Mark Ramsey's Reply to Aron-Ra in the Texas Evolution Debate

[mikeynov]

All I can say is...wow.

To see what exactly he was replying to, read here.

As far as I can tell, Ramsey literally didn't read Aron's reply.

Anyways, I thought I'd point out some serious errors in Ramsey's reasoning to open this up for discussion. That this guy is in a position to alter textbook curricula is truly frightening.

"He baits to divert attention from the topic to his time-worn and predictable claims and complains that I did not agree to his terms."

It's a diversion to Mr. Ramsey that Aron wants to agree on terms in a debate? Dear Lord.

Ramsey's entire reply is filled with so much venom and mockery (once again breaking my irony meter given what he's actually debating) that one wonders about his mental health. As an example of this mockery leading to a gross distortion of Aron's point about abiogenesis...

At times Nelson debates himself. He first punts on the issue of the origin of life itself and the spectacularly complex problem of the origin of the first cell and the information in the DNA molecule.

"By definition, evolution depends on there already being replicative RNA/DNA [sic] proteins in some parent organism. No parent organism = no evolution [sic]."



​

Later he backpedals,

Despite its weaknesses, including improbability, abiogenesis remains the most probable concept of biological origin…"



​

Then he changes apparent positions once again,

"…it doesn't matter how the first life appeared on the Earth. It could have been seeded by aliens, created by a god, [sic] arisen by chemical processes, or it could have come about by some other means as yet unidentified."



​

Aliens? Really! Where is "all the evidence" for this nonsense? Is this the beginning of "21st Century Just So Stories" by the Aron-Ra?

This, of course, in reply to Aron pointing out that the origins of life are tangential to a debate on evolution as RAMSEY'S OWN WEBSITE PORTRAYS IT. What's mind-blowing is that Ramsey won't even acknowledge this fault, and instead directs Aron to 'tell it to Texas textbook makers.' This guy's got class.

Ramsey makes another classic blunder suggesting abiogenesis=spontaneous generation, and that Pasteur 'disproved' this over a century ago:

He should clarify whether or not he believes in abiogenesis, (or spontaneous generation of life), and since Francisco Redi, Louis Pasteur, and others disproved it over a century ago, why?

I can't emphasize enough how blatantly dishonest it is to equate 'abiogenesis' with spontaneous generation - more reading here.

Ramsey goes on to address Aron's points regarding the fact that there is a large worldwide body of Christendom which accepts evolutionary theory despite pointing out that it's extra-topical. Ramsey is so offended by this idea that he feels it 'demands response':

Though this discussion is supposed to be based on science, my opponent predictably tries to bring religion into the dialogue by asserting that most Christians are evolutionists, and even comments on belief in miracles. While his point is completely extra-topical and must be rejected, it is such an outrageous claim that it requires some response.

Ramsey goes on to explain that Texas polling (and lord knows that's a good representative sample, a topic Ramsey brings up all of a paragraph or two later) shows that ~82% of people are in favor of teaching evolution's strength and weaknesses as 'proof' that Aron's statements are off-basis. Hell, if somebody asked me whether ANY theory should have its 'weak' points discussed, I'd say yes, with the addendum that they should be realistically discussed. That is, there's certain things where our knowledge is sketchy, but we should also reinforce just how strongly the 'big picture' is known.

In the next paragraph, Ramsey pulls a Mark Kennedy and attempts to discuss something he doesn't understand:

Random unexplained mutations at the genetic level are at the very heart of evolutionary theory. To be sure, many evolutionary advocates have all but given up on randomness, but if not random, then what?

I can only conclude that Ramsey isn't even basically familiar with evolutionary theory, as he doesn't even acknowledge a possible role for natural selection in inducing the 'non-randomness' that he says evolutionary theory DEMANDS.

Given this overwhelming failure, one wonders how Ramsey is in a position to discuss Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms in chromosome 20. He quote-mines scientists that were 'surprised' at the non-random distribution of SNP's, and concludes 'Goddidit.' Brilliant.

Perhaps Ramsey should read some relevent research on evolution's ability to 'add information' in a non-random fashion?

Link 1.

Dr. Lucas to the rescue - again.

What's particularly odd is that Aron already dealt with almost every PRATT Ramsey is offering in his very first post, the 'no new information' tripe included - all of which was ignored. Literally every word of it.

Of course, by not agreeing to any set of definitions at any point, Ramsey can attempt to dishonestly skirt this issue by never actually defining what he means by 'information.'

More required reading on the subject by glaudys.

Ramsey then goes on to make quite an astonishing statement:

Very simply, upward evolution has not ever been directly observed in either the laboratory or in nature, in spite of the fact that entire careers and millions if not billions of dollars of taxpayer and other research resources are being devoted to exactly this.

Two things.

1) What exactly is 'upward' evolution?

2) Most creationists I know will acknowledge that 'microevolution' has been observed, but Ramsey won't even go that far. He's literally denying that evolution on any level has ever been observed.

Perhaps Ramsey should give a call to a Christian geneticist some time like CF's own Dr. Lucas and discuss the issue.

More examples.

Mark goes on to make one outrageous claim after another:

No Fossil Record Support: In terms of transitional fossils, evolutionists do not want students to be aware of the fact that no true transitions have been found. None. Nada. Zero

Nice PRATT - the problem here is that Mark Ramsey literally has no idea what a transitional fossil actually is.

This is what's so convenient about evading any discussion of terms - Ramsey can situationally redefine transitional fossil to be 'something directly descended from lineage A and directly ancestral to lineage B.' Of course, the real definition of a transitional fossil to people who actually understand biology is one which 'shows a mosaic of features between (particular) older and more recent organisms.'

Next is a discussion of birds:

For example, birds are commonly thought to be descended from dinosaurs. This is in spite of the fact that fully developed avian fossils have been discovered in strata said to be older than those believed previously to be where birds began branching from dinosaurs.

Interestingly enough, Ramsey doesn't actually indicate what he's talking about, as he most assuredly is either A) putting forward the common PRATT that Archeopteryx is 'full bird' or B) simply making stuff up.

Further, look at Aron's own first post and see the amount of evidence Aron actually presents indicating a relationship between birds and dinosaurs - where does Ramsey address this? Did he even read it?

And what creationists PRATT-mongering would be complete without mentions of both implications of 'kinds' and the go-to 'devolution?' Here Mark Ramsey doesn't disappoint:

A dog is always a dog. It can never be bred into anything else. It is instructive to examine the genome of various breeds of dogs and to understand how dog breeding (or any other selective breeding) occurs. If one starts at an 'ancestral dog' and breeds a short haired small lapdog, what one has done is removed the parts of the dog genome responsible for longer hair and larger size, leaving only the short hair and small size genes. It is not an example of microevolution, but rather the destruction of genetic information or devolution.

Now, for people familiar with how evolution actually works, this doesn't make any sense at all. Firstly, every descendent branch B inherits the legacy of ancestral branch A. Evolution gives rise to nested hierarchies, branching trees in which one's heritage will always define descendent branches. So no, a dog will never be anything 'other than a dog' for the same reason that our descendents will always be eukaryotic, mammallian apes.

Fortunately, Aron is quite equipped to handle this butchery of evolution, and I look forward to seeing some of the material presented here in this debate.

More on Ramsey's 'devolution':

Genetic information is destroyed in the process, not improved. One cannot start with a poodle or an Irish setter and breed it backwards into a robust, healthy, wolf-like ancestral dog!

These comments on devolution are just too rich, and reaffirms why, exactly, Ramsey won't agree to a set of terms, as they'd be far too damaging to his case.

By not defining 'information,' Ramsey can throw this term around as if it has some self-apparent meaning. It also goes to show how much of a position of ignorance Ramsey is arguing from: his concept of evolution is a 'linear building process' ala:

Fish-->Amphibians-->Reptiles-->Us

As in the picture above.

 

[mikeynov]

Ramsey goes on to reinforce his misunderstanding of evolution and information, showing how creationists have 'evolved' to take on really bad ID arguments:

Specifically, that the DNA must be in place for life to occur, and there are no suitable naturalistic explanations at present for its origin or the origin of the information it contains

I have been accused in the past of misportraying creationists - some have suggested that I mischaracterize the strength of their arguments. But I ask you, how is it even possible when these people are walking parodies?

Fortunately, we have arrived at Ramsey's conclusion, which summarizes his PRATTs just in case people forgot how bad his argument was:

Conclusion. There are significant, profound scientific weaknesses in the various theories of evolution.

Of which Ramsey has shown none. Ramsey doesn't even have a functional grasp of what evolution is, but feels entirely qualified to to manipulate the political system to point out the 'flaws' in evolution on behalf of the Texas people. Yes, Ramsey portrays himself as doing some sort of civic duty by spreading lies and misinformation:

A handful of self-appointed elitist defenders of evolution say we should censor the weaknesses and ignore clear Texas law and the opinion Texas residents, in favor of a 19th century notion that does not explain the origin of life, does not explain the origin or variations in information of the DNA molecule, has no known mechanism for improving genetics, has never been observed in nature, does not have unequivocal undisputed evidence supporting it, and has not been reproduced in the laboratory

1) Evolution should explain the origin of life (a point he conceded earlier wasn't necessary, but he somehow feels is a weakness by his own conclusion).
2) No new information.
3) No new variation.
4) Evolution has never been observed.
5) No convincing evidence for largescale evolution.
6) Evolution has never been 'reproduced in the lab.'

#6 has so many counter-examples that it's hard to know where to begin.

Go here, type in 'evolution biology,' and tell me with a straight face that we've never 'reproduced evolution in the lab.'

Let's see if you can count the number of PRATTs in just one sentence. I see no less than 6. Ramsey's divorce from reality is complete at this point, and I'd suggest that whatever integrity he had in this field is abandoned by the point he reaches his grand finale, almost formulaicly quote-mining Darwin:

"For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible."

From talk.origins, quote #2.3:

[Re: Do the facts prove evolution?]

"For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible." - Charles Darwin, 1859, Introduction to Origin of Species, p. 2. Also quoted in 'John Lofton's Journal', The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.

Representative quote miners: The Theory Of Evolution 1: What Is The Scientific Status Of The Theory Of Evolution ? and Crossfire: What Would Darwin Say? The Ohio Intelligent Design Controversy

A fuller context:

This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt errors have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting to good authorities alone. I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts; with references on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done. - First edition, quoted from p 66-7 of the Penguin edition.

By the sixth edition, the exact phrasing "is here impossible" has been inserted.

[Editor's note: Since the quote mine dated the reference to 1859, that necessarily implies the first edition. It is a minor difference in the quote but further evidence of the sloppy or, more correctly, nonexistent scholarship of creationists. The different editions can be found on the web here: first edition (p. 2), and the sixth edition (pp. 1-2).]

Darwin originally intended to have a large and academic book, with footnotes and exhaustive factual illustrations. His plan was defeated when Wallace sent his outline of the theory, so Darwin had to publish this "abstract" of the larger essay. It was eventually published in the 1970s, over a century later.*

The phrase quoted is an apology for the paucity of facts used in the argument. The "both sides" are, of course, special creation and evolution.

- John Wilkins

* R. C. Stauffer, ed., Charles Darwin's Natural Selection : Being the Second Part of his Big Species Book Written from 1856 to 1858, 1975. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

[Lucretius]

His post is roflcopter.

 

[mikeynov]

His post is roflcopter.

He is dangerously out of touch with reality. His argumentation is the very worst sort of mish-mash PRATT, mocking fanaticism. I have no doubt in Aron's ability to put the ownination on this guy, but he's also a professional weasel:

A) He refuses to agree on basic terms
B) He refuses to respond point for point to Aron's opening reply, strawmanning virtually everything he said
C) Makes outrageous claims and either fails to cite or misuses his citations to bolster his insane argument
D) Won't acknowledge the strength of counter-arguments - acts as if it's self-evident how 'bad' evolutionary theory is, even though his own website and posts reflect a profound lack of understanding of the subject

In short, Ramsey would be the type of guy to come on here and create a thread called "EVOLUTION IS SO DUMB LOLZ NOBODY HAS EVER SEEN EVOLUTION, IT'S ALL DEVOLUTION AND ABIOGENESIS WAS DISPROVEN."

The difference is, this guy actually has the political clout necessary to alter the textbook curricula of Texas's children.

 

[caravelair]

i'll be looking forward to aron-ra's response! i'm sure he'll give ramsey the thorough thrashing he deserves.

 

[mikeynov]

i'll be looking forward to aron-ra's response! i'm sure he'll give ramsey the thorough thrashing he deserves.

What's particularly odd to me is that Aron's initial offering already dealt with almost every issue Ramsey brings up.

Ramsey doesn't even PRETEND to address it. All he really does is either A) quote Aron to intentionally mock him or B) bring up the general topic, and repeat his PRATTs as if Aron's refutations were never offered.

Note to Mark Ramsey: you see how each one of the quotes from your website in Aron's initial post are underlined? Those are URL's - click them.

 

[caravelair]

What's particularly odd to me is that Aron's initial offering already dealt with almost every issue Ramsey brings up.

Ramsey doesn't even PRETEND to address it. All he really does is either A) quote Aron to intentionally mock him or B) bring up the general topic, and repeat his PRATTs as if Aron's refutations were never offered.

indeed. i couldn't even bring myself to read most of his response. it hurts my brain!

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Wow, that post was like a giant PRATT list.

 

[Edx]

I started reading just now. and found this [see quoted section below]

What an unbelievable display of dishonest out of context nonsence. Doesnt he realise that since this is a written debate he cant get away with this? I am not even that familiar with Ramsey, but called him a fool even before this debate started. Now I see he is an even bigger fool than I first imagined





Ed

"By definition, evolution depends on there already being replicative RNA/DNA [sic] proteins in some parent organism. No parent organism = no evolution [sic]."





​

Later he backpedals,

Despite its weaknesses, including improbability, abiogenesis remains the most probable concept of biological origin…"





​

Then he changes apparent positions once again,

"…it doesn't matter how the first life appeared on the Earth. It could have been seeded by aliens, created by a god, [sic] arisen by chemical processes, or it could have come about by some other means as yet unidentified."





​

Aliens? Really! Where is "all the evidence" for this nonsense? Is this the beginning of "21st Century Just So Stories" by the Aron-Ra?

​

 

[mikeynov]

Wow, that post was like a giant PRATT list.

It's like a "Best of the Worst of Creationist Arguments."

Does AIG even use the term 'devolution?' It appears to me that Ramsey's 'discovery' of evolution's weaknesses came from a weekend perusal of Dr. Dino's website as well as a few ID books, like Darwin's Black Box and Icons of Evolution.

The net product is 'devolution,' 'kinds never change,' 'no new information' and a variety of other insanities. I would go so far to say that Ramsey's competency on this subject is probably on par with your average creationist on an evolution v. creation debate forum.

As I said, the difference is that this guy has real political power, which blows my mind. How can a person be so out of touch with reality? Has he ever talked to a biologist in his life?

 

[mikeynov]

Oh yah, I left out one astounding series of question-begging:

Where is the evidence of single-cells evolving into multiple celled organisms?

Where is the evidence of transitions before the Cambrian explosion?

Note: found in Aron's original reply

More reading by our own Glenn Morton on the topic.

Where is the evidence of the evolution of vertebrate fishes from invertebrates? Where is the evidence of fish evolving into amphibians, reptiles and later birds?

Sub-links:

Link 1.

Link 2.

Link 3.

Link 4.

Where is the evidence of evolution of mammals or the evolution of cows wading back into the ocean and turning into whales?

More.

Just what is the 'molecular evidence' he claims 'confirms ancestral relationships'?

Concocted possible explanations are not the same thing as empirical proof.

You mean...experimental evidence, like everything offered above?

Students should understand that only a tiny fraction of the required species have been found.

In every introductory biology course I have been a part of from K - college, that was mentioned (has Ramsey taken any biology at a collegiate level? Did he pass?), minus the 'required' nonsense, as the fossil record isn't even a necessity to conclude that all known modern life forms have common ancestors.

Students should be taught that massive, systematic, and persistent gaps in the fossil record are the rule and not the exception.

So says Mark Ramsey.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

Wow, that post was like a giant PRATT list.

Out of curiousity, is there a Creationist argument that isn't a PRATT?

 

[jwu]

Aliens? Really! Where is "all the evidence" for this nonsense? Is this the beginning of "21st Century Just So Stories" by the Aron-Ra?

I wonder what IDists have to say about aliens and others being ruled out as designers, leaving only God.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Out of curiousity, is there a Creationist argument that isn't a PRATT?

Yes. It's... um... er... I'll get back to you.

 

[mikeynov]

After rereading this a bit and looking it all over, I see Ramsey's misunderstandings as so:

1) He perceives evolution as a linear great chain of being as opposed to a nested, hierarchial tree of life.
2) He doesn't understand what 'evidence' in science actually is, referring to 'proof.' Evidence is data that is consistent with the natural consequences/predictions of a theory. They're not smoking-gun, I caught-evolution-on-videotape creationist nonsense.
3) He is way the f-censored-censored-k out of date on biology knowledge in general.

Now, I'm no biologist yet, but I'd like to see a reaction by professional biologists to a diatribe like Ramsey's. I'm honestly glad this all appears in print - if the scientific community within Texas isn't outraged by this level of ignorance in people with political power proactively trying to alter science curricula, then there's something seriously wrong with that state.

 

[Lilandra]

I am not sure if I should share an opinion about the debate since I am maintaining the site.

Kinda sucks because as a reporter I don't share my opinion. I report. So it was refreshing sharing my opinion here and speaking my mind.

I am glad ya'll are discussing the evidence.

 

[mikeynov]

I am not sure if I should share an opinion about the debate since I am maintaining the site.

Kinda sucks because as a reporter I don't share my opinion. I report. So it was refreshing sharing my opinion here and speaking my mind.

I am glad ya'll are discussing the evidence.

Just remember: you can't hide the truth forever, and you've seen this all before.

I've seen you around here for quite a while - I'm sure Ramsey's stuff should come as no surprise. It's this sort of rhetoric that bothers people who are into biology, because A) it's a smack in the face of people spending appreciable time in their lives devoted to learning a subject that is persistently mischaracterized and B) these people aren't just ignorant and arrogant, they're actually capable of shaping public policy and harming the learning of others.

P.S. I do find this whole debate quite interesting, so keep up the good work reporting. I was so outraged at reading Ramsey's inane response that I felt compelled to reply myself for some reason.

 

[Lilandra]

Otherwise I am not hiding any truth.

The only reason I can't say anything is I would be accused of favoritism or trying to tip opinion in someone's favor.

I am a very opinionated person. I don't mind sharing it.

You had a very cogent response. More dialogue is always better.

 

[mikeynov]

Otherwise I am not hiding any truth.

The only reason I can't say anything is I would be accused of favoritism or trying to tip opinion in someone's favor.

I am a very opinionated person. I don't mind sharing it.

You had a very cogent response. More dialogue is always better.

Ooops, totally not what I meant.

By 'hide the truth,' I mean creationists like Ramsey, with all their efforts towards misinformation and obfuscation can never really hide the fact that all known life on this planet has common ancestry and that the theory of evolution is far and away the best explanation we have for that fact.

I'm just pointing out that, despite the fact that you as a reporter in a position of apparent 'objectiveness' can't speak out on Ramsey's inanity, the truth of his fraudulent position will surely come to light.

 

[mikeynov]

As one more thought, it's no wonder that creationists so commonly claim 'victory' in public (spoken) debates.

When everything you say is some form of lie, correcting all of those lies while simultaneously presenting your own case has to be difficult work. Unfortunately for Ramsey, he's chosen a written format with two weeks allocated to replies - more than enough times to expose every solitary lie told, give empirical examples of refutation, and show, quite convincingly, that Ramsey's entire position is built on a cardhouse of PRATTs.