support evolution. In post 43 in this very thread, Joseph Mastropaolo noted that there are 353000 pro-evolution scientists. Science is not a democracy, large numbers don't necessarily make the majority right. But if you insists on playing the numbers game, then don't come to us with a 'Are those 200 scientists all wrong?' when you yourself would have read that if those 200 are right, a whopping 353000 other scientists would be wrong.

But what clinched it for me was your point 7. You wrote:

"7) How ridiculous does it sound to expect me to convert to belief in evolution after an hour reading a dozen hyperlinks from three cynical athiests with declared agendas? wise up."

Ad hominems have been debated on this list quite a bit but you have gone one worse. You're not arguing the content of the papers, as you haven't read them. You're also not going after the authors. No, you're going after those who *-recommend-* the scientific literature (helpfully taking some of their time to look it up for you). Does the fact that Tony Jackson recommended these links invalidate their content? Any work recommended by a pro-evolutionist or atheist is by definition no good? So much for the open-mindedness that you lay claim to.

David Walton (post 60): Sorry, you're not right. See here for a particularly clear and quantitatively rigorous example:

Andrew Rowell (post 66 and 67):
One of the frustrations of dealing with creationists is that they never actually seem to take on board what is being explained to them. Firstly, it's a bit unwise to bring up Behe's bizarre contentions about the immune system. These were shredded in his cross-examination at the Dover trial (see posts from Questioner above). Secondly, I was in any case using the mechanism of specific antibody generation as a particularly neat (and medically important) example of how the PRINCIPLE of random variation and cumulative selection can generate new and functionally important structures. Once again see this article:

And please READ it before comming back!

OK, that's it for me. I'm heading home from holiday today.

Re response 69
Tony,

I was interested in your use of antibody production as a counter example of ACM鈥檚 argument:

ACM said: 鈥淏ut natural selection has no power to create new functional structures. It does not increase information and does not build machines which are not there already (either fully developed or in embryonic form)鈥�.
You then stated that his argument was 鈥渇lat wrong鈥� and then launched into the case of antibody production.
My problem was that antibody production is not an example of natural selection in the sense that ACM was using the term. It is true that antibody production uses a semi-random process to generate brand new functional binding sites but this is not an example of natural selection in the sense that ACM was using it.

My concern was that your counter example does not falsify ACM鈥檚 claim because it is not an example of natural selection in the sense that he was using it.
The random part of antibody production alone cannot create functional antibodies.

Re response 69. Thanks Tony for the link to the Evolution of Biological Information by Thomas D. Schneider. I must confess that the maths are way over my head but, in the interest of balance, here is what appears to be a fairly comprehensive rebuttal.

Peter

ref post 68

first, thanks for taking the time to engage again.

Look, lets take a breather and assess where we are and not kill each other ok?

I already said in post 65 I would study the feathers hyperlinks this week, so please slow down and read that again.

I have not therefore rejected Tony;s hyperlinks at all, clearly. I am objecting to the apparent pressure to digest them and accept your interpretation in what feels like unreasonable haste.

Any thoughts on EB and wikipedia?

Now, on the number of creation scientists in that AIG sample, again you are missing my point. Of course science is not a democracy, but there are many shades of opinion on many subjects in science (post 70 is an obvious example). These AIG scientists see it differently, therefore to say they have no scientific credibility at all is not credible in my eyes. That is my point.

However, while we are on it, if I am studying Tony's feather links, why not browse through some of the bios on AIG and maybe, just maybe ask yourself if these people are intelligent, with integrity and highly qualified in their areas. Can you respect them on that basis while retaining your view that they are mistaken?

Remember, I have never said the evolutionists are flat wrong, because I am not qualified to do so.

Here are a few examinations of how science is apparently twisted by financial considerations. This does not refute evolution, but it does illustrate how science is only as objective as the person using it.

/worldservice/specials/1718_pills/

Off to read up on feathers now...

PB

Andy Rowell

Interesting point in post 70 that "the random part of anitbody production alone cannot create funcational antibodies."

That is where I was coming from in post 48 when I said:

"Surely the measureable reactions of the human immune system demonstrate that it is much more systematic than random."

PB

Questioner post 52

I'm dont know where to begin to get the info you request, and as we both know, I dont know if he ever presented such research.

There could be many perfectly legitimate reasons for that.

But he is an accomplished immunologist where you are not and he does not believe in evolution.

That looks like a fairly impressive CV he has. My point is simply this; creation science is working for him in the world of real science. His creationist understanding of the world is obviously not hindering his ability to work as a professional scientist - so to what extent is science really dependent on evolution, I wonder?

For many people (post 10) the answer would appear to be "not in the slightest".

Yes, I know I havet found that in a peer reviewed journal, but its still a valid observation.

PB

PS Observer, doesnt post 70 well answer post 57?

Tony

Which is it; random variation or random mutation?

Are you edging away from the term random mutation now?

And is cumulative selection really the same thing as evolution?

Interesting to see other bloggers here raising these two points...

I notice my points about the vast majority of mutations always being harmful also seems to have died a death...

And as for Behe, interesting to hear some of the points you are presenting are being debated in broader science circles...

PB

Andrew Rowell

Interesting point you make on post 67 about Richard Sternberg when you suggest that his case may indeed be evidence of "the establishment" trying to close down dissenting views on the origins of life.

The external links at the bottom of this wikipedia page give contrasting hyperlinks on the case for people to make up their own minds with.

PB

Tony

ref post 32

I have had a quick glance at all the hyperlinks there relating to the alleged evolution of feathers.

Several points remain.

1) I did not see any specific references to dates, places or specific fossils which purport to be transitional stages between feathers and scales. My question was, why has nobody ever found this transitional stage and your hyperlinks dont shed any light on this for me.

2) It appears easy to argue that the authors of the papers have approached the question thus; We take Darwinisn as a given therefore we will interpret any data we can find in light of this. We do not need to question whethere there ever was a transitional phase between scale and feather because that has already been settled.

3) I am interested to see what fossils may have been found relating to these articles and see what range of qualified opinions there may be on them.

4) I suppose an obvious point from a creationist scientist's viewpoint though (eg like those in post 10) would be that any number of fossils does not actually prove one actually evolved from another.

In Lehigh Uni statement on Prof Behe linked above, it says; "The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others....."

Has evolution ever been replicated in a lab to the same standard required for creationism?

Or are there double standards?

PB

Re: post 71

I had a look at "True" origins website and I do believe that it is a clever forgery by some students. My reasons for this are obvious-the site believes that the world scientific community from differing fields and countries and those from all religions and none and involved in the greatest conspiracy the world has ever seen! That evolution by natural selection is not one of the soundest ideas in science that is backed up by insurmountable evidence that is freely and publically available. Their opinion is...(now strap yourself in for this one!)is that the world is 6000 years old(!!!!), was formed in 6 days(!!!!!!), with 2 nudists-who were made from dirt(!!!!!!)who reside in an enchanted garden(!!!!!!!) which has a magic tree(!!!!!!!!!!!) and live with veggie T. Rex's and velocoraptors(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and live with/converse with a talking snake(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

Complete and utter nonsense as I am sure that everyone will agree!and that is why it must be a wind-up site, as no one in their right mind would believe such guff!

Happy new year!

Guys

Just to lighten the mood a little after all this serious debate, came across this tonight and thought it might raise a smile or two out there.

:-)
PB

Darwin鈥檚 folly

A dozen people are found dead at a remote mountain spot. Near the bodies a cow placidly chews some grass.
Forensic examinations of the bodies found that some had been bitten by a poisonous spider, others had been crushed by a boa constrictor and yet others had been savaged by an alligator. A team of forensic scientists checked the area but could find no trace of the spider, snake or alligator.
After a few weeks, a neophyte forensic scientist called Darwin knocked on the door of his senior officer: 鈥淓xcuse me sir, but I think I鈥檝e solved the puzzle of those dozen dead bodies.鈥�
His senior officer: 鈥淒arwin, what made you think it was a puzzle, it was just an unfortunate series of encounters with wild animals. It happens all the time.鈥�
Darwin: 鈥淣o sir. What actually happened is that these people were at this remote spot when an amoeba turned up. But through a process I shall call Darwinism, the amoeba mutated and adapted to its environment and developed into a poisonous spider, then a boa, followed by an alligator until it became what it now is, a cow. At each stage of its development it attacked several people until they were all dead, but at the moment it is still a cow.鈥�
His senior officer interjected: 鈥淗mmm, very interesting Darwin, I think I can see your logic. But tell me, did you ever see one of these species change into another?鈥�
Darwin: 鈥淣o sir, but each stage is bigger than the previous, so there is a logical pattern.鈥�
His senior officer: 鈥淲ell, do you know anyone else who has seen one of these species change into another?鈥�
Darwin: 鈥淣o sir, but I have many preserved specimens of amoebas, spiders, boas, alligators and cows which I have spent years studying.鈥�
His senior officer: 鈥淲ell, have you ever managed to replicate this process in a lab or seen or heard of anyone else doing it?鈥�
Darwin: 鈥淣o sir, it鈥檚 such a delicate process that the animal involved can鈥檛 do it if someone is watching. Each stage must have happened when the deceased weren鈥檛 looking.鈥�
His senior officer: 鈥淲ell do you think you could replicate this process under lab conditions? We have our professional credibility to maintain in this department you understand.鈥�
Darwin: 鈥淚 have no idea sir, it is just a theory I have.鈥�
His senior officer: 鈥淒arwin, did it ever occur to you that it might just have been a spider, a boa and an alligator that killed these people and that the cow just wandered by long after the event, totally innocent of it all?鈥�
Darwin: 鈥淏ut sir, that wouldn鈥檛 fit with my theory.鈥�
His officer: 鈥淗mmm, yes of course, good point Darwin. I was beginning to think you were losing it there until you clarified that for me. Get your report written up and onto my desk first thing in the morning. And between you and me, I think you may just be promoted to be my new assistant by the end of the month. The position is becoming vacant and I think I could use someone with your obvious talents.鈥�
Darwin: 鈥淵es sir, thank you sir.鈥�
ENDS

pb, you're losing it.

I posted this earlier today but for some reason it was not published.

AC McIntosh has professed an entirely wrong notion of thermodynamics and the lectures he referenced by Wilder Smith profess an equally wrong notion of living organisms.

The term thermodynamics is a misnomer. It is NOT the study of dynamic processes, it is a study of comparisons of quasi static or stable conditions of state at the beginning and end of processes, or at intermediate states which are also stable for a time. The only exception is the processes in the hypothetical idealized Carnot cycle engine. The macroscopic properties of matter which thermodynamics concerns itself with such as mass, temperature, pressure, volume, internal energy, entropy, Gibbs free energy are acknowledged to be the result of microscopic processes which are not in themselves static by terming them to be in 鈥渄ynamic equilibrium.鈥� The way in which a particular event occurs between these stable states is of no concern to thermodynamics. In chemistry that study is reserved to 鈥渃hemical kinetics.鈥�

The formation of any and all chemical bonds in the synthesis which constitute living organisms and any reactions any of them undergo does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. That law is not specific to any defined part of matter and energy, it refers to the entropy of the universe as a whole. To restrict it by looking at only one aspect or part of the universe is a factual error and misstatement of the second law of thermodynamics. The notion that DNA contains 鈥渋nformation鈥� is a human interpretation and has no application to thermodynamics which does not address it. If the spontaneous synthesis of information were a violation of natural law in chemical formations such as DNA, it would be a violation of natural law everywhere else such as in a computer. It would also be a violation for DNA to replicate itself since the change in entropy of the DNA compared to its constituents is the same regardless of how the process is carried out.

Wilder Smith鈥檚 thesis that living organisms including human beings are machines is factually incorrect. Living organisms do not exist to perform a specific intended function. Instead they are a collection of molecules which carry on chemical reactions within the limitations of certain chemical and physical environmental conditions which are characterized as living. The principal attribute of this process is a relatively stable existence called biostasis long enough to produce near mirror images of itself which carry on the same processes in the same or similar ways. The characteristic of these arrangements which allow them to apply their properties to other purposes is secondary to their principal characteristics, biostasis and reproduction.

Therefore the thesis which claims living organisms are machines created for a purpose and could not have come into existence without divine intervention because to do so would have violated natural law is without factual basis. It is obfuscation by deliberately misstating scientific principles, applying them incorrectly, and drawing unfounded conclusions which are all in the service of a religion based on anti-science. The refusal to openly debate these issues with true scientists exposes so called creation scientists as intellectual frauds and cowards who do not have the courage of their convictions because they know that their line of reasoning is false and is only credible to those whose scientific training is limited or non existent. They preach to the choir and only to the choir. Their methods are those of intellectual intimidation, not fair and open scientific debate and reasoning.

* 74.
* At 07:41 PM on 01 Jan 2007,
* pb wrote:

"But he is an accomplished immunologist where you are not and he does not believe in evolution."
.
How do know what my accomplishments are, pb? I'm not saying that I am more highly qualified than this immunologist you worship so dearly, though I can tell you they are way, way above your own in this area.

* 77.
* At 08:18 PM on 01 Jan 2007,
* pb wrote:

"Has evolution ever been replicated in a lab to the same standard required for creationism?
Or are there double standards?"
.
Is that a serious question?????
As stated over and over, no creation "science" reseach has ever been presented, let alone peer reviewed!
I know, because I've been over most of these same old creationist propositions many times and have searched the science journal databases.
Believe me, those in science would love to see some research presented. While you insinuate biased interpretation of results, by over 300,000 people from different fields I might add, you are obviously ignorant as to how scientific investigation and exceptance functions.
If you, or any others had any scientific creation evidence, it would have been presented for peer review, as even you would know.

As for your repeated question about wiki and EB not mentioning the immune system in context of evolution (I'm not sure why this is considered so important to you BTW), well who is to say why they don't go into, what amounts to a tiny fraction of the mass of information they present. It is not as if EB and wiki are dedicated to the field of immunology, is it?
Also, it is not where anyone wanting to look at this subject in depth would be looking for such information. (maybe that's why?)
Most texts covering the subject are
dedicated to the fields of
medicine, microbiology, medical microbiology and immnology (to name just a few).
Perhaps you would like to check out some of the most respected texts, which are made freely available on the "National Center for Biotechnology Information" (National Libray of Medicine and National Institutes of health)
The text "Immunobiology" (
Janeway, Charles A.; Travers, Paul; Walport, Mark; Shlomchik, Mark
New York and London: Garland Science ; c2001) is widely recommended by most colledges and universities.

(click on the pic of the text to acess its contents)

Other links for the impressive and massive database,including CURRENT reseach, that is NCBI, are provided in previous posts.

Anyway pb, I'm finished here. You insist on just going round and round in circles and continually bring up and argue, scientific research which you obviously have no understanding of. (NB an opinion is different to an argument!)
When a question you have asked, has been adequately answered, you simply switch to some other obscure question and attempt to present some sort of ad hoc argument.
Then repeat it at nauseum. You should read back over your own posts for
your insinuations reguarding those that can't be bothered to restate the obvious.
Have fun.

* 81.
* At 10:59 PM on 01 Jan 2007,
* Mark wrote:

"The refusal to openly debate these issues with true scientists exposes so called creation scientists as intellectual frauds and cowards who do not have the courage of their convictions because they know that their line of reasoning is false and is only credible to those whose scientific training is limited or non existent. They preach to the choir and only to the choir. Their methods are those of intellectual intimidation, not fair and open scientific debate and reasoning."
.
Spot on Mark :)
You have made these points much more elgently than myself.
I think pb is posting on this forum to deliberately yank the chain of anyone who doesn't blindly worship the creation story and waste their time.
(and I really mean..."waste your time")
Any rational scientific arguments appear to be completely ignored, and so the circle goes around.

BTW pb
I searched for your Dr Geoff Barnard and he hasn't submitted any 'creation science' research papers. (I'd already thought I would have heard if he had, before now) So it would appear, that professionally, his work is within the current accepted tenets of evolutionary theory.

* 80.
* At 10:50 PM on 01 Jan 2007,
* James Lee wrote:

pb, you're losing it.
.
In my opinion as well.

Looks like another conspiracy brewing against god. This time by these damn French and Italian atronomers. Wonder if they are atheists or just scientists doing their job?
.
Do Galaxies Follow Darwinian Evolution?

Science Daily 鈥� "Using VIMOS on ESO's Very Large Telescope, a team of French and Italian astronomers have shown the strong influence the environment exerts on the way galaxies form and evolve. The scientists have for the first time charted remote parts of the Universe, showing that the distribution of galaxies has considerably evolved with time, depending on the galaxies' immediate surroundings. This surprising discovery poses new challenges for theories of the formation and evolution of galaxies."
.
The Intelligent Design crowd believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old, so do I take there is a dispute between the YECs and them?
Als, I have seen the term YEC, used by many Young Eath Creationists when referring to themselves. Is this only a derogatory term when used by non-believers? You know, like, another rule for everyone else and very special rules for believers.
Have fun trying to actually change the meaning of evolution and natural selection, as well as the word science, won't you PB

I too have heard enough of pb talking around the issues he can't answer. Read the articles on half-evolved feathers yet? Thanks to James Lee (80), Questioner (82, 83) and A botanist (84) for saying it first. I feel slightly bad about negative, personal comments. But pb leaves us little other choice. Why don't we leave him in peace in his own little bubble. Pb, you can have the field to yourself as far as I'm concerned. Feel free to make challenging remarks, accusing me of running from the debate. Debate? I think your comments stopped constituting 'debate' some time ago.
Tony, Mark, James, Questioner, Observer and other sensible posters, do what you like but I would recommend you stop wasting your time on this IDiot as well.

43.
At 08:03 PM on 31 Dec 2006,
Joseph Mastropaolo wrote:
"Evolution and its alleged spontaneous generation origin were disproven by Dr. Francesco Redi in 1668, then more rigorously by Louis Pasteur in 1864, and most rigorously by John Tyndall in 1877. Those reproducible experiments have never been overturned.
After 1877, the vitalism humbug of evolution joined mysticism, astrology, and alchemy in the dustbin of history."
.
I find Joseph Mastropaolo's contentions interesting, especially in the context of them being from one with such esteemed credentials.
My understanding, from everything I have ever read in medical, molecular biology, biology and microbiology papers and textbooks, of Pasteur's experiment, is pretty much as outlined on the following website:

Which states in part:
"What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from non-life in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from non-life by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve. Neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution.鈥�

I am also very curious as to whether the Professor would consider transposable elements as living or non-living entities.

Microbiologist and Molecular Biologist #86

It is not unusual for creationists to deliberately distort, misinterpret, take out of context, or deliberately lie about what others have said or proven to make their points. They don't expect people to routinely research the veracity of their quoted statements and references but to take them at face value. This is what McIntosh and Wilder Smith did.

You are of course right, Pasteur's operative word being "current" which in no way implies anything about the origin of life.

I don't know what Joseph Mastropaolo is a professor of but I am fairly certain he will not win a Nobel Prize for the first artificial synthesis of living organisms from biologically inert matter in a laoratory.

William Crawley, thanks for providing these forums on this McIntosh saga.
Cheers

Hi Mark. It appears this guy has a link which goes through the university, but I found no University listing for:

@Post #43.
"Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, California State University, Long Beach."
The following was the most I could get, including an internal search of that institution.

1. About Joseph Mastropaolo and Karl Priest

.
2.Search results @ The Beach

.
3. Joseph A. Mastropaolo, Ph.D. Kinesiology/Physiology

Been doing alittle research on the Professor. It's getting late here so, here is what little I found:
Joseph A. Mastropaolo, Ph.D. Kinesiology/Physiology
鈥淧rofessor Emeritus, California State University, Long Beach. 1994-Present.鈥�

His bio at IRC, lists a long line of credentials and ~33 research papers to his name. And at the bottom of this extensive bio at IRC.:

鈥淗is site can be visited at:

That bottom link goes straight to his web page on the uni server.(web page looks like a student produced it)
No Wiki, on one with so many credentials either? Curiouser and curiouser.
I might check out some of those journal papers tomorrow and make a few more enquiries, I think!

So I return home and what do I find? As I鈥檝e come to expect, I discover that my creationist friends still don鈥檛 鈥榞et it鈥�.

Andrew (post 70):
鈥淭he random part of antibody production cannot create functional antibodies鈥�

Doh! Of course it can鈥檛 - ON IT鈥橲 OWN! But the whole point here is that random mutation is coupled to SELECTION to build new functional structures. In the specific case of antibody production, the selection is provided by the antigen itself (see my post 32).

Paul (post 71): The original Schneider paper was published in the peer reviewed journal Nucleic Acids Research 鈥� a leading journal in the field. Concerning your so-called refutation by Truman. In which peer-reviewed journal was this published? Oh I see, um it wasn鈥檛 (I鈥檝e checked by the way). Instead, Truman was content just to put it on a creationist website. Sorry, that鈥檚 not good enough. Look, I鈥檓 not being snooty here. I鈥檓 making an absolutely central point. If Truman has a serious point to make, why not go directly to scientists in the specialised literature? Even if he didn鈥檛 get past the reviewers at Nucleic Acid Research, there are lots of other journals he could try. If his claims have any merit at all, he really should be able to get them published in some peer-reviewed journal. The fact that he hasn鈥檛 suggests to me either a) he hasn鈥檛 bothered, or b) he never got it past the referees. This is the point I鈥檝e been trying to make about McIntosh. If McIntosh is right, then he really has made an important discovery. But instead of arguing with his peers in the technical literature, he wastes his time writing letters to newspapers and writing articles for the AIG website.

If you want yet another example of how random mutation and cumulative selection can build novel molecular structures, have a look at the exciting work being done in the field of 鈥榠n vitro evolution鈥�. In this technique, nucleic acid molecules (usually RNA) of initially random sequence are subjected to multiple rounds of mutation, amplification and selection to evolve new functional molecules never seen before (and some of which have obvious medical potential). Believe me it works (I鈥檝e done it myself), and the results are often surprising. Here is example for the primary literature:

Here is the abstract:
鈥淏ackground: Catalytic RNAs, or ribozymes, possessing both a genotype and a phenotype, are ideal molecules for evolution experiments in vitro. A large, heterogeneous pool of RNAs can be subjected to multiple rounds of selection, amplification and mutation, leading to the development of variants that have some desired phenotype. Such experiments allow the investigator to correlate specific genetic changes with quantifiable alterations of the catalytic properties of the RNA. In addition, patterns of evolutionary change can be discerned through a detailed examination of the genotypic composition of the evolving RNA population. Results: Beginning with a pool of 10(13) variants of the Tetrahymena ribozyme, we carried out in vitro evolution experiments that led to the generation of ribozymes with the ability to cleave an RNA substrate in the presence of Ca2+ ions, an activity that does not exist for the wild-type molecule. Over the course of 12 generations, a seven-error variant emerged that has substantial Ca(2+)-dependent RNA-cleavage activity. Advantageous mutations increased in frequency in the population according to three distinct dynamics--logarithmic, linear and transient. Through a comparative analysis of 31 individual variants, we infer how certain mutations influence the catalytic properties of the ribozyme. Conclusions: In vitro evolution experiments make it possible to elucidate important aspects of both evolutionary biology and structural biochemistry on a reasonable short time scale.鈥�

Please note: everytime any one of these in vitro evolution experiments is successfully carried out, it disproves McIntosh鈥檚 fallacy.

Biologist -

Is that the same KARL PRIEST who has been writing comments on the blog here?

I think it is quite telling that so many accomplished people in various sciences would take the time to discuss and explain complex scientific theories to laymen like pb who don't understand them but claim they would like to. In sharp contrast, Andrew McIntosh won't debate anyone who disagrees with him and he has made it quite clear in his message that he doesn't have the time of day for those scientists here or anywhere else. Apparantly he has far more important things to do...like communing with God. Andy, what does God tell you about how to save your job at Leeds University without admitting you got the second law of thermodynamics dead wrong and your whole argument about creationism is an intellectual house of cards which won't stand up to even the slightest of breezes of scientific truth?

I'm not an expert on evolution, but it's fascinating to follow this thread and read those who are responding to creationist arguments. I'm learning a lot. It's also a bit like listening to a world-class physicist responding to detailed arguments from a someone who seriously believes the sun goes round the sun. And don't think I'm overstating this, because the Answers in Genesis website acknowledges that some of their members and supporters believe in geocentricty. I'm serious. Go search their website and key in geocentricity. AiG says that those arguing for this tend to bring their creationist position into disrepute. That's an understatement! Yet the website, so far as I can see, respectfully avoids pointing out that geocentricity is scientifically bogus and biblically unsupported.

Post # 87
Mark wrote: "It is not unusual for creationists to deliberately distort, misinterpret, take out of context, or deliberately lie about what others have said or proven to make their points. They don't expect people to routinely research the veracity of their quoted statements and references but to take them at face value. This is what McIntosh and Wilder Smith did."

This is, of course, precisely the sort of "ad hominem attacks" that Prof. A. McIntosh was referring to which, he said, "do not add weight to any arguments and it is the science which is important". Whilst they do not add weight to arguments, they do, sadly, show that some evolutionists are prepared to stigmatize creationists as liars per se; for it suggests that "this person is a liar; therefore, logically, whatever he says about science cannot be trusted".

Consider, if you will, the implausibility of Mike's claim. A creationist, by definition, is someone who believes in God: a God who not only created us but to whom we are morally accountable; a God who requires moral obedience from those who believe in him and in his Son Jesus Christ. Does it really make sense, therefore, for a creationist "to deliberately ... lie about what others have said..."? Surely not! Any reputable Bible-believing creationist is, above all, committed to the moral principles of the Christian faith and will not compromise his or her integrity - not even for the sake of scoring a few cheap points against another scientist. Their scientific investigations will take them where the facts lead them, and they will be honest about their findings - even when it proves uncomfortable for their opponents. They are as intellectually capable as their atheistic peers; their Christian faith does not impair but rather informs their findings, just as an a priori philosophical commitment to atheistic humanism informs the evolutionary theorizing of the atheist scientist.

Logically, if God did indeed create the world, then one would of course expect the findings of scientific investigation to be in perfect harmony with God's written record, the Bible. And this, surely, is precisely what the facts demonstrate.

Paul Barnes
(Note: this is my first contribution to this weblog, so please do not confuse my name or initials with that of other contributors.)

Paul Branes writes in response to Mark succint comment in M87 that...

"This is, of course, precisely the sort of "ad hominem attacks" that Prof. A. McIntosh was referring to which, he said, "do not add weight to any arguments and it is the science which is important". Whilst they do not add weight to arguments, they do, sadly, show that some evolutionists are prepared to stigmatize creationists as liars per se; for it suggests that "this person is a liar; therefore, logically, whatever he says about science cannot be trusted".

The thing is though creationists or the leading lights in their organisations ARE liars, they have been caught out on numerous occasions, using deliberate misquotes, perverting data, and telling lies ad hominen attacks

see...

and the ever excellent

"A creationist, by definition, is someone who believes in God: a God who not only created us but to whom we are morally accountable; a God who requires moral obedience from those who believe in him and in his Son Jesus Christ. Does it really make sense, therefore, for a creationist "to deliberately ... lie about what others have said..."? Surely not! Any reputable Bible-believing creationist is, above all, committed to the moral principles of the Christian faith and will not compromise his or her integrity - not even for the sake of scoring a few cheap points against another scientist."

Precisely what I have often thought! how can people who can so vociferously say that they defend the bible-lie to promote it! The reason is that they are fundamentalists and are indulging in "double-think".

"Their scientific investigations will take them where the facts lead them, and they will be honest about their findings - even when it proves uncomfortable for their opponents. They are as intellectually capable as their atheistic peers; their Christian faith does not impair but rather informs their findings, just as an a priori philosophical commitment to atheistic humanism informs the evolutionary theorizing of the atheist scientist."

1. Their scientific findings do not lead them to facts rather they pervert the evidence to fit in with their own narrow view ie. a literal interpretation of a bronze age creation myth

2.It is not "uncomfortable" for their opponents! it's embarrassing!

3. Creationsists are intellectually dishonest and their "faith" greatly impairs their judgement.

4, Being a Christian does categorically NOT mean that you are a biblical creationist-intelligent Christians have no problem with evolution.

"Logically, if God did indeed create the world, then one would of course expect the findings of scientific investigation to be in perfect harmony with God's written record, the Bible. And this, surely, is precisely what the facts demonstrate."

Logically it would but unfortuantely for you their is not a single scrap of evidence that says that the world started 6000 years ago with 2 nudists who live in a magic garden with a talking snake!-funny that...

It's also funny that their are no atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Sikh, Buddist, Shinto etc etc Biblical fundamentalists

Whereas the insurmountable and freely available evidence that supports evolution is supported by those of all faiths and none.

Paul Barnes #87
It's only an ad hominem attack if it is based on emotion, not facts.

Fact; Andrew McIntosh misstated the second law of thermodynamics. There are only two possible explanations, either he is incompetent, too incompetent to hold a university position teaching thermodynamics or he lied.

Fact, Wilder Smith mistated many facts about biological organisms including the human organism.

Fact, these people will not enter into debate of their ideas with those scientists who are not of a like mind and who constitute the overwhelming majority of informed scientific opinion.

I outlined my own views in #81 in response to Andrew McIntosh's letter to this blog. Has he replied to even this small and insignificant utterance in the debate he has engaged? No, because like all of the others of his ilk he knows he would always lose when he isn't preaching to the choir. His excuse...he has no time. He's probably too busy contacting ministers, priests, and other like minded theists arranging for speaking tours where he will have a completely receptive and ignorant audience to preach to. Call it whatever you like, try arguing with those facts.

Tony Jackson re post 91 and 69.

Tony,

ACM said: 鈥淏ut natural selection has no power to create new functional structures. It does not increase information and does not build machines which are not there already (either fully developed or in embryonic form)鈥�.
You then stated that his argument was 鈥渇lat wrong.鈥�

You then gave the example of antibody production which is not an example of natural selection.

In your last post you gave the example of selection in vitro for catalytic RNA's. This is also not an example of natural selection producing
"new functional structures" or "increasing information content"

You will notice that I never said that ACM is right but simply that the counter examples you mention do not substantiate your declaration that he is "flat wrong."

I think that most ID supporters would argue that natural selection works as an excellent sieve for improved function and that occasionally you do get modifications that result in novel function. eg. nylonase. The difficulty comes where there is need for integrated multiple components for a single function (as in the bacterial flagellum or in the origin of a membrane bound living organism.)

In response, chaps and chapesses...

1) To those who accuse me of refusing to look at the information provided, have you all missed post 77?
I asked Tony Jackson why no transitional scale/feather fossils had been found and then asked him to
provide me a date a place and a fossil name. I looked at all the hyperlinks he gave me and none of them provided this information that I could see. So what am I refusing to believe?

2) A lot of you seem to relish throwing this "conspiracy" label at me but I notice not one of you has had the guts to acknowledge the rather awkward 麻豆约拍 investigations into scientists in post 72. Having read a little of Darwin's life today I noticed he had battle royale with the establishment in his day to get his ideas accepted. Figurative blood was left on the carpet, without
doubt, it was not done with objective politeness. Was this a conspiracy against Darwin? In no way. That is my point, in any circumstance a group of people long used to thinking in a particular way will likely not take kindly to someone challenging
that way of thinking. Is the concensus of "truth" on human knowledge of any particular area at a given time always going to be
the actual, absolute truth?
But even know some of you are digging as deep as you can to undermine one blogger's identity rather than debate with him head on.

3) I also noticed in reading Darwin a commendable circumspection. He did not spare himself in the weaknesses he saw in his
own theories, using pretty stern language on himself in this regard. And he quoted a clergyman who said there was no reason not
to believe God used evolution. I have to say I take my hat off to him in both regards, this of course is exactly the oposite
of Dawkins in both regards, and it would appear most evolutionists on this blog. Why do the evolutionists on this blog appear
to have no doubts, make no mistakes, have no unknowables, and be completely certain of all they say, in contrast? (Behr was an
akward subject to come up wasnt he Tony....as was Richard Sternberg, post 76?)

4) The attitude of many on this blog displays open contempt and ridicule for the sincerely held religious views of others and the fact that others do not have a scientific education. And then this is compounded by an impatience for such people to hurry up and believe evolution. If this was a religious discussion I would describe that as akin to attempted indoctrination
in a cult like environment. Whenever I am asked for my views on a subject from someone who feels I have something worth sharing I would like to think my approach in contrast is to encourage said person to look at all sides of a discussion and take whatever time needed to think for themselves. Within that I see no problem in advancing my own opinion and stating it as such.

5) I see some phds here discussing their views on the immune system without evolution;-

6) The whole point of this topic from Tony Jackson was to prove that evolution had be replicated in a lab, but several bloggers here and the Phds in point 5 dispute this. The bigger question still remains anyway - the undisputed results of such processes never ever demonstrate one species transforming itself into another, which is ACM's point that Tony was trying to disprove (as one
other blogger pointed out here). So it does seem like doubles standards exist here; creationism must prove itself in a lab before it can become
accepted but evolution has never been required to be replicated in a lab.

7) Questioner, I correctly used an educated guess that you were not an immunologist (my sense of probability is obviously not bad) and so I remain correct that our AIG immunologist G Barnard punches way above your weight on this topic. Yes you are a knowledgeable scientist but to assume the AIG scientist is working within evolutionary principles seems to be missing an important point to me. Gregor Mendel founded
the entire foundation for modern genetics, as a monk with no belief in evolution. So the entire root of genetics was created without belief in evolution so it does not seem unreasonable that approach can and does still work today in that field today. Anyway, you certainly have no objectivity or circumspection in regard to Barnard and his views, very presumptious.

8) Botanist, maybe EB and Wiki do not subscribe to evolution in antibody creation because the editors do not believe it! EB is a world renowned
general reference work on many subjects and that is why it is important what it says, of course. By the way, in post 1 you seem to be basing your belief in evolution
on what you openly admit to being an assumption you have not proven.

9) I am not a YEC, I have not looked into the evidence to have made a decision. But from where I am sitting I can still accept an earth as old as you guys, I can believe in natural variations in a species and I can tell you that I believe that thousands of fossils will be found this decade that apparently strenghten your worldview. But there is still a major problem; none of that helps prove that one species has ever changed into another. It is all based on interpretation of data (fossils) but nobody has ever proven it happened, just like creationism as it appears to me.

10) As there seems to a strong anti-religious bias among the volutionists here I ask the question why no theistic evolutionists are attacking me or ACM?
Could this be because the issue does not threaten their worldview whereas it does that of the atheistic evolutionists? I cant see another explanation for this common thread among the evolutionists here. But that would mean their primary motivation for being here is actually their religious belief ie that there
is no God, and that of course would betray their scientific objectivity.

Will be reading up on Origin of the species this week if anyone is interested. I dont suppose any of you will be reading AIG in the interests of balanced debate? Hmmmmm.
I dont know if any of you believe me, but Id more than happy to buy any of you a drink and relax aside from all this. I am sure we all enjoy a robust debate and as I said, I dont see any sign of evolution falling off its throne, so I cant see myself as a threat to any of you.

sincerely :-)

PB

Re Mark concerning posts 97, 87, 81 and my post 66.

I know considerably less than you about 2LOT. I am however very interested in understanding your argument that demonstrates that ACM and Wilder Smith are wrong in their application of it to the origin of biological information systems.
If I understand you correctly your argument rests on
(1) Wilder Smith is wrong to place any living organism -or any part of any living organism in the category "machine."
(2) The 2LOT cannot be used to examine a particular situation in biology eg. the origin of a biological information system or the origin of a function requiring multiple parts.
(3) The designation of DNA as an information store is incorrect
and
(4) the 2LOT does not address the concept of information.

Is that a fair summary of your argument?

I am also very interested indeed in your statement:
"It is not unusual for creationists to deliberately distort, misinterpret, take out of context, or deliberately lie about what others have said or proven to make their points..... this is what ACM and Wilder Smith did."

Can you clarify? Are you saying that ACM and WS have actually done one of these things or all or some of them? Can you clarify precisely what your claim is?

Andrew Rowell, I think you have fairly summarized my points.

A machine is a construct intended to perform a particular function or functons. Living organisms do not exist and did not evolve to perform a utilitarian function. Perhaps the word function is confusing. We also call the life processes living organisms carry on "functions." It is more accurate to say they enter characteristic chemical reactions which tend to stabalize them. Other chemical combinations can do the same in a lesser sense. A buffered solution for example will tend to minimize changes in PH that would otherwise occur when a reagent of the opposite type (acid/base) is added. Human beings were not created to shovel snow, plow fields, build automobiles. They can do this as a consequence of the evolved processes they carry on which are their primary characteristics, biostasis and reproduction. The structures they evolved are complex, intricate, difficult for science to figure out, but that does not qualify them as machines. Perhaps nano technology will create self replicating nanobots which are machines. Will they qualify as life forms? I don't know. So far, although machines can be designed to be self adjusting, they have not managed to be able to replicate themselves. Perhaps some day they will. Will that make them life forms? I don't know that either. Where does a machine end and a living organism begin? The distinction may become less clear in the future.

As I said, thermodynamics only looks at conditions of state, not processes. It compares the universe before and after a process and makes asessments about how the universe changed. It can say that when reactants A and B reacted and created products C and D, internal energy was converted to heat, heat flowed, temperature rose. It will always say that the entropy of C+D is greater than the entropy of A+B. It cannot say however that the entropy of C will not be less than A+B even if C is a DNA molecule. That is a misstatement of the second law of thermodynamics McIntosh made. When constituent atoms of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen are bonded to form DNA, thermodynamics doesn't care if they were assembled by another strand of DNA acting as a template or not. It has nothing to say about that. It is a permissible chemical reaction either way. McIntosh got it dead wrong.

The notion of information is a human one. If there are 100 billion ways to put a certain number of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon atoms together and one of them happens to enter into reactions which initiate life processes, it is not logical to say that someone programmed them deliberately with information. It just happened. Thermodynamics does not address the peculiarity of their assemblage process either. That is the provence of chemical kinetics as I said before.

AC McIntosh and Wilder Smith deliberately twisted and distorted well known natural laws to try to prove that it was impossible for life to come into existance spontaneously. They will find it impossible to prove this to the vast majority of other scientists who are frankly outraged because they see through this thinly veiled attempt to replace real science with their religious theology. And McIntosh and Smith won't try to convince them because they know they can't. Instead they have gathered a like minded group of other pseudo-scientists who are willing to make the same false assertions to achieve the same goal. And who do they lecture to? Only to those who don't know what they are really up to or don't care. In the one instance where McIntosh came up against a real scientist, Dawkins, his gaff was spotted immediately and put under a magnifying glass. McIntosh has been running away from openly discussing it with other scientists ever since.

HOW MANY HAVE ACTUALLY READ & PONDERED THE FOLLOWING WORDS?
Genesis 1
The Creation
1(A)In the beginning (B)God (C)created the heavens and the earth.
2The earth was [a](D)formless and void, and (E)darkness was over the surface of the deep, and (F)the Spirit of God (G)was [b]moving over the surface of the waters.

3Then (H)God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

4God saw that the light was (I)good; and God (J)separated the light from the darkness.

5(K)God called the light day, and the darkness He called night And (L)there was evening and there was morning, one day.

6Then God said, "Let there be an (M)expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

7God made the [c]expanse, and separated (N)the waters which were below the expanse from the waters (O)which were above the expanse; and it was so.

8God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

9Then God said, "(P)Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let (Q)the dry land appear"; and it was so.

10God called the dry land earth, and the (R)gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.

11Then God said, "Let the earth sprout (S)vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so.

12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

13There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

14Then God said, "Let there be (T)lights in the (U)expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for (V)signs and for (W)seasons and for days and years;

15and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.

16God made the two great lights, the (X)greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made (Y)the stars also.

17(Z)God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,

18and to (AA)govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.

19There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

20Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."

21God created (AB)the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

22God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."

23There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

24(AC)Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

25God made the (AD)beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

26Then God said, "Let (AE)Us make (AF)man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them (AG)rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

27God created man (AH)in His own image, in the image of God He created him; (AI)male and female He created them.

28God blessed them; and God said to them, "(AJ)Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

29Then God said, "Behold, (AK)I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;

30and (AL)to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.

31God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very (AM)good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

* 92.
* At 06:27 PM on 02 Jan 2007,
* David (Oxford) wrote:

Biologist -
"Is that the same KARL PRIEST who has been writing comments on the blog here?"

Probably. Here is a little who's who and what their organisational affilations are.

Talk about conspiracy's, some of the past YEC/ID statements reguarding their intentions are quite telling. For a good rundown, of documented info, have a look at this page on the same site.
(British Centre for Science)

* 99.
* At 10:13 PM on 02 Jan 2007,
* pb wrote:
"I dont suppose any of you will be reading AIG in the interests of balanced debate? Hmmmmm."

Not so pb, I myself am currently reading AIG's site with great relish.
It is a most interesting site.
Especially the AIG scientists and their bios.

Clearly there is a classical 'creation' verses 'evolutionary' root to many of the comments being made here.

It is this fundamental root of understanding whether based on science, belief or both, which is most intriguing. If we are just dealing with a mind game - which is how it often comes across, then we must at least admit, that many things are beyond the human perspective - could we agree on this?

ILLUSTRATION
Every person knows the effects of the Sun.
A modern academic and renowned scientist explains to me what the Sun is made of, but fails to convince me from whence it came.
An ancient uneducated person explains to me where the Sun came from, but hasn't a clue what it is made of.
Question: What is the more important issue at stake here - to know what something is made of or from whence it came?

FURTHER QUESTION
Can anyone explain what light and darkness are made of and from whence they came?

Kind regards.

# Luthers barber wrote:

The bible story!

hahahahaha
Thanks for lightening the mood a little
Luthers.:)
I read that story when I was a kid.
Them there evilutionists sure know how to keep presenting that serious science stuff.

99. At 10:13 PM on 02 Jan 2007,
pb wrote:
鈥淏ut even know some of you are digging as deep as you can to undermine one blogger's identity rather than debate with him head on.鈥�

My response to his assertions was given. Perhaps you would read it?
You continually hold up the assertions/qualifications of those at AIG to support your argument pb. Would you expect, those versed in fields of scientific inquiry NOT to examine their qualifications even though you continually insist that they do precisely that? The gentleman in question has a significant bio on AIG. It is only natural to check this out after the statements he made. I present the facts as I find them.
You say 鈥渦ndermine鈥� Is this directed at the comment I made regarding entry page on the uni server?
If so I stand by my opinion. That page is of quite amateur construction in my opinion. I have produced my own web pages n the past, enough to have an opinion on the quality of one. ( not to mention the vast number I have visited) Others can judge for themselves.

3) 鈥淚 also noticed in reading Darwin a commendable circumspection. He did not spare himself in the weaknesses he saw in his own theories, using pretty stern language on himself in this regard. And he quoted a clergyman who said there was no reason not to believe God used evolution. I have to say I take my hat off to him in both regards, this of course is exactly the opposite of Dawkins in both regards, and it would appear most evolutionists on this blog.
Are we still talking science or the personality of Darwin here?
鈥淲hy do the evolutionists on this blog appear to have no doubts, make no mistakes, have no unknowables, and be completely certain of all they say, in contrast?鈥�
I don't believe any of the above responses have asserted this. It would seem you are trying to make some sort of invalid correlation here
鈥淲ithin that I see no problem in advancing my own opinion and stating it as such.鈥�

You argue the scientific context of your opinion pb, not merely state it.

鈥淕regor Mendel founded the entire foundation for modern genetics, as a monk with no belief in evolution. So the entire root of genetics was created without belief in evolution so it does not seem unreasonable that approach can and does still work today in that field today.鈥�

We've come a long way in our understanding of evolutionary genetics since Gregor Mendel, even though his basic observations mostly stand. Since Mendel, other patterns of genetic, inheritance and interaction have been elucidated by scientific investigation.
If you are trying to associate a geneticist with your world view PB, try for someone, from this century. Preferably one who is active in one of the modern fields of phylo-genetics, molecular genetics or developmental genetics ect. In other words CURRENT. If you want to 'argue/opine' against the current tenets of evolutionary theory, then you must argue it within its current context.

10) 鈥淎s there seems to a strong anti-religious bias among the volutionists here I ask the question why no theistic evolutionists are attacking me or ACM?
Could this be because the issue does not threaten their world view whereas it does that of the atheistic evolutionists? I cant see another explanation for this common thread among the evolutionists here. But that would mean their primary motivation for being here is actually their religious belief e that there is no God, and that of course would betray their scientific objectivity.鈥�

I've had this discussion with a number of moderate christians who wholeheartedly believe in evolution.
Two things soon became obvious from these discussions.
1)They do not seem to want to be aligned with the right wing fanatics, who they feel. are not only embarrassing them , but are also undermining christianity itself.
2)Many have simply said 鈥渋t's political鈥�. (or words to that effect)

鈥淐ould this be because the issue does not threaten their worldview whereas it does that of the atheistic evolutionists?鈥�

Science is not a world view, IT IS SCIENCE.

鈥� I dont see any sign of evolution falling off its throne, so I cant see myself as a threat to any of you.鈥�

I don't believe anyone here with any scientific knowledge sees your world view as a threat to them pb. However most scientists are people who won't allow distortion of scientific findings to be disseminated to a less informed public.
But as far as the findings of science itself goes, there is no threat from your world view, as you call it, as the responses from others to your ad hoc arguments, has clearly shown.

104. At 01:24 AM on 03 Jan 2007,
* PVF wrote:

"Question: What is the more important issue at stake here - to know what something is made of or from whence it came?"
.
These questions are of equal importance to scientific enqiry, which is commonly carried out with both in mind.
One leads to questions of the nature of the other!
Knowing how something came about is a major factor in understanding why it is made of the compounds/properties it possesses.

Molecular biologist

You question whether creationists can work in genetics? I count 9 of phd level and above on the AIG website on post 10.

can you define what a "right wing fanatic" is before you label me a such please?

Ref worldviews; are you really saying that 100 per cent of scientists' worldviews are scientific? Isnt that a bit naive?

I doubt it and this is the point I am making, your scientific worldview is a subset of your total worldview. This includes religious and political and cultural beliefs and assumptions you were given before you became educated in science -and after- and which others which are implicit in your science.

PB

Fair point to check out a scientists credentials but the attitude here is very cynical and no apparent reasonable benefit of the doubt that a creationist can be a scientist, though they are continually popping up above on this blog.

PB

Re Mark Posts 101,

Mark,

Just a brief one on your accusations of dishonesty.

Just to clarify. Are you claiming that ACM and WS are guilty of "deliberate twisting and distortion" of the 2LOT in this case?

Are you also claiming that it is not uncommon for creationists to "deliberately lie"? Can you give me a handful of examples? Are these well known UK creationists?

PVF

I dont agree that 104 this is a difference of viewpoint between science and religion.

1) Evolution has never been replicated in a lab.

2) Creationism has never been replicated in a lab.

As replication is a key part of the scientific method then how can one be taken as fact and the other not?

PB

Mark Re Post:101
Mark,

You said:
鈥淟iving organisms do not exist and did not evolve to perform a utilitarian function.鈥�
Would you say that the bacterial flagellum is a machine for moving a bacterium into a more favourable environment?
You said:
鈥淭he notion of information is a human one. If there are 100 billion ways to put a certain number of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon atoms together and one of them happens to enter into reactions which initiate life processes, it is not logical to say that someone programmed them deliberately with information.鈥�
The difficulty as I see it is that the simplest cell is not at all simple and their seems no way to get to a DNA/protein coding system without some kind of jump reaching complexity all at once rather than in small selectable steps. Why is it illogical to say that one possible way is by someone deliberately programming the system?

More creation "science"

Thanks Dylan Dog, (#96. ) I instantly recognised the accuracy of each of the outlined tactics, having experienced them in every discussion of this nature, bar NONE. Bottom line 鈥渢he Idists/YECs main goal is to keep up appearance of a real scientific debate, even though they very rarely understand what constitutes science in the first place. ( I have come across one or two who admitted they were paid to do this) This is evidenced time and time again by their personification of it. I advise others to check out this link (if you haven't done so or seen similar) as PB no doubt thoroughly studied these exact tactics and has memorised them down to the letter.

Farewell PB, it's been predictable and average! To the others trying to patiently explain, even basic scientific concepts, to someone who clearly has no intention of even pretending to absorb anything you proffer, I'd admire your patience and especially your talent.
I was kinda hoping to see something other than the tired old IDiot arguments (call that what will pb :)
that have been trashed on forums all over the place. But alas,
same old rhetorical gymnastics, same old tactics yawn

109.At 01:22 PM on 03 Jan 2007,
Andrew Rowell wrote:
鈥淎re you also claiming that it is not uncommon for creationists to "deliberately lie"? Can you give me a handful of examples? Are these well known UK creationists?鈥�

Mark seems to be doing a fine job of explaining thermodynamics, but may I toss in my own perspective?

Professor McIntosh wrote:
"The principles of thermodynamics even in open systems do not allow a new function using raised free energy levels to be achieved without new machinery. And new machines are not made by simply adding energy to existing machines. This was the point at issue in the programme of Dec 10th. Intelligence is needed."

What Professor McIntosh is postulating is not a new concept. It is called Maxwell's Demon, and was worked out over a hundred years ago. He has merely cast it in a new framework, but it's really quite well resolved already (and not in his favor.)

The reason why this argument does not work is that as energy is added to an open system, it eventually becomes favorable to populate even very unlikely states; a system in which there are absolutely no nucleic acids is more highly ordered than one in which there is a very small but non-zero amount present.

Put differently, what Professor McIntosh is suggesting is that one can make ultrapure water from water tainted with a highly nonpolar hydrocarbon by stirring it. This is incorrect.

I hope this helps,
--Tom

Interesting that you would bring up the topic of bacterial flagella. Dr. Miller spoke about this very subject in his excellent lecture which you probably didn't hear. It was referenced by Dawkins. Yes, flagella were a useful step in evolution because they allowed bacteria to carry on the biostasis process more efficiently by evading predators and moving towards its own food. The intesting part Miller brought up about the structure of flagella was that the proteins which make them function were present in more primitive bacteria performing other functions as well. This is strong evidence favoring evolution by natural selection as a gradual incremental process. Obviously, mutational variants which came closer to having flagella were more successful at sustaining life and therefore became the dominant form.

As I said in another posting elsewhere, the events which lead to the existance of viable living cells which could generate a self sustaining biosphere are likely very rare possibly having occurred only once on earth in 4 1/2 billion years. Not only does DNA have to come into existance but it must find itself in a suitable environment to create the structures of living matter it needs to survive and replicate. Every one of those one hundred billion combinations may have occurred many many times but only in one instance was the environment suitable to create and sustain life. But once was enough. Does this preclude the possiblity of an alternative explanation that life was brought to earth by some other intelligence such as space aliens or god? No, but where is the evidence for it? Such conjecture without any evidence is not science, it is fantasy. The explanations the biblical creationists offer fly in the face of other known facts such as the true age of the earth and the age of many extinct species of plants and animals. In fact one theory has it that this material arrived on earth as the result of a meteor or comet crash. There may be some evidence for this from analysis of such astronomical objects but the prevailing theory has it that the environment of the early earth is by far the most likely source of both the required matter and the energy necessary to assemble it. Remember, the argument McIntosh and Wilder Smith advanced was that spontaneous formation of life was impossible because it violates natural law and therefore only divine intervention could have created it. Not only that but their explanation that humans were created and could not have evolved from lower species also flies in the face of very strong evidence. Dr. Miller discussed this in his lecture also. The evolution from other primates wich have 48 pairs of genes and not the 46 in humans is now easily explained be the direct observation of the fusion of two pairs of genes. Comparison of genetic markers on humans and primates on this fused pair are virtually conclusive proof that humans evolved from the great apes in this way. The notions of Wilder Smith and McIntosh are more full of holes than a wheel of Swiss cheese.

* 107.
* At 05:13 AM on 03 Jan 2007,
* Chemistry wrote:

104. At 01:24 AM on 03 Jan 2007,
* PVF wrote:

"Question: What is the more important issue at stake here - to know what something is made of or from whence it came?"
.
These questions are of equal importance to scientific enqiry, which is commonly carried out with both in mind.
One leads to questions of the nature of the other!
Knowing how something came about is a major factor in understanding why it is made of the compounds/properties it possesses.

In that case would you kindly answer the questions in 104? - or perhaps an easier one as follows:

What came first the Chicken or the egg?

Now this is straight forward for the creationist belief and understanding, but the scientist would find it a really tough one, because in fact he has no idea or way of knowing!

Kind regards.

Andrew (post 98). Re your continued confusion over natural selection. Natural selection, in vitro evolution and antibody generation all work on the same core principle of cumulative selection of randomly varying replicators.

Look, I have a mental image of creationists on this site (especially Andrew and PB) sitting cross-legged on the floor with their fingers in their ears all singing in unison 鈥渘a, na, na na na na, we can鈥檛 hear you!鈥�. Creationists should reflect on the fact that constant and ill-informed nay-saying, in and of itself will never work. If you really want to overturn the theory of evolution, you not only have to provide a positive alternative that explains everything the current theory so clearly explains, but also provide additional predictions of relevant phenomena that are not explained by the current theory. I see no evidence that you are in the least bit interested in doing that.

There comes a time when there isn鈥檛 any further point in talking. For those readers who are genuinely interested in what is after all the central organising principle of the biological sciences, let me second Dylan Dog鈥檚 comment and recommend the excellent Talk Origins website:

And also Panda鈥檚 Thumb:

Thanks also to botanist, mark, molecular biologist, observer, peter and questioner.

OK, that really is the end from me. I have a grant to finish and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council won鈥檛 wait.

* 110.
* At 01:25 PM on 03 Jan 2007,
* pb wrote:

As replication is a key part of the scientific method then how can one be taken as fact and the other not?

I disagree - the Chicken naturally reproduces or replicates itself via the egg and this can be done in a lab as many times as you like, but you will always need an egg! If you have no egg, then you will need a chicken!

So - where did the Chicken or egg come from originally?

Kind regards.

Tony

I think in post 117 you have made an important point when you repeatedly talk of the "theory of evolution".

You seem to have totally forgotten that you never did manage to find me a transitional fossil which shows that feathers evolved from scales, despite all the hyperlinks you provided.

As a non-scientist I could never begin to prove creationism or evolution to myself or others. All I can see is that neither have ever been replicated in a lab as per the scientific method. Nor has either ever been witnessed by a scientist.

But when I look at post 10 and find over 200 scientists of phd level and above currently busying away in the same scientific insitutions as the evolutionists, it is undeniable that a creationist worldview works perfectly well in the real cut and thrust of real science today for professional, intelligent accomplished scientists in fields as diverse as genetics, geology, palentology, physics etc. (see post 10).

To try and suggest otherwise is a denial of the very existence of those 200 biographies.

I dont doubt for a second that there are many evolutionary scientists of equal intelligence and integrity who see it all totally differently.

My only real concern is why there cannot be at least mutual professional respect despite a lack of agreement.

PB

"But when I look at post 10 and find over 200 scientists of phd level and above currently busying away in the same scientific insitutions as the evolutionists, it is undeniable that a creationist worldview works perfectly well in the real cut and thrust of real science today for professional, intelligent accomplished scientists in fields as diverse as genetics, geology, palentology, physics etc. (see post 10)."

Money money money money.....hahahahaha

"But when I look at post 10 and find over 200 scientists of phd level and above currently busying away in the same scientific insitutions as the evolutionists"

Working within an evolutionary principle
basis if their credentials are at all relevent. People should not use their professional credentials to sell their world unless those credentials were obtained in concurrence with their world view. Interlectual dishonesty at its sleaziest!

Komodo Dragon #105

"Serious science stuff" - where, here? Are you seriously suggesting that Luther's Barber takes a science lesson from a reptile? Perhaps you could blind poor little old Christian me with some of your tales from Darwin's fireside. No, I think either you or one of your ancient relatives have eaten one too many magic pygmy elephants! Try to be a little more gracious & humble KD - after all, Darwin's only formal third-level qualification was in theology NOT science.
Sometimes you clever-clogs 'scientists' just overwhelm me with your intellectual acumen; shaming me with your fundamentalist clinging to a pseudo-scientific thesis which (has from its own 'origins') contained the seeds of its own destruction. Perhaps you should 'play along' with Genesis for a while Dragon, try it on & wear it for a while - at least then (if only for a trial period), you'd have a coherent hypothesis for the origins of the universe instead of living in a Dawkinsian-type theoretical vacuum, where such trifling matters are deemed as "unimportant" ! PLEASE, SPARE ME!

The AIG CULT
Answers in Genesis / AIG/ Ken Ham
Answers in Genesis Mission Statement
Vision
Answers in Genesis is a catalyst to bring reformation by reclaiming the foundations of our faith which are found in the Bible, from the very first verse.
Mission
We proclaim the absolute truth and authority of the Bible with boldness.
We relate the relevance of a literal Genesis to the church and the world today with creativity.
We obey God鈥檚 call to deliver the message of the Gospel, individually and collectively.
STRATEGIC PLAN: TO PROVIDE ANSWERS FROM GENESIS TO MAKE JESUS CHRIST, OUR CREATOR AND REDEEMER, RELEVANT TO THE CHURCH AND WORLD TODAY.
"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created".
Revelation 4:11
Statement of Faith
Statement of Faith
I.PRIORITIES
A. The scientific aspects of Creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge.
B. The doctrines of the Creator and the Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
II.BASICS
B. The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
C. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth, and the universe.
D. The various original life forms ("kinds"), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
E. The great flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
G. Death, both physical and spiritual, entered into this world subsequent to--and as a direct consequence of--man's sin.
IV. GENERAL.....
...E. The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into "secular" and "religious" is rejected.
F. By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.鈥�

.
AIG looks objective to me (lol)

America's Holy Warriors
The loving peaceful morals of the American brand, evangelical Christian extremism will be coming to a country near you soon. I suggest aiming towards compulsory teaching of evangelical fundamentalist tenets in the schools. Implementation, would of course be tax free.
In the mean time, it's a good idea to infiltrate and influence government departments.

123.
At 01:27 AM on 04 Jan 2007,
Lee wrote:
鈥淒. The various original life forms ("kinds"), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind.鈥�
.
Ah yes. Sounds like Cuvier.
Baron Georges L茅opold Chr茅tien Fr茅d茅ric Dagobert Cuvier (August 23, 1769鈥揗ay 13, 1832)

A tad out of date though. Seems that when Darwin came along and hypotheses underlying his theory were continually produced and proven, therefore underlying support of it, Cuvier's ideas were ditched.
.
You guys really should get with the times you know and try a little something from this present day and age.
While 鈥淒arwin's Descent with Modification鈥� provided a very important theoretical framework, which directed reseach in biological sciences, modern techniques in Developmental Biology, Molecular Genetics, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology have long been producing more information, which supports and builds on the the fundamental tenents of evolutionary theory. Might it be that proclaiming out of date scientific concepts, theorized before modern molecular analytical techniques were available, is the only way to reconcile your belief system. Perhaps you could look to the current (I stress current) understanding of Darwin's initial theory, which is supported by research in the above areas as well as many others, including medicine.
So far have we come, in the elucidation and expansion of Darwin's initial theory and its basic principles, his name is rarely mentioned, except where the principles underlying theory itself, are being taught.

"My only real concern is why there cannot be at least mutual professional respect despite a lack of agreement."

It's beacuse they are a miniscule pack of wah wah, who recahed their decision not because of science or evidence but because they are fundamenatlists.

And what is there conclusion...the world is 6000 years old, created in 6 days with a talking snake!!!!! how are you meant to "respect" guff like that?

Kindest regards

DD

ps. why are there no athesist, agnostic, hindu, Buddist, Shinto etc etc biblical creationists? mmmmm

Indeed why do intelligent Christians have no problem with evolution?

Dylan Dog

I wonder if your analysis of the credibility of creation science could be on the same level as your knowledge about creationism in other faiths.

Hindus, Muslims and Jews also believe in creationism;-

PB

Some people on the blog are wondering about the Wilder Smith mentioned in McIntosh's reply. He is in fact the late A.E. Wilder-Smith. You'll find his website here:

In 1986, Dawkins took part in an Oxford Union debate about creaionism and evolution. Wilder-Smith was on the other side. The evolutionists won on the votes, but a third of the votes went to the creationist, much to the anger of Dawkins and others.

This encounter is now the subject of legend, but one place to start exploring what might have happened there is here (warning: a very biased creationist account):

It's at least likely that this encounter is the reason why Dawkins avoids debating creationists. Until Sunday Sequence managed to twist his arm!

Lee laughs out loud at the supposed objectivity of 'Answers in Genesis', but forgets he is equally as "objective", and for that matter equally as "biased", equally as "fundamentalist", and equally as "bigotted" as they are, to use some expressions I've also heard. He's not alone in being unreceptive to the ideas of others; I am, too. We all are - we can't help it! We have all got an extremely small and "partial knowledge" of anything, that becomes our fundamental belief and which governs the way we see the world. Consequently for each of us, how things came to be is only "world-view" science (as, unlike "true" science, origins are unrepeatable - no matter how much we'd *like* it to be otherwise!!) so we are merely dealing with our own opinion when looking at past events. Even in pursuing true science today, it unavoidably ultimately rests upon assumptions that are just personal preference and which could be wrong - no matter how many others share that preference - and we need to continually examine the veracity of our world-views against true science.

I find this whole creation/evolution debate is extremely interesting - it really deserves wider exposure. Why is there *nothing* positive about creationism on the 麻豆约拍? Having been indoctrinated in evolution at school, I'm fascinated to see how weak it is against some of these creationist arguments! Although some might seem initially "wacky", some are also really worth considering!! As a non-specialist (though with a few science 'O' levels and Geology at 'A' level) it is good to hear both sides of an issue, to assist me in my search for truth. To help evaluate I'm seeking a rigorously logical case argued from each world-view; fair and in-depth treatment of the objections of the other side; and dignity and respect for opponents. Sadly these are things distinctly lacking in the Dawkins camp(!)

Enrico

well put.

evolution and creationism are both unrepeatable in labs and therefore remain unproven theories.

Interpreting the historical data is in large part down to our worldviews and opinions.

PB

PB 127

Huge sigh!

Yes their are other creationists Jews and Muslims share the same creation myth as Christians and why are their no Hindu, agnostic, atheist etc etc etc BIBLICAL creationists?

Why are there no Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, Buddist etc etc Hindu creationists?

130. evolution has been shown in the lab and you cannot prove a theory only disprove and so far nothing has come along to disprove evolution.

"Interpreting the historical data is in large part down to our worldviews and opinions."

EXACTLY! creationists(of whatever ilk, Biblical, Hindu, Pastafarian, American Indian, Inca etc etc) form their opinion based on faith not on evidence.

PB

* 123.
* At 01:27 AM on 04 Jan 2007,
* Lee wrote:

AIG mission statement
"F. By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.鈥�
* 129.
* At 11:33 AM on 04 Jan 2007,
* Enrico Martinelli wrote:
"To help evaluate I'm seeking a rigorously logical case argued from each world-view; fair and in-depth treatment of the objections of the other side; and dignity and respect for opponents. Sadly these are things distinctly lacking in the Dawkins camp(!)"

I am not from the "Dawkins camp" as you so cutely put it Enrico, I am from the science camp. Scientific investigation is not conducted with a limit on whether the results are acceptable to ones world view or not. If any research conducted this way is submitted it will be torn to shreds by global peer REVIEW and the research scientist responsible will have LOST RESPECT fron the global scientific community.

* 130.
* At 01:27 PM on 04 Jan 2007,
* pb wrote:
"evolution and creationism are both unrepeatable in labs and therefore remain unproven theories."

Could you define your interpretation and understanding of what constitutes a scientific "theory" for us pb.
There is a large difference between a 'theory' and a hypothesis (an idea).
An accepted scientifc theory consists of many, many hypotheses which have been proven empirically. The ideas of the creationists remain exactly that, untested hypotheses. To even call creationism a theory you need to present many testable hypotheses which will support it.
Just goes to show creation "science" is not science, but pseudo science. The concept of a scientific theory is taught at an introductory level of in all fields of scientific studies.
Just because someone says they have a theory, doesn't make it one
No matter how much you try to change the meaning of the term to suit your purposes, it won't work.
Still I would be very interested in hearing what your interpretation of the term "scientific theory" pb.

Luther's Barber's New Year's gift to the world: Radio Debate recording (RTE) in which Prof. Dawkins can't stop running.

Perhaps this truly is THE 'missing link'?

LB

re 133:

Luther - your mad!

That guy Quinn argues that there's no free will without belief in God. Whatever. Prove that one.

Dawkins was right to move on to sensible topics.

Then Quinn thnks the answer to the question "where does matter come from?" is GOD. How's that an answer? We might as well ask where God comes from!

Then Quinn just yells that nothing exists without a first cause or an unmoved mover. That BEGS the question. It's actually possible that matter ALWAYS existed without a cause.

How you can listen to this argument and conclude that Dawkins is on the run is astonishing! Quinn just repeats his question-begging assumption of God's existence over and over and talks over Dawkins. Nice rhetorical style. But poor logic.

James Lee - you truly are a fully paid up member of Dawkins et al club for the deluded!:-) There is nothing inconsistent in what Quinn asserts; rather he highlights the inconsistency within Dawkins' own schema. Dawkins tries to evade - as he always does - the issue of origins. Quinn, although his answer is thoughly unacceptable to RD, DOES have a coherent answer to this problem. It would seem that Darwin's Rotty is bang up to date with Ptolemy (200AD) & is content to consider spontaneous self-generation as a possibility - yeah, right! And as for Quinn's rhetoric, perhaps he is giving RD a taste of his own ill-mannered medicine!
Does your 'logic' really lead you to posit matter as an eternal substance? Without a beginning or ontological cause? WOW - now that's a leap of faith! (or should I say, ... a shot in the dark?) As Quinn candidly points out, matter has a mater!
Dawkins should really stick to his own area of pop-science, publishing his 'make a quick buck by offending Christians' books & refrain from straying onto the paths of Theology & Philosophy - for it is here that Dawkins finds himself adrift.

Re posts 87, 113 and 109 (My original post on this question)

Mark, your allegation that creationists have not unusually been found to "deliberately lie" is still standing on this thread but you have not substantiated it yet. Have you got a handful of incidents to report? Do you mean leading UK creationists?

Molecular Biologist - I cannot find the evidence that I am looking for on the bcse page you referenced. Do you agree with Mark's allegation?

Dylan, lee

It is not just religious folk that have worldviews, anyone that thinks about the world has a worldview and uses it to interpret what they see.

Well Lee, I am have been quite open here about being no scientist despite an A-Level in Biology (yes I was an evolutionist).

But I think it is fair by anyone's standards to ensure that creationism and evolution are measured by the same standards.

But exactly what hypotheses about evolution have been proven empirically? Hmmm? Very interested in this one.

As a hypothesis is an assumption made for the purpose of an argument I cant see why the assumptions in evolution are any more valid than those for creationism.

Perhaps you could explain?

PB

Because evolution is backed up by a massive amount of evidence from geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry etc etc and is in the news ie., MRSA bird flu etc etc

Whereas (biblical) creationism is based on a primitive bronze age myth about a talking snake! which has NO evidence to back it up!

Simple as that!

Why is evolution accepted by those of all faiths and none but Biblical(PLEASE note Biblical) creationists is only believed by the extremists from the Abrahamic faiths? mmmmm wonder why that is-I mean if their errr "evidence" was so strong then it would be accepted across the board wouldn't it?

* 136.
* At 08:30 AM on 05 Jan 2007,
* Andrew Rowell wrote:
"creationists have not unusually been found to "deliberately lie"...."

Suppose you could start with those doing jail time. The name Hind comes to mind.

The name above should have been Hovind not 鈥淗ind鈥�
Kent Hovind to be precise..

鈥淗ovind blogs from jail:
Following the Creation vs. Evolution Controversy鈥�
CSE Blogs

The distinction between between American creationist groups and UK creationist groups is interesting.
How separate is the American AIG from the UK AIG?

鈥淎iG UK claims to be an independent "sister" organisation of the American Answers in Genesis but, in practice, we have severe doubts that this is the case. Two AiG US staffers, including Ken Ham, are trustees of the UK operation and the two operations share the same web site, even for selling material (books, DVDs, journals, etc..)鈥�.

DD

The fact that evolution is backed up "by a massive amount of evidence" does not begin to be a serious answer to my serious questions post 137..

In fact it strongly smacks of evasion.

I do understand there are a significant number of non-faith scientists who have rejected evolution as a convincing theory.

A previous poster says the evidence has never been tested to anything like the level new drugs or aircrafts are.

If you try to answer my questions post 137 first I will investigate and come back on it.

PB

* 114.
* At 04:11 PM on 03 Jan 2007,
* Orthodox Agnostic wrote:
"What Professor McIntosh is postulating is not a new concept. It is called Maxwell's Demon, and was worked out over a hundred years ago. He has merely cast it in a new framework, but it's really quite well resolved already (and not in his favor.)"
.
Did the Professor refer to "Maxwell's Demon" at all?
If not,isn't it requested to reference ideas already presented by others?

* 137.
* At 01:40 PM on 05 Jan 2007,
* pb wrote:

"But exactly what hypotheses about evolution have been proven empirically? Hmmm? Very interested in this one."

Try evolution of bacterial and viral strains on cultures plates in the lab.
Try evolution of plasmids in the lab.
I don't believe you understand the concepts of speciation pb. You seem to assume that speciation only refers to one organism transforming into another.
Have a look at the co-evolution of plants and their pollinators (I thiink someone may have already mentioned this) Maybe you should have continued your studies a little further to have a better grounding in the details of overall evolutionary concepts against which you so adamantly argue against.
Here are some concepts to look up
definitions of what costitutes a species, allopatric speciation, sympatric speciation ect ect ect.
I agree with what others have said previously, that you just throw out broad assertions,questions and opinions, expecting others to explain everything. THEN you totally ignore what has been presented on a plate to you!
You have a nerve to bring up the manners of those versed in the subject, evolutionists ass you so call them.
.
"As a hypothesis is an assumption made for the purpose of an argument I cant see why the assumptions in evolution are any more valid than those for creationism."
.
Asuumptions of creationism are philosophy. Assumptions about evolution is science.
Philosophy vs. science
The end

Perhaps you would tell me which medical and bio-medical professionals
use creation science in their research methods.
I've also noticed that quite often it is you who doesn't answer, changes the subject and ignores any answers given.
The above posters were right not to fall into your little game.
If some evidence of 200 creation scientists stands up against that of over 350,000 (globally) your laughing!
Goodbye

* 141.
* At 02:32 AM on 06 Jan 2007,
* pb wrote:
"I do understand there are a significant number of non-faith scientists who have rejected evolution as a convincing theory."

Got any references for that significant number. The word "significant" has a
specific meaning in statistics. Perhaps if you could provide the scource of this
"significant number".

Tom re 139, 140.

I distinguished UK creationists because that was the context (and because I thought that Hovind might come up!) However the impression was given that deliberate dishonesty was common amongst creationists and this discussion was in the UK context. Do you think that Mark's remarks were appropriate? ie that in the UK context it is not uncommon for creationists to deliberately lie.

"ie that in the UK context it is not uncommon for creationists to deliberately lie."

Of course they lie! they have no evidence to back up their claims.

Some may be sincere and I believe they are afflicted by a massive dose of double think ie., their extremist faith forces them to take a literal interpretation of their primitive bronze age creation myth.

If their "evidence" was so strong their would be atheist, agnostic, Hindu, Buddist etc etc biblical creationists but there aren't! mmmm wonder what that is?

Re: post 141 PB

Nothing to do with evasion! the info and evidence for evolution is freely easily and publically available.

Look through

and

and

(try the links at the bottom)

Could I have more info on the "signifigant" number of scientists with non-faith who reject evolution?

and could you please answer this?

Why is evolution accepted by those of all faiths and none but Biblical(PLEASE note Biblical) creationists is only believed by the extremists from the Abrahamic faiths? mmmmm wonder why that is-I mean if their errr "evidence" was so strong then it would be accepted across the board wouldn't it?

* 145.
* At 09:21 AM on 06 Jan 2007,
* Andrew Rowell wrote:

Tom re 139, 140.

"I distinguished UK creationists because that was the context (and because I thought that Hovind might come up!) However the impression was given that deliberate dishonesty was common amongst creationists and this discussion was in the UK context. Do you think that Mark's remarks were appropriate? ie that in the UK context it is not uncommon for creationists to deliberately lie."

I would really have to know which creationist groups are distinquished as purely UK groups without any affiliation to the American ones. Could you supply a list of these.
Thanks
Tom

Dylan Dog wrote (post 147):
鈥淲hy is evolution accepted by those of all faiths and none but Biblical(PLEASE note Biblical) creationists is only believed by the extremists from the Abrahamic faiths? mmmmm wonder why that is-I mean if their errr 鈥榚vidence鈥� was so strong then it would be accepted across the board wouldn't it?鈥�

I will try to answer the question, but let me say first of all that I reject the use of the term 鈥渆xtremists鈥� in reference to Biblical creationists. Those who hold to Biblical creationism do so because they believe that the Bible is God鈥檚 revelation to mankind and, as such, it is authoritative, infallibly and inerrant.

Science is incapable of answering the question, 鈥淗ow did life, the universe and everything begin?鈥� It is beyond the scope of science, for science only deals with what may be observed in the present and studied in the laboratory or test-tube.

Evolution is, at best, only a theory put forward by men seeking to find the answers to life, the universe and everything within the confines of naturalistic explanations. Its ideas can only be tested on the basis of assumption, since there is no evidence anywhere in the universe to suggest that evolution has ever taken place or ever could take place, no matter how many billions of years were afforded it. The study of evolution is, at best, a groping in the dark.

Biblical creationism, on the other hand, begins with the confidence that the Almighty God has spoken and revealed certain facts concerning the origin and history of the human race, the nature of mankind, and God鈥檚 grand purpose of redemption through Jesus Christ. The Christian believer takes God at his word, accepting the Genesis record of origins as an incontrovertible matter of fact. Naturally, if God鈥檚 Word is trustworthy, a creationist scientist would expect that belief in the literal Genesis account would inform his or her study of science. There is no need for idle speculation and theorizing when God has revealed truths that are beyond our capacity to investigate with the instruments of scientific inquiry. What we will find, however, is that if God鈥檚 revealed word is true, it follows that our scientific investigations will be consistent with the truths revealed in his word and we will be amazed at how the truth of God鈥檚 Word is confirmed again and again.

The reason that Biblical creation is not accepted across the board is that it requires faith 鈥� an obedient submission to the authority of God鈥檚 word 鈥� in order to believe that which God has revealed. Evolution, as an account of origins, equally requires faith 鈥� though faith of a very different kind. Evolutionary belief has been compared to Alice in Wonderland; the Queen said to her, 鈥淲hy, sometimes I鈥檝e believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.鈥� For men and women of intellect to believe that something as marvellously complex as the human brain came into being by a mindless process of chance mutations simply beggars belief! Where is the intelligence in the universe to produce highly complex organisms if we rule out the Almighty Creator? We all know that even a relatively simple robot requires the combined intelligence and hundreds of man-hours of a team of experts to achieve an acceptable standard of functionality, and it is utterly inconceivable that it could ever be produced by random processes 鈥� no matter how much time was allocated.

No, the true reason that evolutionary dogma is so widely accepted within the scientific community is because of a faith commitment that removes God from the picture and puts the Goddess of Evolution on the throne. In both cases, faith is required, since none of us was present when life began on earth.

Look at my other answers CA

Btw had a closer look at your post(just skimmed through it before because it contains all the fallacies associated with creationists). Evolution has nothing to say on the origins of life, rather evolution has to do with an explanation of the process of life.

Please see

Again thanks for proving my point!

Cheers

DD

* 148.
* At 12:11 AM on 07 Jan 2007,
* Tom wrote:

* 145.
* At 09:21 AM on 06 Jan 2007,
* Andrew Rowell wrote:

Tom re 139, 140.

"I distinguished UK creationists"

"I would really have to know which creationist groups are distinquished as purely UK groups without any affiliation to the American ones. Could you supply a list of these.
Thanks
Tom"
.
No reply Andrew? Should I take it that you plan to remain silent on this question?

#152

UK creationist organisations. Here's one at least:

Lee

From what I can see on AIG the creationist phds do not accept such lab processes as evolution. I dont see that it genuinely creates new species with new information and design.

200 phds are hardly all the creationists in the world, I have seen other other lists on line.

There are plenty of medical and biological phds on AIG website, working away in their fields.

Is science democratic or do the numbers of adherents matter?

If it is democratic then can creationists win? If it is not democratic then the numbers of phd adherents to creationism is not that important, rather that they exist is.

I think your simplistic validation of evolutionary hypotheses as "science" and creationist hypotheses as "philsophy" says a lot about your objectivity.

PB

Tom,

I also asked you a question about whether you thought Mark's comments appropriate. You have not answered that question.

With regard to your question to me... Can I supply you with a list of UK creation groups which are homegrown and independent of US groups? The simple answer is no... without doing a lot of research which I have no appetite for. If you did the research I think that you would find that the UK creation movement is UK grown with a variety of links both to the US and other countries. I am however very interested in the claims that (in a UK context) creationists are often found to be deliberate liars. I would like to see the evidence for this.

* 155.
* At 09:26 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
* Andrew Rowell wrote:
I'll reserve my judgement until I have a little more information as to whether the UK groups are separate or not. I am currently in the process of trying to find a separation of UK and American creationist groups. From what I can glean so far it seems that the head of AiG is also director of Truth in Science. We'll see.
Also I will wait until I see some of the verdicts handed down on Mr Mcintosh's statements as to whether he would have deliberately known what he asserted was untrue or whether he didn't have the right kind of qualifications (knowledge of bilogical systems) to assert what he did.

* 154.
* At 01:23 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
* pb wrote:
Lee
"From what I can see on AIG the creationist phds do not accept such lab processes as evolution. I dont see that it genuinely creates new species with new information and design."
.
Well of course they don't pb!
That would be against the AiG Statement of Faith, wouldn't it?

Also your creation scientists aren't honestly familiar with evolutionary theory so how can they determine how the evidence supports it. I mean they are obviously not familiar with what constitutes a different species or bacterial strain. But it is not necessary to know this, when you have already sworn to deny any evidence supporting evolution.
Simple really!

* 155.
* At 09:26 PM on 08 Jan 2007,
* Andrew Rowell wrote:
"With regard to your question to me... Can I supply you with a list of UK creation groups which are homegrown and independent of US groups?"
.
This site will save time and effort

"Two AiG US staffers, including Ken Ham, are trustees of the UK operation and the two operations share the same web site, even for selling material (books, DVDs, journals, etc..)鈥�.

anyway, enough of this creationist nonsense. I'm more concerned about attempts by a group calling themselves "truth in pirates" to get piracy and privateering into UK school science classes: