Some random discussion on evolution...

[JackRT]

Claim:

“Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.” --- Morris, Henry. 1980. The ICR scientists. Impact 86 (Aug.). *http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=163

Response:

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSEd). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.

One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

 

[SLP]

Random collisions of atoms can evolve into multicellular human organisms containing 37 trillion cells apiece operating as a single machine, but a random internet discussion can't evolve into anything.

37 TRILLION? Why didn't you say so! So large a number can ONLY be the result of [insert favored deity here]!

 

[SLP]

fundamentalist Darwinism

Some people refuse to learn.

Almost as if he is goading or something....

 

[SLP]

fundamentalist Darwinism...
In the free world, most are skeptics of Darwinism

Because most of ignorant of science and have been brainwashed via their religious indoctrination.

Like I wrote before - had this one pegged 60 (now like 80) posts ago.

 

[Speedwell]

in case?

Then we agree entirely; natural variation exists in anticipation of naturally changing conditions,

Right. There has to be a range of values of a trait always in the population because there is no way to predict how the selection criteria may change.

how else would you design life, or a car, or a HVAC system for example?

We already decided that would be stupid way for an intelligent designer to produce such products.

 

[Speedwell]

honestly I don't know any creationists or been to any creationist website that I'm aware of.
Piltdown man was an absolute cornerstone of human evolution for several decades, you could learn about it in major museums around the world.

And your almost verbatim repetition of creationist taking points (including that one) and your presentation of quotes frequently mined by creationists is purely coincidental.

 

[46AND2]

And your almost verbatim repetition of creationist taking points (including that one) and your presentation of quotes frequently mined by creationists is purely coincidental.

Ooh, I missed that. Did he really say that? Wow. He probably didn't expect some of us to have been having these discussions for a decade or more, and seen all those talking points ad nauseum.

 

[46AND2]

Piltdown man was an absolute cornerstone of human evolution for several decades, you could learn about it in major museums around the world.

No. It really wasn't. You need to do a better job with your research.

 

[46AND2]

Piltdown Man - Wikipedia
Henry Fairfield Osborn, President of the American Museum of Natural History, examined the Piltdown and Sheffield Park finds and declared that the jaw and skull belonged together "without question

Also, in the same article:

From the outset, some scientists expressed scepticism about the Piltdown find (see above). G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that "deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together".[13] In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere.[3]

 

[Guy Threepwood]

As I said, not really relevant. More relevant is your assertion that "In the free world, most are skeptics of Darwinism". I'm guessing that, since you ignored my request for a citation, you cannot support that statement.

See Gallup poll already posted

 

[pitabread]

See Gallup poll already posted

For anyone who is interested here is the link to the actual Gallup poll in question: 40% of Americans Believe in Creationism

It includes a description of the actual question posed for respondents (without the editorial reinterpretation), plus a link at the bottom of this page to a more detailed breakdown of the results (via a PDF file).

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No. It really wasn't. You need to do a better job with your research.

To clarify: (Wikipedia)
In 1912, the majority of the scientific community believed the Piltdown Man was the “missing link” between apes and humans.

The Piltdown Man fraud significantly affected early research on human evolution.[30] Notably, it led scientists down a blind alley in the belief that the human brain expanded in size before the jaw adapted to new types of food. Discoveries of Australopithecine fossils such as the Taung child found by Raymond Dart during the 1920s in South Africa were ignored due to the support for Piltdown Man as "the missing link," and the reconstruction of human evolution was confused for decades. The examination and debate over Piltdown Man caused a vast expenditure of time and effort on the fossil, with an estimated 250+ papers written on the topic.[31]

This is from Wikipedia- hardly a 'creationist website'- though they have every right to point it out also.
Piltdown Man - Wikipedia

So it was not an anecdotal/ insignificant error by any means- of course there were always some skeptics, as there have always been skeptics of Darwinism as a whole, - and if/when the entire theory becomes disproven- they will likewise naturally be highlighted in defense of the institutions of academic science.

I realize Piltdown man touches a nerve with Darwinists, as we see by the reactions here- but it happened, and it should be remembered as a lesson in objectivity- not buried. Yes it was a hoax- and I'm not accusing anyone of dishonesty (other than the fraudsters of course)

But it does highlight the inherently speculative nature of trying to reconstruct long past events with the superficial morphology of fossils.

Bottom line: this is a tricky subject to investigate empirically and definitively, and that's nobody's fault.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

For anyone who is interested here is the link to the actual Gallup poll in question: 40% of Americans Believe in Creationism

And there is a link at the bottom of this page to a more detailed breakdown of the results (via a PDF file).

that's the one I was referring to yes

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... pure blind chance, pot luck, fluke, whatever term you prefer- that's all there is to provide all the raw materials- according to the modern synthesis of Darwinism...

It's not completely random; the cell has mechanisms that attempt to repair various kinds of mutations. The long history of evolution has given rise to a number of different mechanisms of differing efficiencies that work on different kinds of mutation in different areas of the genome. In multicellular organisms, different cell types may have differing DNA repair mechanisms of differing efficiency.

In some organisms, gene regulation can suppress or activate more or less effective repair mechanisms in the genome according to environmental conditions, so as, for example, to increase the effective mutation rate when under environmental stress.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

To clarify: (Wikipedia)
In 1912, the majority of the scientific community believed the Piltdown Man was the “missing link” between apes and humans.

The Piltdown Man fraud significantly affected early research on human evolution.[30] Notably, it led scientists down a blind alley in the belief that the human brain expanded in size before the jaw adapted to new types of food. Discoveries of Australopithecine fossils such as the Taung child found by Raymond Dart during the 1920s in South Africa were ignored due to the support for Piltdown Man as "the missing link," and the reconstruction of human evolution was confused for decades. The examination and debate over Piltdown Man caused a vast expenditure of time and effort on the fossil, with an estimated 250+ papers written on the topic.[31]

This is from Wikipedia- hardly a 'creationist website'- though they have every right to point it out also.
Piltdown Man - Wikipedia

So it was not an anecdotal/ insignificant error by any means- of course there were always some skeptics, as there have always been skeptics of Darwinism as a whole, - and if/when the entire theory becomes disproven- they will likewise naturally be highlighted in defense of the institutions of academic science.

I realize Piltdown man touches a nerve with Darwinists, as we see by the reactions here- but it happened, and it should be remembered as a lesson in objectivity- not buried. Yes it was a hoax- and I'm not accusing anyone of dishonesty (other than the fraudsters of course)

But it does highlight the inherently speculative nature of trying to reconstruct long past events with the superficial morphology of fossils.

Bottom line: this is a tricky subject to investigate empirically and definitively, and that's nobody's fault.

When I worked in the Environmental Physiology Unit at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, my boss was Joe Weiner, one of the people involved in exposing the Piltdown hoax; he wrote a book about it. According to him, there was widespread suspicion of the supposed find, practically from the moment it was announced. A lot of people may have been taken in by it, but many in the paleontological community had serious doubts. The problem was that doubts without evidence were not sufficient to expose the hoax.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's not completely random; the cell has mechanisms that attempt to repair various kinds of mutations. The long history of evolution has given rise to a number of different mechanisms of differing efficiencies that work on different kinds of mutation in different areas of the genome. In multicellular organisms, different cell types may have differing DNA repair mechanisms of differing efficiency.

In some organisms, gene regulation can suppress or activate more or less effective repair mechanisms in the genome according to environmental conditions, so as, for example, to increase the effective mutation rate when under environmental stress.

and we have uncannily similar digital information repair mechanisms- that are being applied to the data streams uploading and downloading during these posts.

Because random errors ih datu stwems era owvewhilgmjly mroe liickly ru bi dleteretious ywerksu ?!
as opposed to them ever accidentally offering up new useful information to select

 

[pitabread]

The problem was that doubts without evidence were not sufficient to expose the hoax.

Not only that but nobody really suspected a deliberate forgery. Those who were skeptical assumed it was a case of mixing up bones from different species.

 

[Speedwell]

and we have uncannily similar digital information repair mechanisms- that are being applied to the data streams uploading and downloading during these posts.

Because random errors ih datu stwems era owvewhilgmjly mroe liickly ru bi dleteretious ywerksu ?!
as opposed to them ever accidentally offering up new useful information to select

Random mutations do not directly offer up "new useful information" for natural selection to act upon. There's a lot going on between the arrival of random mutations and the construction of a spread of somatic variation, which is what natural selection actually acts upon. Once again you are delivering the "everything stays the same until just the right mutation randomly happens to come along" creationist talking point.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

When I worked in the Environmental Physiology Unit at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, my boss was Joe Weiner, one of the people involved in exposing the Piltdown hoax; he wrote a book about it. According to him, there was widespread suspicion of the supposed find, practically from the moment it was announced. A lot of people may have been taken in by it, but many in the paleontological community had serious doubts. The problem was that doubts without evidence were not sufficient to expose the hoax.

it was accepted, I would submit to you, because even if it looked a bit dodgy to many from the start- any sort of 'missing link' was the 'smoking gun' that was being very eagerly sought at the time- clearly of massive value to those looking to establish Darwinian theory as proven, so there was a strong incentive to assume it was genuine until proven otherwise (some 40 years later)

As before we saw the exact opposite in the case of the Primeval Atom/ Big Bang, which ran counter to the prevailing theory of a static universe- and so was assumed 'wrong' until proven correct (beyond most people's doubt at least) many decades later also.

Objectively, there was absolutely no reason for the burden of proof to be reversed like this.

We see this a lot, much of the current academic opinion at large, is often demanded by the prevailing theory rather than demanded by the objective evidence itself.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

and we have uncannily similar digital information repair mechanisms- that are being applied to the data streams uploading and downloading during these posts.

Not so surprising, the same laws of information transmission apply in all lossy communication channels, Claude Shannon demonstrated that.

Because random errors ih datu stwems era owvewhilgmjly mroe liickly ru bi dleteretious ywerksu ?! as opposed to them ever accidentally offering up new useful information to select

Clearly(!) not - a certain level of noise or lossiness in the information transmission between generations in evolutionary systems provides the population variation that selection can act on. Perfect transmission would be a selective disadvantage in comparison.

We've developed commercial systems to imitate the natural process because it works and it's effective.