incorygible
Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
| Quote | | I admit that I am not on their level, but there is a relatively small but rapidly growing group of scientists who are disillusioned with Darwinism ... Michael Denton, Michael Behe, Dr. John Baumgardner of Los Alamos to name just a few. When top notch people like this stand up and say there's a problem, I at least investigate. Now why is that so unreasonable? |
It isn't "unreasonable" to "investigate", though I'd question "rapidly growing" and "top notch". Dave, I'm sure you'll find most posters here with whom you are arguing (myself included) are very familiar with the work of Denton, Behe et al., not to mention AiG, DI, etc. We've investigated. (Did I not walk you through such an investigation when it came to why Dr. Wieland's article was wrong, to the extent of hypothesizing as to where he went wrong in his thought process?) We read and evaluate the literature, Dave -- in this case, even when it is not peer-reviewed and up to the usual standards we demand. Every week, papers are published that challenge this aspect or that of current theory (this is the disagreement we thrive upon). We certainly pay attention when someone "stands up and says there is a problem". It happens ALL THE TIME. Look at that new Nature paper others have mentioned, which seriously rewrites the timeline and process of human and chimp speciation. It's our duty to read these claims critically to figure out whether they have merit. That is how science stands or falls. We are not ignorant of the arguments made by IDists and YECists. We have patiently investigated, reviewed, and criticized them as we would real scientific papers. Look back and you'll see that every time a Creationist such as yourself cries wolf, we grab our guns and go check it out, no matter how many times doing so invariably results in simply patting him on the head and telling him that the shadow he's wailing about is most definitely not a wolf.
| Quote | | I have never said the current crop of scientists aren't doing anything worthwhile ... nothing of the sort. I have consistently said they are doing many great things and I reap the benefits. But their thinking on origins is highly questionable and the answer to this question has major implications on society. And I agree that trying to cure cancer from a "design perspective" would be a very worthy goal. |
Fine. You just say the current crop of evolutionary researchers (like me) are doing questionable science involving dubious thought processes. You'll forgive me if I don't lose any sleep, Dave, since you have demonstrated you don't have a clue as to what we're doing and why we're doing it.
| Quote | | I know that some people who wear the YEC label do irresponsible things like this ... I am sorry for that, but I cannot stop them. I can only do what I do and I for one do not say that you are 'evil' or that you should even quit teaching your views on evolution. Go ahead and teach them. Just don't shut out other views. Honesty would dictate that your view is just that--a view. The origin of life is not a thing you can 'prove.' So just admit that and let others express their views as well. That's all. |
If I applied your standards of "proof" to ANYTHING in science, we'd have nothing to teach at all. If, by "origin" you're talking about abiogenesis, I don't teach it. If you're talking about the origin of species, it hasn't been "just a view" for 150 years, and it would be a lie to teach it as such (Introduction to Postmodernist Theory is a whole different department and a long walk across campus for students who want all knowledge taught as "views"). And come back down off that cross, Dave. I never made you guilty by association. You asked why we seemed to be impatient, frustrated, offended, and maybe even angry with this argument. Part of it has to do with trying to teach the unteachable. Part of it has to do with a Groundhog-Day-like exasperation. And part of it has to do with you referring us to sites like AiG, as a supposedly reliable source for science, where we also find ranting articles accusing "evolutionists" like ourselves of the same racism, Naziism, lack of morality, stupidity, damnation, etc. ad nauseum, contained in that original YEC email. This is a tacit endorsement of those arguments, Dave, but I never held it against you. Just trying to help you get a better idea of walking in our shoes.
| Quote | She says the convergence may not be unlikely. She says that primates share dozen mutations. And these mistakes in the broken GULO produce the same phylogeny built with other working genes. This cannot have happened by chance.
I don't understand the second sentence, but why is it so unusual to share "dozen mutations"? Guinea pigs and humans share a lot of mutations too, right? |
This is important, Dave. It's something you might wish to rectify. Because until you understand that sentence, it's 'round and 'round and 'round the mulberry bush with you. However, since you plead ignorance (as opposed to laziness, disingenuity, or dishonesty), I will try one last time (though I have my suspicions that those other descriptions are playing a role here).
The mutation that prevents humans and guinea pigs from synthesizing vitamin C is in the same gene (i.e., the GULO pseudogene). It is NOT the same mutation (different deletions). In the time since that gene lost its function via those (different) deletions in humans and guinea pigs (tens of millions of years in each lineage), many base-pair substitutions have occurred in this selection-free pseudogene. A somewhat greater than expected proportion of those substitutions (36% observed vs. 25% expected) are shared, suggesting the involvement of mutational hotspots. This is interesting, but not relevant to the discussion at hand. Saying that humans and guinea pigs "share the same mutation in GULO" is misleading. Humans and guinea pigs both have mutations that make GULO non-functional. They share a slightly higher percentage of substitutions since the original mutations occurred.
I happen to disagree that the "convergence" between human and guinea pig GULO is at all significant (you're not suggesting that loss of function is "convergent", are you?). But even if it was, you are missing the fact that this is one gene in thousands, and two species in millions. Thousands of genes and millions of species that line up to form an overwhelming pattern of common descent that matches the pattern inferred earlier from the fossil record. If you want to question common descent, you can't discuss single genes outside of this context, Dave.
In other words, yes, guinea pigs and humans share "dozens" (much, much more! of genes and mutations. Apes and humans share "dozens" (much, much more! of additional mutations beyond this. And so on and so forth. This is the reality of common descent. Learn it before you tilt at windmills.
|
