If Evolution is true, why are human adaptations not ubiquitous?

[loveofourlord]

A brilliant and considered refutation of my argument. Not,

What argument, you essentially ignored multiple replies explaining why your wrong over the last few weeks, and went LALALA I can't hear you to pointing our the preposterous notion of it being mathematically impossible, you had no substance. The refutation has been given many times to you, ignoring them doesn't mean were going to keep repeating the same stuff you already ignored.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Extract from an interview with a molecular biologist, name Sam. George is writer George Caylor

S: “George, nobody I know in my profession truly believes it
evolved. It was engineered by ‘genius beyond genius,’ and such
information could not have been written any other way. The
paper and ink did not write the book. Knowing what we know,
it is ridiculous to think otherwise. A bit like Neil Armstrong
believing the moon is made of green cheese. He’s been there!”

I've left some out for brevity

S: “Just stop right there. To be a molecular biologist
requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it
would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see
the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you
don’t believe in evolution. All government work, research
grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would
stop. I’d be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes
where I couldn’t earn a decent living.”
G: “I hate to say it, Sam, but that sounds intellectually
dishonest.”
S: “The work I do in genetic research is honourable. We will
find the cures to many of mankind’s worst diseases. But in
the meantime, we have to live with the ‘elephant in the
living room’.”
G: “What elephant?”
S: “Design. It’s like the elephant in the living room. It moves
around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly
trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of
hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear
it isn’t there!”

 

[essentialsaltes]

Extract from an interview with a molecular biologist, name Sam.

Are you sure it was Sam? Maybe his name started with J? Betty perhaps? Or maybe just an unnamed molecular biologist (MB)?

Even if we grant the interview was real, it's no surprise that it came from Lynchburg, the home of Liberty University, where one must adhere to a Doctrinal Statement that asserts that "human beings were directly created, not evolved".

I think someone already referenced Sinclair's remark that "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

This really applies to the creationist side, where most of these organizations require such statements. In contrast, standard universities have ordinary standards of tenure that allow academic freedom.

 

[Astrophile]

Most education is controlled by 1 & 2. Hence evolution is taught and Creationism is not permitted

I wish that that were true. At my primary school, during the 1950s, religious education was probably the largest single subject; we were taught very little science, and even mathematics was restricted to simple arithmetic.

Things were better at secondary school and at university, but there was still a strong Christian ethos. At secondary school, in the 1960s, we were not taught much about the age of the Earth or the history of life, and it was at university that I first encountered young-Earth creationism. One of my fellow students actually wrote an essay for his Honours degree in which he argued that the universe was only about 6000 years old. It wasn't until I was 30 years old, in the late 1970s, that I started to find evidence that made me question the truth of Christianity.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

6. My "quote of the week": “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair wasn’t right about much. He was a socialist, after all. But he was right about that. Scientists salaries often depend on their "not understanding" Creation.

From my experience working in environmental biology, I can assure you that if salary was the main reason for working in the field there would be very few biologists indeed. The reason I left for pastures new was the desire for a decent wage. That was some years ago, and I understand that the situation in the UK is relatively worse now (average of ~£30,000 or $39,000).

 

[Astrophile]

Evolutionist are as blind as bats

Why are bats blind? Did God create them that way, or did they evolve from animals that had eyes? Also, bats are very successful animals, almost as successful as evolutionists; there are more than 1200 species, and they live in every continent except Antarctica, so they must be doing something right.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why are bats blind? Did God create them that way, or did they evolve from animals that had eyes? Also, bats are very successful animals, almost as successful as evolutionists; there are more than 1200 species, and they live in every continent except Antarctica, so they must be doing something right.

As it happens, bats have very good eyesight - up to three times as good as ours

 

[Astrophile]

As it happens, bats have very good eyesight - up to three times as good as ours

So perhaps evolutionists have scientific insight that is up to three times as good as the rest of us.

 

[Aussie Pete]

From my experience working in environmental biology, I can assure you that if salary was the main reason for working in the field there would be very few biologists indeed. The reason I left for pastures new was the desire for a decent wage. That was some years ago, and I understand that the situation in the UK is relatively worse now (average of ~£30,000 or $39,000).

There are biologists that depend on grants for vital research. They also depend on the approval of boards for tenure. Admitting to opposing evolution is a good way to be forced out of the industry. James Tour advises his students to keep quiet if they want a career in biological sciences. Like most walks of life, the top echelons get paid way more than they should while the lower levels get less. It is also true that the less use an occupation is, the more highly paid it is likely to be. Hence the money that the entertainment industry pays "stars". Of course, this is just a result of evolution so it is perfectly acceptable. I don't think.

 

[pitabread]

There are biologists that depend on grants for vital research. They also depend on the approval of boards for tenure. Admitting to opposing evolution is a good way to be forced out of the industry.

I always find it odd when creationists talk about grants, since it's painfully obvious you guys have no clue how grants work. Governments don't just hand out grants for writing "I believe in evolution" on the application. Grant funding is typically designed for specific purposes and requires specific reporting on the use of the funds.

You also are still ignoring the fact that a lot of biology jobs are not strictly academic. Plenty of private and public bio-related companies employ biologists. And that is where demonstrating one's professional competence is of paramount.

If you walk into an interview declaring evolution a fabrication brought about by an evil, atheist conspiracy, as you guys often do here, one shouldn't expect favorable job prospects. But I suspect you'll ignore this fact in favor of whatever fantasy scenario you've dreamed up in your head.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I always find it odd when creationists talk about grants, since it's painfully obvious you guys have no clue how grants work. Governments don't just hand out grants for writing "I believe in evolution" on the application. Grant funding is typically designed for specific purposes and requires specific reporting on the use of the funds.

You also are still ignoring the fact that a lot of biology jobs are not strictly academic. Plenty of private and public bio-related companies employ biologists. And that is where demonstrating one's professional competence is of paramount.

If you walk into an interview declaring evolution a fabrication brought about by an evil, atheist conspiracy, as you guys often do here, one shouldn't expect favorable job prospects. But I suspect you'll ignore this fact in favor of whatever fantasy scenario you've dreamed up in your head.

I posted an extract from an interview with a microbiologist doing cancer research. He believes Evolution is impossible. He bases his belief on observations that lead him to that conclusion. He also states that he knows no one in the field who believes evolution. But very few are prepared to say so.

It was not always like that. People used to be able to say what they think. Not so easy now. James Tour was one who started his career before the evolution gang became afraid of being proven wrong. He is at one of the few universities that value his work and do not care about his beliefs. He is forthright in his statements. I've seen comments that slander or ridicule him. I've yet to read anything that demonstrates where he is in error.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There are biologists that depend on grants for vital research. They also depend on the approval of boards for tenure. Admitting to opposing evolution is a good way to be forced out of the industry. James Tour advises his students to keep quiet if they want a career in biological sciences. Like most walks of life, the top echelons get paid way more than they should while the lower levels get less. It is also true that the less use an occupation is, the more highly paid it is likely to be. Hence the money that the entertainment industry pays "stars". Of course, this is just a result of evolution so it is perfectly acceptable. I don't think.

I don't recognise that description, perhaps because the vast majority of people I knew or worked with in the business had only nominal religious affiliation, if any at all. I guess it's different in the USA, but I find your description unconvincing; as I said, there are far easier ways to make money than the biological sciences, and it seems rather strange for someone who doesn't believe in evolution to go into a field that has evolutionary theory as an integral part of its framework. YMMV.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I don't recognise that description, perhaps because the vast majority of people I knew or worked with in the business had only nominal religious affiliation, if any at all. I guess it's different in the USA, but I find your description unconvincing; as I said, there are far easier ways to make money than the biological sciences, and it seems rather strange for someone who doesn't believe in evolution to go into a field that has evolutionary theory as an integral part of its framework. YMMV.

Evolution has not always been seen as fact. You can be a scientist and believe in God as many of the greatest scientists did in the past. There are still geniuses who believe in God and reject evolution. Some even work in the field of life sciences. People of enormous intelligence (that's not me) see the same things and come to entirely different conclusions. James Tour got into his field because he was fascinated by it, not because he wanted to make money or just have a career.

 

[pitabread]

posted an extract from an interview with a microbiologist doing cancer research. He believes Evolution is impossible. He bases his belief on observations that lead him to that conclusion. He also states that he knows no one in the field who believes evolution. But very few are prepared to say so.

We have no way of verifying whether what you posted is valid or real. For all we know, it could be a complete fabrication.

(Actually, I looked it up and the same "interview" appears on ICR. Except there they identify the mystery biologist by the letter "J" as opposed to the "S" you have used. Which makes me further doubt the source.

Why Can't Geneticists See the Obvious Evidence for Creation in the Genetic Code?)

Meanwhile, you have creationists like Todd Wood that state the following:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.​

The truth about evolution

But you ignore that. Why?

It was not always like that. People used to be able to say what they think. Not so easy now.

The point you continue to ignore is we're talking about a matter of demonstrating professional competence. Though I suspect you will continue to ignore this as it doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[Aussie Pete]

We have no way of verifying whether what you posted is valid or real. For all we know, it could be a complete fabrication.

(Actually, I looked it up and the same "interview" appears on ICR. Except there they identify the mystery biologist by the letter "J" as opposed to the "S" you have used. Which makes me further doubt the source.

Why Can't Geneticists See the Obvious Evidence for Creation in the Genetic Code?)

Meanwhile, you have creationists like Todd Wood that state the following:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.​

The truth about evolution

But you ignore that. Why?



The point you continue to ignore is we're talking about a matter of demonstrating professional competence. Though I suspect you will continue to ignore this as it doesn't fit your narrative.

It is absolutely obvious that you don't need to be an evolutionist in order to be professionally competent. Have you checked out what Professor Tour is doing? Or are you so biased that you cannot accept his work? I will not reject the work of evolutionists in medical research just because I do not agree with their evolutionist beliefs. Does that work both ways? Or does that not fit your narrative?

 

[pitabread]

It is absolutely obvious that you don't need to be an evolutionist in order to be professionally competent.

If one is in the field of biology and one rejects a foundational part of that field, then that calls into question one's professional competence in that field.

I really don't think you quite understand the implication here.

Have you checked out what Professor Tour is doing?

Sure. He's an organic chemist who apparently works with nanotechnology. How is this relevant exactly?

Btw, I notice you keep appealing to Tour over and over again, but continue to flat-out ignore anyone else with more relevant credentials. Why is that?

 

[Aussie Pete]

If one is in the field of biology and one rejects a foundational part of that field, then that calls into question one's professional competence in that field.

I really don't think you quite understand the implication here.



Sure. He's an organic chemist who apparently works with nanotechnology. How is this relevant exactly?

Btw, I notice you keep appealing to Tour over and over again, but continue to flat-out ignore anyone else with more relevant credentials. Why is that?

You may be surprised to know that the human body is entirely made of organic chemicals. When you provide a refutation of Professor Tour' objections, please email him (not with somebody else's paper). CC me - I'd be fascinated to know.
I happen to be in regular contact with Professor Tour on a non-professional basis. Hence my interest in his work and other matters.
Would it make any difference if I quoted Stephen Meyer, Walt Brown or David Berlinski? Michael Behe? David Gelernter? I'm happy to do so. I've read some critiques of Stephen Meyer. They go along the line that he doesn't agree with evolution so he must be wrong.

 

[Shemjaza]

You may be surprised to know that the human body is entirely made of organic chemicals. When you provide a refutation of Professor Tour' objections, please email him (not with somebody else's paper). CC me - I'd be fascinated to know.

And a car is made of metal, but I wouldn't trust a blacksmith to fix one.

I happen to be in regular contact with Professor Tour on a non-professional basis. Hence my interest in his work and other matters.
Would it make any difference if I quoted Stephen Meyer, Walt Brown or David Berlinski? Michael Behe? David Gelernter? I'm happy to do so. I've read some critiques of Stephen Meyer. They go along the line that he doesn't agree with evolution so he must be wrong.

All people with plenty of resources and air time... and still can't even present an actual scientific definition of intelligent design, a consistent definition of information with a metric, or even a definition of science that doesn't have to expand to involve astrology.

 

[Aussie Pete]

And a car is made of metal, but I wouldn't trust a blacksmith to fix one.


All people with plenty of resources and air time... and still can't even present an actual scientific definition of intelligent design, a consistent definition of information with a metric, or even a definition of science that doesn't have to expand to involve astrology.

Evolutionist arrogance is breathtaking. As if they are the only ones with enough intelligence to observe and form conclusions. Just dismiss anything that is contrary to your world view, even former evolutionists who have woken up to the fallacy.

 

[Shemjaza]

Evolutionist arrogance is breathtaking. As if they are the only ones with enough intelligence to observe and form conclusions. Just dismiss anything that is contrary to your world view, even former evolutionists who have woken up to the fallacy.

Trite.

More insults, more false appeals to authority. And yet, the endless parade of undeniable evidence is never presented.