Creationism will only destroy science

[random_guy]

The confusion here is that you have completely dropped the distinction between evolution and origin of species.

It occurs to me that I may have dropped that distinction in my own post, so if I did I appologize.

The tree illustrated that kinds all cross? I thought the concept of branches meant that they did not all cross. *sigh* You were my best hope for a sensible discussion here. It is probably time for me to take a break from here for today. Suffice it to say I find the tree convenient but it also has a lot to do with form following function. That tree gets re-assessed from time to time, but it is largely as much an illustration of similar animals as it is anything to do with ancestry.

No, Creationists argue that kinds don't cross. The tree of life show a different pattern. The all kinds come from different kinds, but still remain the same kind. For example, we came from notocordates, and we are still notochordates. Like wise, we came from apes, and we are still apes. That's what the tree of life shows. There's no specific barriers, but instead, life is fluid and interconnected. I hope that makes sense. It was really confusing when I first learned it. If not, I'll try to clarify.

As for the first point, evolution contains a lot of different aspects, and one is the origin of species (not life but species). Part of the theory of evolution is all life shares a common ancestor.

Finally, I think a perfect example of life sharing common ancestory is the examination of the human chromosome compared to chimp chromosome. Evolution has a very specific answer to why chimps have one extra pair of chromosomes then us. It's easier to find evidence of recent common ancestory (human-ape common ancestory) than it is farther back (human-banana common ancestory). So like your point about reliability, it's harder to give evidence the farther back we go, but it's there.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

There's no specific barriers, but instead, life is fluid and interconnected. I hope that makes sense.


This is an important idea. Retrovirus can, when they unincorporate from the host genome, malfunction and carry with them host DNA. There is evidence of not-from-human DNA in the human genome associated with these RT's reincorporating into the germlines of our ancestors.

There is a lot of research being done on this with reference to the source of HIV and with xenotransplantation and the possibility of (for example) porcine ERV's getting into people and causing disease.

If there was a kind barrier, we would logically expect that this could not happen. Yet viruses appear to be a vector that literally transfers DNA all through the web of life.

 

[Mallon]

Yes, I know............

Sorry, your comment that it was found in a "shallow water area" threw me off.

Imagine, an amphibious creature found where amphibious creatures would be wont to live.......

..... in rocks 375 million years old, in the tundra, predating any known extant tetrapods. I know -- it paints quite the picture.

And you're probably not ever going to, because finding fish fossils where other fish fossils have been found, or mammal fossils where other mammal fossils would be found, or amphibian fossils where other amphibian fossils would be found is not much of a predictor of anything.

Except Tiktaalik-like fossils had not yet been found on Ellesmere Island. THAT'S what's so significant about this find. That and the fact that Tiktaalik plugs the morphologic and temporal gap in the fossil record between Eusthenopteron and Acanthostega.

In addition, I rather suspect that "Creation Science" will never "predict" anything since it is largely pointed towards disproving something.

I agree. And what a scathing admission this is. Creation science exists for no other reason than to contradict evolutionary science. Not because the evidence positively supports creationism, but because its proponents have this wacky idea that if evolution is wrong, creationism must be right by default. Creation science is rooted not in any empirical evidence, but in a fundamentalist insistance that the Bible must be read literally in its entirety, regardless of what the science suggests. I agree entirely.

Punctuated equilibrium was the brain child of an avowed atheistic supporter of evolution as the origin of species.

Even if this statement were correct, it would still not in any way refute my assertion that both punk eek and anagenesis are not mutually exclusive, so I don't see what your point is.
That said, your statement is not correct. While Gould did not pratice any particular religion, he dedicated an entire book to the issue of Science vs. Religion (Rock of Ages) and found no conflict between the two. He was entirely happy to view the two worldviews as equally valid and complimentary ways of interpreting the world in which we live.

In other words, there's really no way to poke a hole in this theory. It is fully and completely non-falsifiable -- thus the need to gather more evidence before passing it off as the most relaible model for someone to base their entire belief system about life, the universe, and everything on.

If someone is stupid enough to base their entire belief system about the workings of the universe, the meaning of life, etc. on a single scientific theory, then I would feel sorry for them. Thankfully, science does not require this; nor does Christianity require that our belief be explained by science. Jesus stressed the importance of faith during his stay on earth, not empirical testability.
And your statement that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable is itself false as has been explained here and elsewhere in this forum. Off the top of my head, two pieces of evidence that would falsify evolution would be chimaeras and out-of-place fossils (like shernren's famous Precambrian rabbits).

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Steven Gould, on the other hand, was, and is the author of the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

S(Stephen)JG himself made the link in:
http://www.evolutionary.tripod.com/gould_nh_86_22-30.html

although there are some who will disagree:
from: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

PE is by no means either synonymous with "saltationism", nor did Gould's essay on Richard Goldschmidt "link" PE with Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" conjecture. Gould wrote an article that has caused much confusion. "Return of the hopeful monsters" sought to point out that a hatchet job had been done on some of the concepts that Richard Goldschmidt had formulated. The discussion of systemic mutations as mutations which affect rate or timing of development has caused many people to assume that Gould was somehow linking PE to this concept. A close reading of the article shows this to not be the case.

 

[Shane Roach]

Sorry, your comment that it was found in a "shallow water area" threw me off.

..... in rocks 375 million years old, in the tundra, predating any known extant tetrapods. I know -- it paints quite the picture.

Except Tiktaalik-like fossils had not yet been found on Ellesmere Island. THAT'S what's so significant about this find. That and the fact that Tiktaalik plugs the morphologic and temporal gap in the fossil record between Eusthenopteron and Acanthostega.

This is where the whole subject of punctuated equilibrium comes in. It should come as no surpised to anyone that a few more transitional fossils are out there to be found, but the weight of all the non-transitional forms makes this discovery rather unimpressive, and it wasn't anything to do with origins of species that led them to look where they did. The looked there because they knew it fit the habitat requirements. It doesn't even prove that it is actually related to the two other creatures you are talking about.

I agree. And what a scathing admission this is. Creation science exists for no other reason than to contradict evolutionary science. Not because the evidence positively supports creationism, but because its proponents have this wacky idea that if evolution is wrong, creationism must be right by default. Creation science is rooted not in any empirical evidence, but in a fundamentalist insistance that the Bible must be read literally in its entirety, regardless of what the science suggests. I agree entirely.

It's not much of an admission from someone who has already said they are not a hard core young earth creationist. I would point out however that poking holes in evolutionary theory need not be motivated by the idea that the Bible is literally true. I personally dislike it because it makes no real sense, is constantly put forward as factual without any recognition of the difference in reliability between truly demonstrable science and science that is more or less forensic in nature, and is being used as a culturall tool to brainwash kids out of understanding epistemology in an honest way. To this day, the falacious experiment to do with the moths is used in textbooks. How am I expected to trust people who so shamelessly continue to publish lies to kids?

Even if this statement were correct, it would still not in any way refute my assertion that both punk eek and anagenesis are not mutually exclusive, so I don't see what your point is.

They are not mutually exclusive. It's just that the state of evolution theory right now makes the concept of finding another 5 or 6 transitional fossils more or less moot.

That said, your statement is not correct. While Gould did not pratice any particular religion, he dedicated an entire book to the issue of Science vs. Religion (Rock of Ages) and found no conflict between the two. He was entirely happy to view the two worldviews as equally valid and complimentary ways of interpreting the world in which we live.

To the best of my recolection, all I said was that Punctuated Equilibrium was the brain child of an avowed atheist. Gould was an avowed atheist. His opinions as to the relationship between faith in Christ and evolution are not truly all that relevant as far as I am concerned.

If someone is stupid enough to base their entire belief system about the workings of the universe, the meaning of life, etc. on a single scientific theory, then I would feel sorry for them. Thankfully, science does not require this; nor does Christianity require that our belief be explained by science. Jesus stressed the importance of faith during his stay on earth, not empirical testability.

People can't help but base their belief systems on foundational understandings such as the origen of life.

And your statement that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable is itself false as has been explained here and elsewhere in this forum. Off the top of my head, two pieces of evidence that would falsify evolution would be chimaeras and out-of-place fossils (like shernren's famous Precambrian rabbits).

Normally I wouldn't argue when getting my fanny spanked this hard, but sometimes I wonder, given my experience with evolution supporters in my life, if even this sort of evidence would truly suffice. In any event, a rabbit amongst aquatic fauna would violate a little more than evolution as the origin of species.

 

[Shane Roach]

S(Stephen)JG himself made the link in:
http://www.evolutionary.tripod.com/gould_nh_86_22-30.html

although there are some who will disagree:
from: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

Yes, there's a note to that effect on Wikipedia as well.

 

[Mallon]

This is where the whole subject of punctuated equilibrium comes in. It should come as no surpised to anyone that a few more transitional fossils are out there to be found, but the weight of all the non-transitional forms makes this discovery rather unimpressive, and it wasn't anything to do with origins of species that led them to look where they did. The looked there because they knew it fit the habitat requirements. It doesn't even prove that it is actually related to the two other creatures you are talking about.

I don't quite understand your line of thought here. The fact that Tiktaalik is morphologically intermediate between previously described species is strongly suggestive that it is, in fact, a transitional taxon between fish and amphibians.
Also, it is the biostratigraphic (time) position rather than the biogeographic (place) position that is of most significance to evolutionary scientists, so your assertion regarding habitat requirements does not fully bear out.

I personally dislike it because it makes no real sense, is constantly put forward as factual without any recognition of the difference in reliability between truly demonstrable science and science that is more or less forensic in nature, and is being used as a culturall tool to brainwash kids out of understanding epistemology in an honest way.

With all due respect, I think it is fairly obvious, as an evolutionary scienists myself, that you do not have a good understanding of what evolution is, so it is not terribly surprising that it makes no sense to you. I fail to see why its forensic nature makes it any less of a science. People are condemned to jail based on forensic testimony every day, but I have yet to see you fighting to have murderers and child-molesters released due to lack of evidence. I also fail to see how evolution is being used to brainwash kids out of understanding epistemology any more than any other science out there. I think the creationist insistance that the Bible must be scientifically accurate to be believed does little to remedy the situation.

To this day, the falacious experiment to do with the moths is used in textbooks. How am I expected to trust people who so shamelessly continue to publish lies to kids?

I take it you are referring to the peppered moth experiments done in the UK in the middle of last century. What exactly was falacious about them?

They are not mutually exclusive. It's just that the state of evolution theory right now makes the concept of finding another 5 or 6 transitional fossils more or less moot.

Why?

To the best of my recolection, all I said was that Punctuated Equilibrium was the brain child of an avowed atheist. Gould was an avowed atheist. His opinions as to the relationship between faith in Christ and evolution are not truly all that relevant as far as I am concerned.

Then why bring him up at all? What point were you trying to make in tying Gould's atheism with punctuated equilibrium?

People can't help but base their belief systems on foundational understandings such as the origen of life.

Evolution says nothing regardnig the origin of life. That field of study is left to abiogenesis.

Normally I wouldn't argue when getting my fanny spanked this hard, but sometimes I wonder, given my experience with evolution supporters in my life, if even this sort of evidence would truly suffice.

It would. Most subscribers to evolution will readily admit that they would be more than willing to give up the theory if a better one ever comes along. I certainly would. Find me a Precambrian rabbit in terrestrial rocks (they do exist) and I'll eat my hat.

 

[Shane Roach]

I don't quite understand your line of thought here. The fact that Tiktaalik is morphologically intermediate between previously described species is strongly suggestive that it is, in fact, a transitional taxon between fish and amphibians.
Also, it is the biostratigraphic (time) position rather than the biogeographic (place) position that is of most significance to evolutionary scientists, so your assertion regarding habitat requirements does not fully bear out.

With all due respect, I think it is fairly obvious, as an evolutionary scienists myself, that you do not have a good understanding of what evolution is, so it is not terribly surprising that it makes no sense to you. I fail to see why its forensic nature makes it any less of a science. People are condemned to jail based on forensic testimony every day, but I have yet to see you fighting to have murderers and child-molesters released due to lack of evidence. I also fail to see how evolution is being used to brainwash kids out of understanding epistemology any more than any other science out there. I think the creationist insistance that the Bible must be scientifically accurate to be believed does little to remedy the situation.

I take it you are referring to the peppered moth experiments done in the UK in the middle of last century. What exactly was falacious about them?

Why?

Then why bring him up at all? What point were you trying to make in tying Gould's atheism with punctuated equilibrium?

Evolution says nothing regardnig the origin of life. That field of study is left to abiogenesis.

It would. Most subscribers to evolution will readily admit that they would be more than willing to give up the theory if a better one ever comes along. I certainly would. Find me a Precambrian rabbit in terrestrial rocks (they do exist) and I'll eat my hat.

You make me tired.

No, I do not have a Phd in biology, but I can guarantee you I have a pretty firm foundation in math, science, and philosophy, and you repeatedly misrepresent what I have said. The fact that you do, and the WAY that you do, adds to my mistrust of your profession and the effect you all have on politics and religion.

My "assertion" does not "fully bear out"? Fine, the point is not that I believe there is no way that evolution is the origin of species. I have said something on the order of 15 times that is not my belief. But you brought it up as if it were some sort of major insight that was just as convincing as it could possibly be, as if you had just shown me the very light bulb and battery that verifies that electricity running through thin metal strips will give you light and heat. It's just not the same thing man. It just is not. I have even gone so far as to point out that it will be more convincing years down the road when, if evolution is true, it will have been RECORDED and OBSERVED, and in the meantime, frankly, WHO CARES? You all keep trying to fois it off as if it is driving discoveries in biology, but it is NOT, (it being origin of species). "Evolution" in the sense of ADAPTATION is all that can be seen to be informing your discoveries.

You piddle and paddle and play with words until it drives people nuts, and then wonder why people are up in arms that after having explained NOTHING, people might be pleased to have it allowed to talk about God and creation when you go blithering off in high schools about evolution. I mean I made ALL A's in high school (and college for that matter) where science was concerned. Dude, if I do not understand the fundamentals of evolution you guys need to just give up, because I jumped through all the hoops. I don't buy it for a lot of reasons, one of which is just a personal dislike and mistrust of the scientific community based on my experiences with college professors. You ALL are egotistical bullying prigs! Almost to a man and woman. It is disgusting to have to try to break through to ANY of you.

And lets move on to the rest of this nonsense....

You don't even know what is falacious about the peppered moth experiments. What do you THINK? Tell me what you DO know because it's not as if it is the only thing I have here. And why is it none of you ever answer a question? Do you think I am ignorant of the concept of leading a conversation with questions too? I have seen it here until I want to yank my hair out by the roots. YOU tell ME first. For ONCE. Heck, aren't you supposed to be the teacher?

I brought up Gould because you or SOMEONE said that punctuated equilibrium was made up by a creationist.

I KNOW evolution is not the same as abiogenesis. How can you not understand what I wrote there in the context it was written????????????? CAN YOU NOT READ ENGLISH?????

Why is it everyone understands me perfectly right up until I start talking with an ant-Christ about the Nicene Creed or an evolutionist about epistemology?

I mean seriously... you expect me to think that not only do I have "no understanding of evolution" but that I honestly can't speak English? Dude, I KNOW why it is that you seem to magically misrepresent every SINGLE thing I try to say. It's to guide the conversation to all the canned answers you have for all the obections people have for your insistance that evolution is so certain as the origin of species that it's like picking up your phone and calling Momma.

IT's NOT TRUE!

No, AGAIN, because you will again try to twist my words, I am not saying origin of species is not true, I am saying it is CLEAR that you reprepsent it as a certainty well beyond what you can demonstrate. THAT'S ALL!

I already handed you the rabbit thing on a platter... I still say that the "theory" is flexible enough to encompass a lot of things other than its own thesis that are not considered because it is the modern pet theory and is so valuable to secularists.

So, congrats, you managed to tick off the poor ignorant wretch with no education and no ability to read OR write, and now you can all sit and pow wow together about your mental and moral superiority.

But you lost me, that's for darned sure. even the theistic flavor of evolution is just about nothing as far as I am concerned but an excuse to try to deny the power and authority of God. I don't know if the world was made in 6 days or not, but you know what? It doesn't matter what the world looks like or how many transitional fossils you can find, if God made the world in 6 days, it doesn't have to look any specific way, so consequently no one who lacks trust in your community will EVER be convinced, and since none of you seem to understand the concept of comparative reliability or trustworthiness, it seems highly unlikely you are ever going to GAIN that trust.

I would wager that fully 90% of the people you all accuse of "not knowing about evolution" know plenty. You just lack the willingness to LISTEN to what they are actually SAYING and address their concerns head on.

Thank you and good night, good ridance.

 

[theFijian]

I think the creationist insistance that the Bible must be scientifically accurate to be believed does little to remedy the situation.

Exactly! Creationism is born of scientism not theology.

 

[Mallon]

My "assertion" does not "fully bear out"? Fine, the point is not that I believe there is no way that evolution is the origin of species. I have said something on the order of 15 times that is not my belief. But you brought it up as if it were some sort of major insight that was just as convincing as it could possibly be, as if you had just shown me the very light bulb and battery that verifies that electricity running through thin metal strips will give you light and heat. It's just not the same thing man. It just is not. I have even gone so far as to point out that it will be more convincing years down the road when, if evolution is true, it will have been RECORDED and OBSERVED, and in the meantime, frankly, WHO CARES? You all keep trying to fois it off as if it is driving discoveries in biology, but it is NOT, (it being origin of species). "Evolution" in the sense of ADAPTATION is all that can be seen to be informing your discoveries.

The fact is that we have observed and recorded speciation in action, though. We have seen the very act of genetic isolation at work and new species derived as a result. Your denying it, or moving the goalposts to suit your anti-evolution agenda, doesn't change this. Read more about observed speciation, both in the lab and in the wild, here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

The fact that we have not seen the fish-amphibian transition for ourselves is irrelevent. The theory of evolution, like every other science, pieces together the various lines of evidence of biostratigraphy, comparative anatomy, genetics, etc. to explain the specifics of the transition via extant mechanisms known to science. This sort of forensic methodology makes evolution no less of a science. It is scientific induction, it is used rampantly in ALL fields, and we would be nowhere today without it.

I don't buy it for a lot of reasons, one of which is just a personal dislike and mistrust of the scientific community based on my experiences with college professors. You ALL are egotistical bullying prigs! Almost to a man and woman. It is disgusting to have to try to break through to ANY of you.

Well, the truth comes out. You distrust evolution, not because of the science behind it, but because you don't like evolutionary scientists. As you know, this is hardly a valid position from which to judge the merits of evolution. I could similarly shunt my faith in Methodists as Christians based on your namecalling here, but we both know that would be a logical fallacy.

You don't even know what is falacious about the peppered moth experiments. What do you THINK? Tell me what you DO know because it's not as if it is the only thing I have here.

I asked you to tell me what was fallacious about these experiments and you have not. I know all about the experiments -- I studied them in university. So please tell us all what was fallacious about the experiments. But before you do, please read the following refutations to oft-repeated creationist arguments regarding the moth studies on this and subsequent pages, so that you do not repeat any PRATTs:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html

And why is it none of you ever answer a question? Do you think I am ignorant of the concept of leading a conversation with questions too? I have seen it here until I want to yank my hair out by the roots. YOU tell ME first. For ONCE. Heck, aren't you supposed to be the teacher?

What question would you like answered?

I brought up Gould because you or SOMEONE said that punctuated equilibrium was made up by a creationist.

I don't see where...

I KNOW evolution is not the same as abiogenesis. How can you not understand what I wrote there in the context it was written????????????? CAN YOU NOT READ ENGLISH?????

Please calm down. Your yelling and namecalling here is not only unChristian, but it does little to help your credibility.

I mean seriously... you expect me to think that not only do I have "no understanding of evolution" but that I honestly can't speak English? Dude, I KNOW why it is that you seem to magically misrepresent every SINGLE thing I try to say.

If you have been misrepresented, then I would argue it is because you have not communicated yourself clearly. For example, you state that Tiktaalik was "found in a shallow water area", when in fact, it was found in a rock in the northern tundra. You may have meant that it was originally deposited in a shallow water environment, but this is not what you said.
You also said, in reference to the theory of evolution (since that is what we have been discussing), "People can't help but base their belief systems on foundational understandings such as the origen of life." I called you on it and said that evolution does not deal with the origin of life. Now you're upset, saying that I have misrepresented you and twisted your words, but I think it's fairly evident that I have not.

But you lost me, that's for darned sure. even the theistic flavor of evolution is just about nothing as far as I am concerned but an excuse to try to deny the power and authority of God. I don't know if the world was made in 6 days or not, but you know what? It doesn't matter what the world looks like or how many transitional fossils you can find, if God made the world in 6 days, it doesn't have to look any specific way, so consequently no one who lacks trust in your community will EVER be convinced, and since none of you seem to understand the concept of comparative reliability or trustworthiness, it seems highly unlikely you are ever going to GAIN that trust.

I would wager that fully 90% of the people you all accuse of "not knowing about evolution" know plenty. You just lack the willingness to LISTEN to what they are actually SAYING and address their concerns head on.

Thank you and good night, good ridance.

You question the TEist belief in God's power and Christian morality, and then go on to say something like this. We're "ALL are egotistical bullying prigs." We can't "read English." "Good ridance." I think maybe the shoe is on the other foot, as evidenced by your very unChristian attitude here. We have all been patient with you and have tried to explain the errors in your understanding of evolution. You're beginning to act like a bit of a fundamentalist madman with all your yelling and namecalling, somewhat akin to Mr. Brady at the end of Inherit the Wind. But I pray that once you calm down a little, you will read carefully what we have said and realize that evolution is not the secularist tool of the devil you believe it to be. Praise be to God for the completely natural processes of rain, gravity and evolution!

 

[Assyrian]

I rather suspect that "Creation Science" will never "predict" anything since it is largely pointed towards disproving something.

and

It should come as no surpised to anyone that a few more transitional fossils are out there to be found

and

It doesn't matter what the world looks like or how many transitional fossils you can find, if God made the world in 6 days, it doesn't have to look any specific way

I had a root through my old YEC books:

What is Creation Science, Master books, 1982 revised 1987, p. 221

The Creation model, on the other hand, postulates that all the basic types of plants and animals were directly created and did not evolve fromother type at all. Cconsequently the Creationist predicts that no transitional sequences (except within each created type) will ever be found, either in the present array of organisms or in the fossil record.

 

[theFijian]

It doesn't matter what the world looks like or how many transitional fossils you can find, if God made the world in 6 days, it doesn't have to look any specific way

You are correct, It doesn't. Well at least it doesn't if we're ok with a God who is capricious, deceitful and untrustworthy.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

I doubt this will ever happen. We still have people that believe that the moon landings were a hoax. It's sad, but there will always be those that reject science no matter what evidence you provide.

Yes, you will always have a portion, but that doesn't mean that the majority will one day have a better education on the issue and then realize there isn't an contradiction with a OEC.

The issue is education.

 

[wtopneuma]

Science has discovered that the cell is very complex

complex-yes
irreducible to simpler components-no.
that is the big point.

Behe contends that the complexity of living organisms is irreductible, yet every example in his book has been shown to be not only reducible to much simpler components but that each of this components has clear antecedents in other existing systems within those same organisms.

Would you explain how a cell with its cilia, molecular moters, highways, rhysomes which can manufacture anything RNA tells it to, bending machines, fuel types, and communication processes can be reduced, how much, and who says it? Is this proof actual proof or merely hypothesis or theory by other's of science concerning Behe's statements?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Would you explain how a cell with its cilia, molecular moters, highways, rhysomes which can manufacture anything RNA tells it to, bending machines, fuel types, and communication processes can be reduced, how much, and who says it? Is this proof actual proof or merely hypothesis or theory by other's of science concerning Behe's statements?

you can read the discussion yourself.
don't bite off the whole field at once,
start with the flagellum:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
this:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum_background.html
is the background for this:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
which is one of the most extensive essays on the topic.

here are several more on the topic worthwhile reading:
this is an early version of the talkdesign faq and is a lot easier to read.
http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/flagella.htm

this is a review article on flagellum:
http://www.aip.org/pt/jan00/berg.htm


now remember almost all of this work was put into motion by _Darwin's Black Box_, people literally took his examples and looked closely at them.


now after flagellum, you can read about blood clotting proteins, the next big example in Behe. start with google for the relevant words and Doolittle, who has spent a professional lifetime on the issue (plus i had him as a prof, so i can remember his name)

 

[laptoppop]

From wikipedia:
An approach to the evolutionary origin of the bacterial flagellum is suggested by the fact that a subset of flagellar components can function as a Type III transport system.
Admittedly, all currently known nonflagellar Type III transport systems are for injecting toxin into eukaryotic cells, and are therefore presumably descended from the flagellum, which is likely older than eukaryotes. For example, the bubonic plague bacterium Yersinia pestis has an organelle assembly very similar to a complex flagellum except that it functions as a needle to inject toxins into host cells.
However, the Type III transport system still undergirds the hypothesis that the flagellum did not have to come about all at once, as a subset of components has a selectable function. That all known nonflagellar Type III transport systems are disease mechanisms is not shocking, because the Type III secretion system was only discovered in 1994 and scientific study of eubacteria is significantly biased towards disease-causing organisms. This provides another case of co-option, where a motility organelle has evolved into a "complex weapon for close combat."
A 2004 genetic study of Yersinia pestis, however, revealed that it has all genes for a flagellum but has lost the ability to express them. Thus its Type III transport system is not a precursor but rather a remnant of the flagellum.[3]

In other words - is is far from clear that the Type 3 transport system demonstrates an evolutionary predecessor.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

In other words - is is far from clear that the Type 3 transport system demonstrates an evolutionary predecessor.


The conversation is fundamentally asymmetric.
i posted at 8:22, 9 minutes later you posted a reply that was a cut and paste from the wiki.

i referenced a 47 page article, how much, if any of a 47 page article can you read in less than 9 minutes?

you say "it is far from clear", my question is how do you know if you don't read the articles.

Now it is possible that you are a prolific researcher in the field, it is possible that you wrote the wiki article, in either case you have not only read these articles but even more than i have had a chance to. Therefore i will apologize for saying that you didn't read the article if you tell me that you did, i'll accept your word for it. However past experience leads me to believe that the YECist community rarely, goes their homework and rather concentrates on simply casting doubt with statements like "it is far from clear".

If you didn't read the articles quoted then you come under a quote from a pastor in my life:

Everyone has the right to their opinion, but no one has the right to demand that i take their opinion seriously unless they have done their homework.
Pastor H. Braum, Vista Community Church late 1970's

 

[laptoppop]

I specifically went to talkdesign.org and verified that the article you described as "one of the most extensive essays on the topic" was one that I had read previously slowly and in some detail. No matter how it got here - the flagellum fascinates me as an incredible piece of engineering, and I've looked at it with a modicum of depth. No, I did not take the time to look at the other articles. I then quoted from an "impartial" source about one of the key particulars in this topic (because it is somehow cool to quote from talkdesign.org, but not from creationist sites such as answersingenesis or icr.org).

I didn't intend it to be a full answer - and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I just wanted to make the point that some of the "facts" from the article have been challenged with later research -- within the conventional evolutionary community.

How is this invalid? I didn't accuse you of any bad scholarship or anything - I was just trying to add to the conversation.

And no, I'm not the author of the wiki - but thanks for thinking of it as even a far flung possibility.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Since you read the article in the past, i apologize for saying that you didn't.

the asymmetry of the discussion here is a surprising burden.
YECist have only one thing to do, cast doubt on any proposed evidence that is supportive of TofE. They don't actually have to understand the evidence, they merely have to state that it is unclear or subject to revision.

To acknowledge that a small cottage industry has sprung up rebuttaling Behe on the level of scientific detail. That it has gone a long ways towards finding those necessary antecedents that are either duplicated or coopted to form new elements which perform new functions.

 

[laptoppop]

No problem.

Interesting -- I would have said "the asymmetry of the problem here is a surprising burden. The TEs have a hugely greater number of scientists to support their position, and the ToE affects so many different fields of studies that those scientists which are YEC end up covering a large number of fields, leading to challenges on small specifics, each of which need to be addressed." Different perspectives, eh?

I would say that in both cases, the burden on the respective scientific community is two-fold. 1) to put forth a cohesive model and explanation of the physical evidence, and 2) to demonstrate why that model is better than the competing one, including raising issues within the competing model. Of course, the larger the community the easier this is to do.

I will absolutely acknowledge that a large number of people are researching/investigating in direct opposition to Behe. I will also absolutely acknowledge that the "cottage industry" has raised a number of points to be addressed. On the other hand, this does also illustrate the disproportionately small number of ID scientists.

I would think on these forums that we can probably agree that, however God made it come about, His creation is amazing. The details down to the smallest part of the cells and beyond -- through the amazing beauty in the heavens. Wow!