Journal of Creation papers

[Loudmouth]

Here is a page with some information about Lumsden.

How do you think his work is impacted by the theory of evolution?

What I know about Sewell is just based on his biography in that book: he worked on the Manhattan Project during World War II, and in the 1960s he was the chief engineer at Isotopes Incorporated. (This was before he became a YEC.)

Then his expertise is probably in engineering and business, not geology.

 

[Aggie]

How do you think his work is impacted by the theory of evolution?

Here is a listing of papers he's authored on Google scholar. As the page I quoted mentions, the majority of them seem to be about parasitology and cell biology. In general, natural selection is the main factor that shapes the relationship between parasites and their hosts, so evolution certainly impacts his area of research in that respect.

For example, here's a quote from a book chapter that he wrote in 1980:

We acknowledge that many biologists would condemn not only the lifestyle of tapeworms but also their structure as being hopelessly degenerate. Certainly, tapeworm histology differs, in some cases remarkably so, from what one is accustomed to seeing in most other kinds of animals. But to regard tapeworm structure as degenerate is, to the present authors, highly inappropriate. Rather, in our specialized judgement, tapeworms are uniquely well specialized for meeting the demands of what Allee et al. (1949) recognized as the world's third habitat (after the aquatic and terrestrial) - other living organisms. In the course of evolution, tapeworms have merely exaggerated certain features and diminished others in adapting most successfully to a lifestyle which exemplifies the ultimate welfare state.

This was presumably written before he became a young-Earth creationist.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here is a listing of papers he's authored on Google scholar. As the page I quoted mentions, the majority of them seem to be about parasitology and cell biology. In general, natural selection is the main factor that shapes the relationship between parasites and their hosts, so evolution certainly impacts his area of research in that respect.

Looking at specific immunlogical pathways and toxin interactions, that doesn't require any application of evolutionary histories. Evolution is important for understanding the natural history of those systems, but for direct interactions it isn't that involved.

For example, here's a quote from a book chapter that he wrote in 1980:


This was presumably written before he became a young-Earth creationist.

A one off statement that doesn't carry through to their actual work would seem to involve much. What I would be really surprised to see is if he worked in vertebrate immunology on projects that looked at the development of the immune system as a product of evolution.

 

[Aggie]

Looking at specific immunlogical pathways and toxin interactions, that doesn't require any application of evolutionary histories. Evolution is important for understanding the natural history of those systems, but for direct interactions it isn't that involved.

Okay, maybe there aren't any examples of people converting to YEC whose work is specifically about evolution. It's clearly happened in other areas of the biological sciences, though. My argument is still the same: people like Lumsden aren't ignorant, and the fact that it was possible for creationists to win him over is an example why sophisticated creation science arguments shouldn't be ignored.

I should probably look at the GULO paper. Comparative genomics is not exactly my thing, but I do like GULO as an example, so I'd better see what new counterarguments have arisen.

Any word yet on what the problem is with this paper? If there's a flaw in it that's easy to point out, that would be useful for the book I'm working on.

 

[Loudmouth]

Okay, maybe there aren't any examples of people converting to YEC whose work is specifically about evolution. It's clearly happened in other areas of the biological sciences, though. My argument is still the same: people like Lumsden aren't ignorant, and the fact that it was possible for creationists to win him over is an example why sophisticated creation science arguments shouldn't be ignored.

My argument is that the great majority of those who are familiar wth the evidence accept evolution. That remains true.

"Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

If creationists are trying to appeal to authority, then they will fall severely short.

Any word yet on what the problem is with this paper? If there's a flaw in it that's easy to point out, that would be useful for the book I'm working on.

My expertise isn't in geology, so hopefully we can get word from an expert before I muddle through it.

 

[sfs]

If creationists are trying to appeal to authority, then they will fall severely short.

I don't think that's Aggie's point. He's arguing that having unrefuted creationist arguments out there is bad, since they can persuade fairly knowledgable people.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think that's Aggie's point. He's arguing that having unrefuted creationist arguments out there is bad, since they can persuade fairly knowledgable people.

Thay kin pirswaid us dumbows tew.

 

[Aggie]

My argument is that the great majority of those who are familiar wth the evidence accept evolution. That remains true.

"Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

If creationists are trying to appeal to authority, then they will fall severely short.

I don't disagree with this. You seem to be arguing against a point I'm not making. What I'm saying is that creationists' more sophisticated scientific arguments are the reason the number isn't zero percent, and that it's worth making some effort to bring it closer to zero. This is one of the reasons I think it's unwise to assume that these arguments, and the journals in which they're published, don't matter.

My expertise isn't in geology, so hopefully we can get word from an expert before I muddle through it.

The paper is about genetics, not geology.

I don't think that's Aggie's point. He's arguing that having unrefuted creationist arguments out there is bad, since they can persuade fairly knowledgable people.

Yes, thanks for putting it so clearly.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't disagree with this. You seem to be arguing against a point I'm not making. What I'm saying is that creationists' more sophisticated scientific arguments are the reason the number isn't zero percent, and that it's worth making some effort to bring it closer to zero. This is one of the reasons I think it's unwise to assume that these arguments, and the journals in which they're published, don't matter.

Quite frankly, the arguments don't need to be sophisticated in order for a number that isn't zero percent. Scientists are no different than any other group of people. There will always be a handful that will accept really bad arguments.

The paper is about genetics, not geology.

I thought you were referring to the paper on the dinosaur fossil. Which paper were you referring to?

 

[Aggie]

Quite frankly, the arguments don't need to be sophisticated in order for a number that isn't zero percent. Scientists are no different than any other group of people. There will always be a handful that will accept really bad arguments.

That may be true, but I suspect that it isn't true the majority of the time. All of the reasonably well-educated creationists I've interacted with have placed a lot of stock in the creation science technical literature. RichardT, a former YEC who's a member of this forum, was an example of that: he was a creationist largely because he was convinced by the conclusions of the RATE group.

I thought you were referring to the paper on the dinosaur fossil. Which paper were you referring to?

I was referring to this one, about the GULO pseudogene: https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/human_GULO_pseudogene.pdf

In my opinion, the one about the dinosaur fossil doesn't really need a response. It's basically just a description of the fossil like you'd find in any other paleontology paper, with a few claims about Noah's flood thrown in. (Yes, the dinosaur probably died by drowning. So what? A global flood isn't the only way an animal can drown.)

 

[Loudmouth]

That may be true, but I suspect that it isn't true the majority of the time. All of the reasonably well-educated creationists I've interacted with have placed a lot of stock in the creation science technical literature. RichardT, a former YEC who's a member of this forum, was an example of that: he was a creationist largely because he was convinced by the conclusions of the RATE group.

I would agree with that assessment. This is commonly called the echo chamber effect. What I find interesting is when those same creationists are faced with papers from outside the echo chamber. When their only argument is that scientists are faking the data, the bias becomes apparent.

I was referring to this one, about the GULO pseudogene: https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/human_GULO_pseudogene.pdf

After skimming a few sections of the article, this one section stood out as something to comment on immediately:

". . . the entire 28,800 base GULO region in human (hg19; chr8:27417791-27446590), which contains the putative remnants of six exons and five introns, is only 84% identical compared to chimpanzee using the previously established technique of optimized sequence slices and the BLASTN algorithm (Tomkins 2013b). Even more interesting is the comparison with gorilla using the same technique, which yielded 87% identity. These similarities are clearly outside the evolutionary paradigm and gorilla is more similar to human in the GULO region than chimpanzee— negating the inferred order of phylogeny."

As discussed in other threads, Tomkins' method is not a valid way of comparing these sequences.

A more general comment is that the authors just blow by glaring evidence for evolution. They discuss how certain adaptations and genes are confined to taxonomic groups. This is EXACTLY what we should see if evolution is true.

If I could make a suggestion, that paper would make for a great topic in a thread of its own.

 

[Loudmouth]

double

 

[Aggie]

After skimming a few sections of the article, this one section stood out as something to comment on immediately:

". . . the entire 28,800 base GULO region in human (hg19; chr8:27417791-27446590), which contains the putative remnants of six exons and five introns, is only 84% identical compared to chimpanzee using the previously established technique of optimized sequence slices and the BLASTN algorithm (Tomkins 2013b). Even more interesting is the comparison with gorilla using the same technique, which yielded 87% identity. These similarities are clearly outside the evolutionary paradigm and gorilla is more similar to human in the GULO region than chimpanzee— negating the inferred order of phylogeny."

As discussed in other threads, Tomkins' method is not a valid way of comparing these sequences.

Not all of his genetic comparison papers use the "ungapped" method, but I see in this case he's citing the one that does. That doesn't seem to be the crux of his argument about the GULO pseudogene, though.

If I could make a suggestion, that paper would make for a great topic in a thread of its own.

I might post one eventually, but the trouble is that there are a lot of creationist papers like this out there. The main reason I brought up this one is just because it was an example I'd been looking at it recently, so it easily came to mind. I was intending to make a broader point that in general, papers like this one are the sort of argument it would be better to not ignore.

This is the reason I was asking whether anyone knows of a way to get access to papers in the Journal of Creation that are less than a year old, although it sounds like nobody has any suggestions aside from e-mailing the authors.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not all of his genetic comparison papers use the "ungapped" method, but I see in this case he's citing the one that does. That doesn't seem to be the crux of his argument about the GULO pseudogene, though.

It is one part of it which I thought I would specifically comment on.

Earlier in the paper, the author mentions that fungi, plants, and animals have different ways of producing vitamin C. It seems the the author argues that this is evidence against evolution. It is just the opposite. The fact that you find adaptations following phylogenetic relationships is evidence for evolution, not against it. Evidence that would be problem for evoution is if you found the same gene for vitamin C synthesis in pine trees and pine beetles, but a different gene in lobster. Like many arguments against evolution, the author fails to understand how phylogenetics works.

I might post one eventually, but the trouble is that there are a lot of creationist papers like this out there. The main reason I brought up this one is just because it was an example I'd been looking at it recently, so it easily came to mind. I was intending to make a broader point that in general, papers like this one are the sort of argument it would be better to not ignore.

This is the reason I was asking whether anyone knows of a way to get access to papers in the Journal of Creation that are less than a year old, although it sounds like nobody has any suggestions aside from e-mailing the authors.

If you do a google search for the title of one of the papers you might get lucky and find a copy elsewhere on the interwebs.

 

[Aggie]

If you do a google search for the title of one of the papers you might get lucky and find a copy elsewhere on the interwebs.

I already tried that, but the only Google result is for the listing of recent papers in the Journal of Creation archive. The paper I'm looking for is this one:

Bergman, Jerry and Philip Snow. "Dino-bird theory—a flight of fancy." Journal of Creation 29.1 (April 2015): 17–24.

The origin of birds is the aspect of evolution I'm most knowledgeable about, and I'm also familiar with all of the most popular arguments creationists have used about it over the past few years. But every now and then creationists come up with new arguments in this area. As far as I know this is the first time Jerry Bergman has written about the topic, so this paper is more likely than most to contain some examples of that.

I cover the origin of birds extensively in the book I'm working on, so if this paper introduces any new arguments about it, I'd like to know about them. I'm hoping my book will be published in less than a year, so I also can't wait for the paper to become publicly available.

 

[Loudmouth]

I already tried that, but the only Google result is for the listing of recent papers in the Journal of Creation archive. The paper I'm looking for is this one:

Bergman, Jerry and Philip Snow. "Dino-bird theory—a flight of fancy." Journal of Creation 29.1 (April 2015): 17–24

The origin of birds is the aspect of evolution I'm most knowledgeable about, and I'm also familiar with all of the most popular arguments creationists have used about it over the past few years. But every now and then creationists come up with new arguments in this area. As far as I know this is the first time Jerry Bergman has written about the topic, so this paper is more likely than most to contain some examples of that.

I cover the origin of birds extensively in the book I'm working on, so if this paper introduces any new arguments about it, I'd like to know about them. I'm hoping my book will be published in less than a year, so I also can't wait for the paper to become publicly available.

I couldn't find a copy of the paper, either.

If you get a copy of the paper by email, I would be really interested in your review of it. In my experience with other creationist arguments, the fundamental mistake that they make is in conflating the terms transitional and ancestral. Hopefully Bergman and Snow won't make that mistake.

 

[sfs]

I already tried that, but the only Google result is for the listing of recent papers in the Journal of Creation archive. The paper I'm looking for is this one:

Bergman, Jerry and Philip Snow. "Dino-bird theory—a flight of fancy." Journal of Creation 29.1 (April 2015): 17–24.

Do you have access to a reference librarian? They're good at finding things.

 

[Aggie]

Do you have access to a reference librarian? They're good at finding things.

Not at the moment, no. I'll also be moving to a new state in about a week, so if it takes a librarian longer than that to find the paper, I probably won't be able to benefit from it. I guess I could always ask a librarian where I'll be living next, though.

I've already checked a few university libraries, and they don't have access. I can understand why most universities don't think it's worth subscribing to, but for reasons I've explained, I think it's important for non-creationists to be able to read these journals.

 

[USincognito]

Here is a more recent example of a creationist paper that I've been struggling to find a response to: https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/human_GULO_pseudogene.pdf

Tomkins, for some reason, keeps getting results that can't be replicated by anyone other than him. Given his blatant dishonesty with calculating indels as 100 separate differences rather than a single difference so he could arrive at a 70% difference between humans and chimps, I suspect he's driven by agenda.

A Google search for "Tomkins+GULO" got three hits from non-Creationist sites including a subreddit where Tomkins addressed the post and then simply slunk away.
http://www.reddit.com/r/NaturalTheology/comments/2625uu/my_first_reply_to_jeffrey_tomkins/

 

[USincognito]

Tomkins also claims that the chromosome 2 fusion site is right in the middle of gene DDX11L2. He, however, is the only one who gets that result.
http://www.icr.org/article/new-research-debunks-human-chromosome/