Creationism 101

[juvenissun]

Here, I'll help you, Juvenissun:

Shermer's first TWO questions related to what she does for the Creation "Museum".

His third question was in response to her discussion of the development of pathogenicity in organisms.

His question was asking how that differed from "evolution".

Very simple. The changes happened due to the Fall is dramatic. It is far far away from evolution. This shows he does not even understand what the Fall is. It is simply a theologically stupid question.

 

[Naraoia]

I'm sure you'll be glad to know that I listened to the whole thing and took notes. So, random comment time!!! (I don't usually quote them word for word, I'm not masochistic enough to do that much rewinding) Numbers in bold = approximate time in interview

1:10

Regarding her work on the... evolution of bacterial pathogenicity:

Shermer: That sounds like evolution.
Purdom: Well, they're still bacteria...

I can't believe that a PhD geneticist said that. It's not even microevolution, you know, just, like, change?!?! She seems to avoid calling evolution evolution like the plague, throughout the whole interview.

4:10

"DNA doesn't talk, fossils don't talk and rocks don't talk. We talk for them. So our starting point is really important in interpreting what we see."

She is right here. Dinosaur endothermy was out of the question for a very long time because dinosaurs were reptiles, and reptiles are ectotherms. Preconceptions are very important, but she stops being right about there. It's what you do with your preconceptions in the face of contradictory evidence that matters.

4:45

"[Believing in a young earth] is not a prerequisite to Christianity."

I forgot another thing she was right about, yay. I think some YEC should be pointed to this interview just for this one sentence from a hard-core YEC scientist... Then she goes on to say that the resurrection of Christ is just as "impossible" as a young earth, so if you don't believe one, why would you believe the other? - partly agree with her there (but of course I think both are bollocks ), but she makes out literalism/interpretation to be an all-or-nothing issue, which I don't think it is.

6:10

She doesn't address the actual point about ancient repeat elements - which is why they ARE () in the exact same positions in completely different mammals.

(To be fair, though non-technical information about AREs seems hard to come by online*, it seems at least some of them are functional, so I'm not sure Shermer actually has a point there...)

She talks again about "starting points" and "interpretations" but I don't recall that she ever explains how her paradigm "interprets" these sequences.

*read: "define: ancient repeat elements" turns up nothing at all

8:10 (and at least one other time afterwards)

"I'm not interpreting it, that's about what God's word says"

Need I say more?

11:10

We know from scripture that the universe is no more than 6000 years old, so any date that's older than that, there's a problem with the starting assumptions.

Someone needs to teach this lady that starting assumptions can be wrong on both sides. Oh, and also the difference between "knowing" something and believing what a certain interpretation of a collection of ancient myths says.

The dating/Mt St Helens issue came up just before this part (forgot to note the time). I can't comment on her claim about MStH, but regardless of its validity, she again didn't address the point. When asked about the convergence of different dating methods on the same estimate when dating objects of unknown age, she answered with sporadic cases of individual dating methods under/overestimating objects of known age.

That doesn't explain why, for most of the time, independent dating techniques give remarkably similar ages for the same event. She would have needed to explain why all methods are wrong in the same direction and to the same degree, and she didn't even attempt that as far as I can remember.

12:15

She mentions lots of dating methods that show the earth is not 4.5 billion years old, but she never says what methods they are.

12:20

About interpretations: "It's really no different; the differnece is that ours IS true"

Another one that doesn't need a comment.

13:35

She says that the interaction of a transcription factor with a piece of DNA has nothing to do with evolution.

Sure, so long as you don't start looking at the big picture. Humans have a massive number of transcription factors*, and how they relate to each other, to TFs in other organisms and to their targets has everything to do with evolution (Hox genes anyone? Sorry, they may be beaten to death, but Hox genes are still cool )

*and that's excluding automatically generated annotations; that is, everything in that list has been reviewed and confirmed by a human.

14:50

Concerning the possibility that eukaryotes came from prokaryotes:

There would be no point in testing hypotheses like that, because we know God created them according to their kinds. (This is where she says that they think kinds are sort of around the family level)

Uh. You are apparently working on actual valid scientific questions (pathogenicity). You know God did that too, don't you? And if you say well, but pathogenicity is not explained in the Bible, then, well, neither are bacteria even mentioned.

15:20

"What we're trying to understand is how they change over time"

A prime example of avoiding the e-word when it describes something she accepts as reality.

Re: Fall and mutations (forgot to note the time), she explains mutations by God "withdrawing some sustaining power" from the world after the Fall, so things don't work quite as well, things degenerate, whatever.

I think Shermer should've asked her about beneficial mutations. Beneficial to humans, that is: HIV resistance or lactose tolerance would have been great off the top of my head. A missed opportunity.

20:25

Re: the Bible used to support slavery

"Christians can be wrong", and a bit later,

20:45

"They were interpreting scripture"

21:10

Shermer: how do you know that someone won't look back and say "she was interpreting"?
Purdom: "Because God's Word is true and it never changes"

It's interesting how these people seem incapable of understanding that that's exactly what the slavery-supporting Bible thumpers thought 200 years ago!

24:40

And finally, one of her remarks on the scarier side, re: there surely is a difference between murderers and ordinary sinners?

"All sin is unacceptable to God"

Equally unacceptable, that is. That, IMHO, is a very unsettling worldview.

-----
Hey, that was fun!

 

[Cabal]

She seems to avoid calling evolution evolution like the plague, throughout the whole interview.

Apparently it's important how things are defined

(it's just a good thing that science got there and defined it first )

 

[thaumaturgy]

Very simple. The changes happened due to the Fall is dramatic. It is far far away from evolution. This shows he does not even understand what the Fall is. It is simply a theologically stupid question.

So her contention that pathogenic bacteria become pathogenic because of the Fall, hence a change in the creature is not the same kind of change other creationists lump into Microevolution, but it is a change, correct?

So the Fall is a "miracle" change and not a microevolutionary change?

So, do you care to explain how the woman "studies" this effect? I would be very interested.

Does she just read and re-read Genesis 3:13-24 over and over and over again?

Do any bacteria "change" to become pathogenic these days? Would that change still be part of the Fall?

 

[Naraoia]

Oh, something I forgot, re: the impossibility of a young earth versus the impossibility of the resurrection: one difference between the two is that one is an anecdote that can't really be tested by looking at physical evidence. Not even the Bible says resurrection is a general property of human beings, and unfortunately we can't recreate that particular resurrection.

The other is a statement about a still-existing object, contradicted by a mountain of physical evidence.

So no, they aren't equally impossible.

 

[plindboe]

fine if you really want to do this...there is no evidence that any animal ever became another animal

Have you looked in every corner of the planet? Are you omnipotent?

Why not be honest and say "As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence, but I'm willing to be shown wrong"?

You sound like your mind is totally shut off, and no matter what anyone shows you, you'll just deny it. Am I wrong about you?

If I am wrong about you, and you're willing to consider that you might be mistaken, you could start reading about ring species. It's a pretty straighforward way to see speciation in nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

there would have to be thousands of intermediary fossils between each species and there just aren't. for one

Why would you expect that? Do you think that every single animal that dies automatically becomes fossiized? Do you know what fossilation is and what it requires?

Peter

 

[thaumaturgy]

The dating/Mt St Helens issue came up just before this part (forgot to note the time). I can't comment on her claim about MStH, but regardless of its validity, she again didn't address the point. When asked about the convergence of different dating methods on the same estimate when dating objects of unknown age, she answered with sporadic cases of individual dating methods under/overestimating objects of known age.

The Mt. St. Helens thing is a cannard. Dr. Kevin Henke has a good examination of the subject HERE

Apparently it boils down to a creation scientists (Dr. Steve Austin...not making that name up), sampled a dacite erupted in 1986 in a lava dome at Mt. St. Helens.

Austin then submitted ineffectively separated mineral and glass samples to K-Ar dating. K-Ar dating is not applicable to extremely young samples as the half-life is far too long to allow for appropriate "resolution" of the measurement. In fact the company that did the K-Ar dating for Austin used to have on their website a disclaimer that:

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]"We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y."

[/FONT]Austin's samples came back all except one below the "stated lower dating limit" of the technique. That would be a big red flag for a scientist.

Now, here's my two cents:

This is often, in other analytical chemical applications, called a detection limit issue. One doesn't make statements about the level of a compound measured below the det lim other than to say it is below the det lim. If Austin filed 5 samples and all but one came out below the det lim he can say that at least 83% of the samples were less than 2 million years old. Which is, technically speaking TRUE.

Henke, however, goes on to provide explanations for why "old" dates in general may show up ranging from experimental error to various events that might provide a legitimate "wrong date" to problems with sample collection and separation on Austin's part. There is a significant possibility that older grains contaminate the younger eruptive material. The systems are not perfect, but a firm appreciation of the limitations and potential problems must be considered.

In general the Research Scientist from the Creation "Museum" who, herself, has a PhD should recognize that the Austin experiment contains far too many flaws to render it a definitive problem for radiometric dating. Certainly she would know about issues around misapplication of techniques and sample error, contamination, and detection limits. One assumes. She had to learn something in that secular school since they weren't teaching evolution.

 

[Split Rock]

but there is physical evidence that evolution can not explain...so most tend to ignore it or talk around it

Go ahead and show us this evidence (leads to next quote)

unnecessary...it never leads anywhere. and i really don't feel like getting into that argument again, hope you don't take offence...but it is a fruitless adventure, like i said before people will only believe what they want to, that includes myself

Why do creationists come to a Discussion forum and claim they don't want to discuss anything? Why are you here?

Why do creationists assume that everyone else accepts ideas based solely on their personal biases, just because they do?

 

[Split Rock]

Very simple. The changes happened due to the Fall is dramatic. It is far far away from evolution. This shows he does not even understand what the Fall is. It is simply a theologically stupid question.

How many Christians agree on what exactly The Fall is? How many Creationists agree on what exactly The Fall is?

 

[AV1611VET]

How many Christians agree on what exactly The Fall is? How many Creationists agree on what exactly The Fall is?

The Fall introduced entropy and microevolution to God's perfect creation.

 

[juvenissun]

So her contention that pathogenic bacteria become pathogenic because of the Fall, hence a change in the creature is not the same kind of change other creationists lump into Microevolution, but it is a change, correct?

So the Fall is a "miracle" change and not a microevolutionary change?

So, do you care to explain how the woman "studies" this effect? I would be very interested.

Does she just read and re-read Genesis 3:13-24 over and over and over again?

Do any bacteria "change" to become pathogenic these days? Would that change still be part of the Fall?

I was not in the interview. You weren't either. So stop right here.

 

[RichardT]

How did she get her PhD? What did she write for her thesis?

 

[Washington]

How did she get her PhD? What did she write for her thesis?

She received her Ph.D. in molecular genetics from Ohio State University.

Title of Thesis: The Role of the Microphthalmia Transcription Factor (MIKTF) in the Regulation of Gene Expression during Osteoclast Differentiation.

 

[ahiggs]

Have you looked in every corner of the planet? Are you omnipotent?

Why not be honest and say "As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence, but I'm willing to be shown wrong"?

fair enough

You sound like your mind is totally shut off, and no matter what anyone shows you, you'll just deny it. Am I wrong about you?

If I am wrong about you, and you're willing to consider that you might be mistaken, you could start reading about ring species. It's a pretty straighforward way to see speciation in nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

the only problem i see with this is that the only example they gave were all birds, even all gulls that is not a different sepcies. they may have differentiated themselves enough that they can't interbreed, but you can't cross a bald eagle and a hummingbird either, (as far as i know) but regardless they are still birds one didn't become a fish

Why would you expect that? Do you think that every single animal that dies automatically becomes fossiized? Do you know what fossilation is and what it requires?

Peter

yes i do, i also know it only takes a couple of years for fosilization to occur, but that is beside the point. if every thing was ever evolving wouldn't most of the fossils found be intermediary? have there been any found?

 

[ahiggs]

Go ahead and show us this evidence (leads to next quote)

Why do creationists come to a Discussion forum and claim they don't want to discuss anything? Why are you here?

Why do creationists assume that everyone else accepts ideas based solely on their personal biases, just because they do?

i was just making a point that this conversation never leads anywhere, and no one ever changes their mind. nothing is ever brought up that can't be argued as false evidence

 

[Wiccan_Child]

the only problem i see with this is that the only example they gave were all birds, even all gulls that is not a different sepcies. they may have differentiated themselves enough that they can't interbreed, but you can't cross a bald eagle and a hummingbird either, (as far as i know) but regardless they are still birds one didn't become a fish

You realise that evolution doesn't say one species evolves into another, pre-existing species, right? Species only split into several completely new species.

yes i do, i also know it only takes a couple of years for fosilization to occur, but that is beside the point. if every thing was ever evolving wouldn't most of the fossils found be intermediary? have there been any found?

Yes, since, according to evolution, all organisms are intermediaries between their parents and their offspring. There is no species that is 'part-X and part-Y', since, when that species lived, there was no Y. That said:

Archaeopteryx: winged dinosaur. There are many such dinosaurs that had feathers and even primitive wings. There is substantial evidence that all birds are descended from dinosaurs (which makes them close relatives of the crocodiles, and both are the only remaining archosaurs).

Tikaalik: one of the first tetrapods to emerge from the waters.

 

[USincognito]

fine if you really want to do this...there is no evidence that any animal ever became another animal, there would have to be thousands of intermediary fossils between each species and there just aren't. for one

Here's a couple of list of transitional fossils. And before you object to the drawings, that's just the wikipedia page with fair use drawings instead of copywritten photos.

something like that had to have happened somewhere down the line. i am just saying you can't take one species breed it together, and get something other than that species. it doesn't matter how many times you breed them. i understand microevolution, but i don't care how far apart you move them apart a cat is still a cat and a dog is still a dog, and neither one of them came from a fish

Hybridization is not how evolution works. That's a misconception that a lot of people have. What actually happens is that a population devides due to migration, geography or sexual selection. Over time mutations build up and resultant subspecies can no longer interbreed. Those populations can further subdevide leading to more species and the development of new taxonomic levels.

Using your cats and dogs citation as an example, let's explore Carnivora.

At some point in the past there was a proto or ur carnivore that wasn't like cats or dogs (or weasels, seals, bears or hyenas). In time the descentants of the proto carnivore species gave rise to two lineages Feliformia and Caniformia. Over time the Feliformia would give rise to true cats as well as hyenas and mongooses. Similarly the Caniformia would give speciate into true dogs, bears, weasels and seals.

That is how speciation occurs. It doesn't happen when a bear has sex with a fish and gives birth to a walrus.

 

[Split Rock]

the only problem i see with this is that the only example they gave were all birds, even all gulls that is not a different sepcies. they may have differentiated themselves enough that they can't interbreed, but you can't cross a bald eagle and a hummingbird either, (as far as i know) but regardless they are still birds one didn't become a fish

Of course they are all birds, and none became a fish. Humans are still apes, primates, mammals, vertebrates, etc. You cannot escape your ancestry. Evolution does not proceed with huge steps, like a bird evolving into a fish. The point is that Ring Species show us Speciation in action. Each speciation event leads a particular lineage in a different direction than others it is related to. That is how evolution works.

yes i do, i also know it only takes a couple of years for fosilization to occur, but that is beside the point. if every thing was ever evolving wouldn't most of the fossils found be intermediary? have there been any found?

There are many transitionals:
Mammal-like reptiles http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/fossils/rept_mam.html

Early tetrapods (like acanthostega, tiktaalik, etc.) http://www.devoniantimes.org/index.html

Horses http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm

Whales http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/cgi-bin/webring/list.pl?ringid=cetacea;siteid=cetacean_04 http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm

etc., etc.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I was not in the interview. You weren't either. So stop right here.

I am not taking orders from you. I watched the interview. You watched the interview. You seem to think it a simple a matter to explain her stance...in fact here's exactly what you said:

Very simple. The changes happened due to the Fall is dramatic. It is far far away from evolution. This shows he does not even understand what the Fall is. It is simply a theologically stupid question.

So now all of a sudden you want me to "stop right there" because neither of us were in the interview?

Sorry, Juvenissun, but you don't get to control where the questions lead. I suspect when you tell me to "stop right there" you really want me to not bother you to defend your points which you think are "simple".

Let's look at one of your fellow religious folks, AV, who said the following just a few posts later:

The Fall introduced entropy and microevolution to God's perfect creation.

(emphasis added)

Seems like AV is willing to link the Fall to microevolution. How do you square this with her comments around what is or isn't microevolution?


I think it would be interesting if AV were to tell us if he thinks bacterial pathegenesis is microevolution? OR is it the Fall? What explains her differentiation in the interview?

 

[plindboe]

the only problem i see with this is that the only example they gave were all birds, even all gulls that is not a different sepcies. they may have differentiated themselves enough that they can't interbreed, but you can't cross a bald eagle and a hummingbird either, (as far as i know) but regardless they are still birds one didn't become a fish

Birds is not a species, it's a class. I advice you to read more about these words and concepts, otherwise you're not communicating clearly, and you'l be unable to understand clearly as well.

You can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

Speciation is the only meaningful boundary in evolution. That is why scientists divide micro- and macroevolution at the speciation event. All the other categories are more or less arbitrary. A speciation event results in 2 gene pools instead of 1, and the divided populations can now evolve independently without slowing each other down.

yes i do, i also know it only takes a couple of years for fosilization to occur, but that is beside the point.

Don't say "yes", when you don't know what fossilization requires. There's no reason for you to try to bluff your way through debates like this. Let go of your blinding pride, and educate yourself before you try to engage others in debate. Stay away from creationist sites, as they all seem to misrepresent evolution and other scientific theories and concepts, unintentionally or intentionally. You'll end up even more confused if you aren't critical of your sources.

This article describes the rarity of fossilization quite well: http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/reflections-on-an-oyster/?hp

if every thing was ever evolving wouldn't most of the fossils found be intermediary? have there been any found?

Yes, countless. You can check out wiki again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Peter