randman dissects talkorigins.org FAQ

[D. Scarlatti]

This thread is for randman to select a talkorigins.org FAQ and pick it to pieces. I think this should be a very easy assignment for randman.

Ready, set, GO!

 

[ashibaka]

Come on, Randman! Don't wimp out on this one; it's all too easy! Show no mercy!

 

[Jerry Smith]

Drum roll please....

 

[randman]

I don't have time to dissect the web-site tonight, but here are some completely bogus and misleading statements on one of their FAQs from this link.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

1. "Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor."

This is the quintessential evolutionist argument. Simply claim something as proven and observed when it isn't. Micro-evolutionary changes are not evidence or observation of macro-evolutionary changes. Basically, the evolutionists set the threshold of "evidence" so low that the same evidence that can be used for creationism is somehow evidence of evolution. Their whole argument is disingenious.

2. "Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order."

totally bogus, but this link answers better than I can
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp

3. Here transitionals are extremely rare.

"Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species."

But elsewhere they are extremely numerous.


I'l be back later to finish, but the wife insists I go for now.

 

[Ray K]

This is the quintessential evolutionist argument. Simply claim something as proven and observed when it isn't.

Kind of like how creationists assert the existance of God?

Micro-evolutionary changes are not evidence or observation of macro-evolutionary changes. Basically, the evolutionists set the threshold of "evidence" so low that the same evidence that can be used for creationism is somehow evidence of evolution. Their whole argument is disingenious.

However, you seem to accept that micro-evolution is real. It seems to me that the only difference between micro-evolution (few DNA changes) and macro-evolution(many DNA changes) is a function of degree. With enough time, it seems reasonable (or at least possible) for micro-evolution to lead to macro-evolution.

Now, let's turn your objection around to the idea of a supernatural creator. You want us accept an all-powerful, all-knowing supernatural being much like we want you to accept macro-evolution.

Here's a deal. Since we can demonstrate a "scaled-down" version of macro-evolution (called micro-evolution), can you demonstrate a "scaled-down" version of a supernatural being? In other words, if you can proof the existance of the supernatural, then you will go a LONG way towards getting unbelievers to accept that there might be, indeed, an all-powerful supernatural creator.

 

[Morat]

I've got popcorn and everything. Don't disapoint.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Randman, I am impressed that you are actually undertaking this project. I figured you would pull a Nick & run like Forrest when asked to back yourself up. Good job.

Of course, I will have to help show that your dissection is a poor one.

For starters:

This is the quintessential evolutionist argument. Simply claim something as proven and observed when it isn't. Micro-evolutionary changes are not evidence or observation of macro-evolutionary changes. Basically, the evolutionists set the threshold of "evidence" so low that the same evidence that can be used for creationism is somehow evidence of evolution. Their whole argument is disingenious.

Since microevolutionary changes are the proposed MECHANISM for macroevolutionary changes, it is hard to defend the position that observing their occurence doesn not support macroevolution. If there is a legitimate complaint here, it is that the author doesn't definitively prove this statement:

...this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor

This must either be
1) an honest mistake based on confidence in the model
2) a recognition of a fact the substantiation for which I, personally, am not aware of.

The best recourse before making an accusation is posting a message to their feedback to inquire.

Next:

totally bogus, but this link answers better than I can
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp

This isn't bogus at all. These are examples of the spontaneous arrival of order from a disordered state in the presence of energy and under certain natural conditions. The reason creationists have for the most part switched to specified complexity from "order out of disorder" is this FAQ and deconstructions like it have deconstructed this argument so well.

3. Here transitionals are extremely rare.

"Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species."

But elsewhere they are extremely numerous.

As far as I can tell, you made no point here. You may have been being rushed by your wife (happens to me sometimes too).. I guess I will wait until you clarify

 

[Morat]

Wow. Guess what guys? Randman did selective quoting! That's right! Guess what was the next paragraph down?

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

Hehe. Oops. Way to go Randman. On thermo, I've read that rebuttal. It makes me laugh.

I mean, seriously. His rebuttal is counter to reality. He "contradicts" text-based references with obviously off-the-cuff remarks by Asimov.

Further, his entire rebuttal is flawed by his failure to differentiate between local and net entropy.

Sorry, Randman, you're going to have to be specific on what you think is wrong here. I don't know which if the True.Origins oddities you buy into. From the Rebuttal to the True.Origins link (both nicely posted on the Talk Origins FAQ:

As in the first section, Wallace does not point to any empirical data to support his position that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. He only ridicules Isaak's FAQ. He does this by relying on quotations from various scientific papers and books. He wants desperately to ally himself with the scientific literature as a show of credibility. However, if you, the reader, will simply obtain the papers and books he quotes and read them completely, you will find them a perfect list of references to refute Wallace's claims. He, I suspect, has never read his own references and does not know they refute his position. This is why I strongly urge the reader to obtain these references and read them completely. His selected quotations totally misrepresent the material presented as I am about to show.

The first thing I discovered is that the second law of thermodynamics can be stated in many different ways and to understand it you must know the state of a given system. In fact, there are different mathematical formulations of the law depending on the system being described. This is where most of the confusion arises. Most of Wallace's quotations are taken from sections where the authors are discussing a system that is not representative of a living system.

You do know the diffence between equilibrium and non-equilibrium thermodynamics, right? I can assure you any chemist or physicist does.

Even better, if you read down to the rebuttal, the author catches Wallace quoting horribly out of context! Here's my favorite:

Wallace takes his quotation from a section called "3. Complexity and Organization." It is obvious that Wallace has not read this paper because the very next sentence after his quotation is "As will be discussed, the role of natural selection in evolution is to transform the structurally complex systems generated according to thermodynamics principles into organized systems."

*snicker*

Third one: What do you know? The next line down:

. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.


"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994

I think the problem is Randman's inability to to determine what "numerous" means in context. Several thousand transitional fossils is "numerous", yet they're a fraction of the total Fossil 2 database.

And of course, it depends on what transitionals you're talking about, and whether you're talking higher order or lower order...

 

[randman]

"With enough time, it seems reasonable (or at least possible) for micro-evolution to lead to macro-evolution."

Seeming doesn't count. It also seems very reasonable that there is a God yet you obviously have a problem with that. You also have a major problem with the not realizing that people don't pretend to believe in God due to science. Science can help erase or create doubt, but it isn't the beginning point for knowledge of God.

"Now, let's turn your objection around to the idea of a supernatural creator. You want us accept an all-powerful, all-knowing supernatural being much like we want you to accept macro-evolution."

First, I have never claimed science possesses the technology to verify spiritual things. I can state that demonstrations of miracles and signs and wonders do sometimes accompany the gospel, and some do find faith as a result, but just as many refuse to believe regardless.

If you are looking for signs of the supernatural, maybe I can direct you to some Holy Ghost meetings in your area.

Btw, guys, one post at a time. I get to make a few remarks because my wife is busy for the moment, but I won't be here long tonight..

 

[randman]

"Since microevolutionary changes are the proposed MECHANISM for macroevolutionary changes, it is hard to defend the position that observing their occurence doesn not support macroevolution. If there is a legitimate complaint here, it is that the author doesn't definitively prove this statement:"

Calling micro-evolutionary changes evidence for macro-evolution without demonstrating it is what is wrong here. The contention is that macro-evolution has been observed, and that is just pure BS. It has not been observed. The FAQ is just in total error and denial there. if you want to argue it can't be observed without thousands of years, then fine, but don't just flat out lie and claim macro-evolution has been observed especially in denouncing a critic. Micro-evolution may be the proposed mechanism, but it hasn't been proven. To denounce criticism based on this point, the evolutionist must have observed micro-evolution producing macro-evolution and this just hasn't been done.

Moreover, the fossil record does not show species gradually evolving. Species appear suddenly, and exhibit little change. There are no fossils showing micro-evolutionary changes adding up to major changes. PE attempts to address this point, but that is another issue.

 

[randman]

Btw, I noticed Talkorigins has corrected some of the things they were blasted for by the suppossed dummy creationists, but there is more error there.

Be patient. The micro as observation of macro is a big error, and just propaganda.

 

[randman]

"Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go). "

This just pure propaganda. He makes it out like the nature of these chemicals is such that they can easily be expected to produce life. Nothing but pure propaganda, not reflective of the scientific evidence and problems at all. The fact is the idea that life could have spontaneously generated from chemicals has huge daunting problems, and is extremely speculative, and I would say highly improbable. Talkorigins deliberately misrepresents the reality of the problems with abiogenesis theory.

 

[Morat]

Just out of curiosity, did you, by chance, actually go to the linked FAQs for more information?

I mean, just by chance? Or did you just read the few paragraphs devoted to abiogenesis, ignore the link to the Interim Abiogenesis FAQ, and pretend that's all there is?

 

[Morat]

Calling micro-evolutionary changes evidence for macro-evolution without demonstrating it is what is wrong here. The contention is that macro-evolution has been observed, and that is just pure BS. It has not been observed. The FAQ is just in total error and denial there. if you want to argue it can't be observed without thousands of years, then fine, but don't just flat out lie and claim macro-evolution has been observed especially in denouncing a critic. Micro-evolution may be the proposed mechanism, but it hasn't been proven. To denounce criticism based on this point, the evolutionist must have observed micro-evolution producing macro-evolution and this just hasn't been done.

Moreover, the fossil record does not show species gradually evolving. Species appear suddenly, and exhibit little change. There are no fossils showing micro-evolutionary changes adding up to major changes. PE attempts to address this point, but that is another issue.

Macroevolution is speciation. There are two large lists of observed speciation events.

Thus calling it "Fact" isn't "total error and denial" but reflective of reality. If you think otherwise, I'm fully prepared for you to explain how each of the speciation events in both FAQs are not real speciation events.

Can't wait.

As for the fossil record, you have been corrected numerous times. Continue to lie merely makes you look desperate. Talk.Origins has a large FAQ listing vertebrate (and another for Hominid) transitional fossils.

This just pure propaganda. He makes it out like the nature of these chemicals is such that they can easily be expected to produce life. Nothing but pure propaganda, not reflective of the scientific evidence and problems at all. The fact is the idea that life could have spontaneously generated from chemicals has huge daunting problems, and is extremely speculative, and I would say highly improbable. Talkorigins deliberately misrepresents the reality of the problems with abiogenesis theory.

I notice you asserting this, but you don't mention what part of the FAQ you disagree with.

Do you agree that chemicals react, not in random ways, but in ways in accordance with their chemical properties? (IE, do you accept chemistry?).

Do you agree that, especially in the case of carbon especially, large molecules form sponteanously? (If not, you have to explain the amino acids they find in space, boyo).

Do you agree that self-replicating molecules do exist? (I can point some out to you, if you want to know)

Do you agree that, once molecules begin to replicate, the more efficient ones will replicate faster and produce more copies?

Which part of this don't you agree with?

You haven't dissected the FAQ. You've offered nothing, in fact, but bare assertation that the FAQ is wrong. No real reasoning, certainly no references...nothing.

You don't even do a good a job as the True Origins guy did. Even though he misquoted references and basically showed huge ignorance of thermo, he at least tried to support his arguments.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

randman, you've already asserted several times that the entire corpus of talkorigins is propaganda. That's why I thought it would be a piece of cake for you to pick a FAQ and destroy it piece by piece by employing your scintillating powers of logic and inductive inference, applying your vast storehouse of biological and biochemical knowledge.

I thought by now you'd be referencing journal articles by the dozen, refuting those bald faced lies, that shameless propaganda posted at talkorigins.

Simply repeating the same old assertions is not what I had in mind. And you're still insisting on that poorly defined "spontaneous generation" business too.

So disappointing randman! Come on, you can do better than that. Can't you?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Ray K

Kind of like how creationists assert the existance of God?

Yeah, exactly like that. Because everyone knows that creationists insist they have scientific evidence for the existence of God and can recreate God in the lab. Perfect analogy, there.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat

Macroevolution is speciation.

Dirt is creation.

Funny how saying things are so doesn't make them true.

In the first place, there are a number of different definitions of speciation. In the second place, nobody has ever demonstrated that the speciation to which you are no doubt referring (reproductive isolation) has led to anything but reproductive isolation, let alone macroevolution of the type that would eventually produce a kangaroo out of a bacteria.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman

Calling micro-evolutionary changes evidence for macro-evolution without demonstrating it is what is wrong here.

I can't see how a statement like that needs much more demonstration. Soil erosion is one mechanism for river-course changing. Demonstrating small amounts of soil erosion do take place is a major and important piece of evidence for any theory that explains the change of a river-course by soil erosion.

In general, if your theory has a proposed mechanism for its action, proof the mechanism acts as expected is evidence for your theory.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
"Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go). "

This just pure propaganda. He makes it out like the nature of these chemicals is such that they can easily be expected to produce life. Nothing but pure propaganda, not reflective of the scientific evidence and problems at all. The fact is the idea that life could have spontaneously generated from chemicals has huge daunting problems, and is extremely speculative, and I would say highly improbable. Talkorigins deliberately misrepresents the reality of the problems with abiogenesis theory.

You make your case poorly. I don't see where the author claimed that abiogenetic hypotheses were proved. He merely demonstrates why they do not require any mechanism that it is unreasonable to expect might exist.

The fact that you hold a different opinion does not make the author's words into propaganda. You must demonstrate that the author's words are (at least) incorrect or purposefully deceptive. You can't do that by saying that abiogenesis seems improbable to you. Abiogenesis may in fact BE improbable without this fact being at odds with the author's comments - at least as far as you have demonstrated.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley
Dirt is creation.

Funny how saying things are so doesn't make them true.

Using fairly standard definitions helps. Macroevolution is change at the level of species, e.g. speciation. This a standard definition. It isn't the one I put in my FAQ to discuss the issue here, because I am aware that most of the people here reject only the concept from macroevolution that evolution can bring about large phenotypic changes. I used a non-standard definition because it was common practice here. The author of the FAQ randman is dissecting should not feel compelled to follow my lead - especially since he wrote before I did.

In the first place, there are a number of different definitions of speciation. In the second place, nobody has ever demonstrated that the speciation to which you are no doubt referring (reproductive isolation) has led to anything but reproductive isolation, let alone macroevolution of the type that would eventually produce a kangaroo out of a bacteria.

Of course not. It can only be demonstrated that this kind of macroevolution can produce a kangaroo from some very similar marsupial mammal. And that from one similar to it, and that, from one similar to it...skipping a few thousand events...from a primitive marsupial...from a reptile-like mammal...from a mammal-like reptile...amphibian...fish...invertebrate...primitive invertebrate...multicellular organism... colony of single cellular organisms... single cellular eukaryote... single cellular prokaryote... most primitive first life.

Having demonstrated that speciation events and the microevolutionary changes associated with them can only bring about these changes, we must look to botany and zoology, genomic studies and biochemical studies, and the fossil record to see what kinds of changes did occur over the long term, knowing already that the mechanism exists and works.

So your objection that no one has proven that speciation events have led to nothing more than reproductive isolation (speciation), and that it cannot account for large phenotypic changes - is just pure semantics.

Why should I be surprised?