Joined: Feb. 2006
|Look, Incorygible. I'm a businessman with a science/engineeering background and a financial contributor to causes, I'm politically involved, I'm an apologist for YEC, and I'm a little bit like an investigative reporter at the moment. If you don't want to accept the role of "Evolution Apologist" and jump on the opportunity to make your theory look plausible to an outsider, then don't. No one is making you. The ape/human questions and the Creation/Evolution controversy are absolutely to vital to society. I'm spending 4+ hours a day on this effort. You can't say I'm not putting in any effort. Now, if you don't like your role, then you don't have to assume it. On the other hand, if you want to stick around and not get mad, you might have some fun. Others have said they are having fun. You can too.|
Dave, I'm in science. (I wouldn't say I'm a "scientist", because I don't have the PhD membership card.) I don't deal with apes, humans, vitamin C synthesis, or microbiology. I work with fish and trying to save the buggers from going extinct. But the stuff we've been spending hours a day on is rather elementary biology. Now, I have enough memory of evolutionary basics to help people (including undrgrads) understand them. And I think you'll agree that I HAVE assumed that role in answering your questions. I have been no more snippy with you than I would have been with a sanctimonious student. But you're right -- I'm not having fun anymore. That's because I don't think you've fulfilled your stated role. When I asked you some pretty direct questions (take the hamster one, for example), you pled that it wasn't your role to answer them. I didn't need the answers, Dave. I knew them. They were there for your consideration and education (consider it a take-home exam). When you don't reply, if not directly, at least in a way that shows some absorbance of the material, well, then I have to believe you didn't consider them at all. Which means I can't perform the free-education role you've given me.
|By the way, I have encountered scientists who seem very resentful of businessmen in general because they feel that businessmen "use" them for their own purposes. Do you feel this way? The truth is that both businessmen and scientists are necessary. Businessmen need scientists to invent and discover new things. Scientists need businessmen to market their innovations. And by the way, apologists and politicians are necessary too. Your side has a famous apologist in Richard Dawkins. Why shouldn't our side have some too?|
No, Dave, I don't feel this way. But if somebody with an MBA tried to tell me how science works, he'd get the same response that I would if I tried to tell him how to manage a corporation. I work with anglers, aquaculture industry, government agencies, politicians, NGOs, the general public, and a whole suite of others. But at the end of the day, I live in the economy of ideas, and I can market those myself. Nobody goes into evolutionary biology for the money, Dave (though the fame and women are nice). And even Richard Dawkins didn't go into it for the apologetics.
|Again, scientists do much wonderful work. Where they go wrong is when they write volume after volume of speculation about how the immune system might have evolved and similar things. They would be much more productive if they hypothesized that it was designed and studied it from that perspective.|
Again, Dave, why do you think you know where scientists go wrong? You've admitted you're not on their level in their respective fields. I would never presume to tell you where pilots go wrong. Do you honestly believe those volumes and volumes to be nothing more than fevered imaginings of the delusional? Do you honestly believe that this "perspective" you offer can lend anything to their investigations? Because if you truly believe this, and if you are a businessman, you should be ALL OVER this easy way to money. After all, the current crop of scientists aren't doing anything worthwhile, and you seem to know how to correct that, given your science/engineering/religious background. Why not cure cancer with your "design perspective"? As a politically active businessman who wishes to contribute to humanity and help the YEC cause, would there be anything better?
| I understand there is no free lunch. I was born in poverty and have worked very hard to be where I am now. No one asked you for a free lunch. Some of you act as if I am asking you to give me a biology degree for free or something. Again, I am basically a YEC apologist and an investigative reporter asking for a convincing story. If you don't want to give it, then you don't have to. If I were in your shoes, though, I would want to try to give a convincing one.|
So was I. So did I. I have tens of thousands of dollars to pay off in order to earn my understanding of science. I have a decade of sleepless nights, (relative) social obscurity, failed relationships and poor health to shake off for it. It was a good investment. You think you know what you would want if you were in my shoes, but this shows the same presumption. You are not the first YEC to demand convincing, Dave. I got interested in this whole affair (I used to not care, just do what I did and let other people believe whatever they wanted) when a YEC (in similar shoes to yours?) sent me a scary fire-and-brimstone e-mail because may name appeared on a university website for teaching a course in evolution. I'm not here to apologize, Dave. I'm not here to evangelize (I still believe people can believe whatever they want). I'm here to defend the boundaries of our separate magisteria.
|Incorygible, that's not the same thing ... read my quote again. I asked if anyone has knocked out the "C" in rat GULO at the position indicated in Faid's article which I quoted. You responded by saying "Yes, we spliced rat GULO into a human and it worked." Hello? That wasn't what I asked. It's not the same thing.|
Faid has already responded to this and where the misunderstanding lies. And even if he hadn't, I am sorry that I assumed you were asking a question that had some actual over-arching relevance to the discussion. I assumed you had learned enough by now to realize that "the missing C" was not the deletion we have been talking about (not even close). But yes, I assumed to much, with the proverbial consequences -- you just wanted to go down yet another rabit hole leading to a meaningless detail and pedagogical semantics.
| Yes. But I wouldn't get mad. I'd just think it was funny. The fact that people get mad about this stuff is interesting to me. Why do they? Oh, I know all the superficial reasons ... I'm thick headed, etc. But it seems like there must be a more basic reason for the frustration.|
The first time, Dave. The first time. After explaining it ad nauseum, the humor would begin to lose its effect. After hearing (and being hounded) about how your life and work is a delusional (or conspiratorial) lie for a few years on end, it might get a bit frustrating. After one too many shrieks of "racism", misanthropy, genocide, Hitler, etc., etc., etc., you might start to actually get offended. After a call to Homeland Security, you might be a little appalled (thankfully that one hasn't happened to me -- yet). And I think you (of all people), might be a little offended by being accused of being in league with the devil and on a fast-track to ####.
|"Dave, you're simply not equipped to evaluate the evidence in favour of evolution."|
I agree with you. I am not equipped. This is why I am giving evolutionary biologists the chance to speak for themselves and explain why their theory is plausible. If they cannot do this, who can? I understand that no one is under any obligations here. There are certain roles, though, and I can tell you that I am certainly not going to assume the role of 'Evolution Apologist.' So that leaves the job to either you guys or else no one at all. I think people here rightly want to try to answer these questions as best they can because they truly believe in their theory. And it is important to them for others to understand and agree with this theory. We all want people to agree with out theories.
Dave, you accuse others of being unable to comprehend what you write, then come back with this? We know you admit you cannot EXPLAIN (much less investigate and produce) the evidence for evolution. The post you quote (like others) stated you cannot even EVALUATE it. If you are here to be "convinced", then you don't agree with this. I don't give a flying monkey whether or not you agree with what I "believe". I didn't go to all this effort for your affirmation, Dave. I'm a researcher and a teacher -- I value education over ignorance. And even though I long ago gave up on educating you, there are the lurkers (I was one for a long time) who might be getting something out of all this. Plus, there are the interesting discussions with people who actually do know what they're talking about (many more than I). I don't care what they "believe", either. Affirmation and consensus with the norm is not a high priority for me. Did I not mention I'm in science? We THRIVE on DISagreement, Dave.
| "The convergence for this deletion may not be unlikely, but 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. Would you drop this argument?"|
Why would I drop the argument if you agree with me that the deletion is not unlikely?
Honestly, do you even read, Dave? This reply, with the actual quote right above it, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are illiterate, dumb as a brick, and/or disingenuous.
| I do know there are a few mutations that could be construed as "upward" or "increased or new function." Do you know of many like this? To disprove Creationism, it would take a multitude of mutations like this. And by multitude, I mean thousands or even millions.|
Er, no Dave, it wouldn't. You YECs make the claim that this is absolutely impossible. In the freaking paragraph above this quote, you claim that "THERE IS NO SUCH THING" as "upward evolution". That means it takes ONE occurrence to disprove this claim, and this claim IS the root of Creationism. Your lack of logic, not to mention consistency, is astounding.
|"Let's simplify. Is there any conceivable objective observation (or combination thereof) that could disprove Creationism? If so, please explain."|
Yes. There are many possible ways to disprove Creationism, and evolutionists have been hoping for years that just such evidences would come to light as more is known. They just haven't yet. The opposite is actually happening.
Nice answer, Dave. And you wonder why we call you intellectually dishonest.
|So there you have it. We're on page 16 of this thread, and there has been some very good discussion. After all of this, of the two possible scenarios that I mentioned ...|
Scenario 1-The GULO gene could have broken independently in apes and in humans. The Inai article shows that it did indeed break independently in guinea pigs, so why should it not break independently in apes and humans? OR ..
Scenario 2-The "broken" GULO gene was never a functional GULO gene in either apes or humans. It always has had some unknown function and still does to this day. Argystokes called this possibility "pseudo-GLO" and rightly asserted that we should be able to find this gene's homologue throughout the animal kingdom--even in animals that do have a functional GULO gene.
it seems that Scenario 1 is the most likely, although who knows what will turn up as more is known about "pseudo-genes."
I have confirmed my suspicion that Dr. Max's assumptions are not necessarily warranted, although I would not go so far as to say they are wild assumptions.
It is clear to me that the theory that apes and humans had a common ancestor, while it has some apparent support, is by no means a closed case, and there is plenty of evidence supporting Common Design Theory as well. I don't think we can 'prove' either one of them. And if I were in Renier's shoes, I certainly would not have abandoned the YEC position because of this issue.
So, as you probably expected would happen, my position remains that Apes are Apes, and Humans are Humans, and as far as anyone really knows for sure, it's always been that way.
Thanks for your participation! I have nothing further to add on this thread. If anyone wants to keep going, by all means, go ahead. But I have completed what I set out to do.
I will now spend all my time presenting evidence for a Creator God, a Young Earth, the Global Flood, the accuracy of the Bible, etc. etc. on my other thread.
See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil. And for gawd's sake, never, ever learn a freaking thing.
*edited to include a few additional quotes for clarity