The arrows of my title are not being directed toward Richard Dawkins, one of the two people engaged in this extraordinary conversation. My title is directed toward creationist Wendy Wright. Her obstructionist tactics suggest that it is simply not fruitful to discuss evolution by natural selection with someone who doesn’t understand it and doesn’t want to understand it.
I’ve pasted Part 2 of 7 of this exchange above. The other parts are available at Youtube. Richard Dawkins is a model of patience here. Ms. Wright repeatedly invokes a handful of tactics to stretch out this ostensible conversation endlessly. One tactic is to change the topic whenever Dawkins tries to focus upon real world facts. Another is to send out broad accusations, such as accusing Darwin of racism when, in reality, the Victorian world was filled with people who held views that would now be considered racist and, in fact, Darwin and his writings were notably not racist. In fact, Darwin expressed abolitionist views.
In a recent comment I wrote the following:
I’m tempted to begin a new “policy” from today forward. Those disparaging the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection must, in order to deserve a reply (other than a copy and paste of this comment) must, in their own words, describe the basic elements of the theory and at least a few of the many types of evidence supporting the theory. They must also make it clear that they know how a scientific theory differs from pure speculation.
It is my repeated impression that those attempting to criticize the facts and theory of evolution by natural selection are actually attacking some something else, something that biologists, geo-biologists, geneticists, botanists and other scientists do not support. In short, they are attacking straw men. The only reasonable reply to such attacks is to direct the commenter to set aside a few hours and to read a good book on natural selection.
There’s a lot more discussion about this video a website with a most extraordinary name: WhyWontGodHealAmputee.com. Soricidae’s Blog offers a play by play for one section of the Wright-Dawkins exchange.
Her performance keeps getting back to the core problem—she is worried that humans are exempt from evolution. This, in my opinion, is whole bag for them. They refuse to believe humans are not divinely special. If we are part and parcel of the same life process that made everything else, our special place is removed and we're just another species. That is the emotional drive in the rejection of evolution and she portrays it perfectly.
BTW, when I was a kid I used to have nightmares about being accused of something and repeatedly explaining myself and having my explanations completely ignored, as if I were speaking a different language.
This woman has clearly not looked at the fossils, she doesn't even understand what "intermediate" means, and she hasn't the first scintilla of a grasp of what it is she's condemning. So the other part of the urgency is to not look stupid. People can't stand that. Combine it with the first problem and you have an insurmountably hubristic barrier to any kind of elucidation.
Mark: I assume that you meant to write that she is worried that humans are NOT exempt from evolution(?). I agree with your comment, and that is also my experience that anti-science types HATE the idea that we are animals. As you know, I've written more than a few articles on this topic, many of them mentioning Terror Management Theory (TMT). http://dangerousintersection.org/category/science… They don't want to be like other animals, that is true. My speculation is that this is disturbing to them because it means that they are dust and to dust they shall return.
Worried that, worried that we are not, either way, they are worried about that particular aspect, which goes right back to what William Jennings Bryan said about it and it still holds true.
The dust to dust thing, sure. But more than that, evolution says that we are simply not the pinnacle of "creation" and that we can be replaced. I think that bothers them ideologically more than personal oblivion.
Well, just this morning I finished reading Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth", and no question, anyone who actually paid attention to all the information he provides in it wouldn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to denying evolution. Of course, the paying attention is the tricky part. Maintaining faith requires long and studious practice in ignoring anything that contradicts it, and pretending you didn't hear or read or see something is the creationist's first line of defense against evidence.
"I truly don't mean this to be insulting, so please don't take it that way, but what is your motivation to live a moral, upstanding life without the guidance of the rules of God and the Bible? I know you guys do this, but I'm not sure I understand how it works without concrete guidance."
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/09/promot…
(excellent comments section!)
(fyi, PZ just had a brush with mortality — heart problems — though he is now mending)
Neither God nor the Bible are necessary for one to lead a moral life. Morality is a choice. Morality is not dictated by circumstance nor given to us by some divine injection of substance but for the most part by the quiet choices we make day to day that make us who and what we are as human animals within society.
I believe in God but, even if I didn't I would choose as a fundamental moral precept to do my best not to harm others. It's rude and can get you killed!
Ben, the part of the quote that's true (in my opinion) for most people 'infected' with religion is I’m not sure I understand how it works. From the thread, the speaker is a person on the path to agnosticism/atheism. They are 'trying' to understand, which is part of the process of learning.
Without trying to understand, it is really hard to understand anything. One must first set aside any preconceptions one might have regarding the subject at hand.
I think this lies at the root of fundamentalist challenges with secular morals and science in general, since most of science conflicts somewhere with their biblical/bronze age credo. To truly accept science, they need to at least admit the possibility of lack or error or mis-statement on the part of their creed.
On morals, they are on even slipperier ground, since they have been told from birth that they are inherently evil (fallen) and without the constant grace and support of god, they would fall subject to temptation. Without denying everything they have been told they truly find it impossible to believe that we honestly live moral lives.
(and yes – Pharyngula has a great comments section)
I agree wholeheartedly with your policy, but if you do start tossing it out there, you'll have a much weaker postition when calling someone out for implementing the Courtier's Reply:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_co…
Dan
I'm not at all sure I understand why you think Erich's new policy leaves the site (and Erich) any weaker than heretofore.
It merely provides for
(1) a common response to already disputed allegations
(2) a baseline from which to engage in meaningful dialog
(3) a 'line in the sand' that while we may be eager to discuss pretty much anything, we do so with a common understanding that the game has some rules…
The courtier's reply is one that *we* should throw, often and always, at almost any 'apologist' who seeks to use metaphysics in place of physics, and wishes to reason circularly from a priori assumptions about the divinity of a book proving the divinity of that same book and so on…
Can you shed some light on how you think a creationist would use a 'courtiers reply' against us?
I should make clear, that my new "policy" of responding to those who have not familiarized themselves with the basic scientific principles of natural selection, yet who confidently attack it, is a "policy" that applies to only me (unless some of the other authors wish to adopt this same position). The other authors at this site might choose to wrangle with such folks, but I'm going to post my canned response in such situations, at least for the most part (though I might make exceptions). My motivation is that we to often find ourselves repeated the same facts and arguments over and over. And, where the anti-science types work hard to deny the evidence, we end up burning far too many hours doing the Gish Gallop. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gish…
None of the authors has ever suggested that this is a anti-science site. To that extent, yes, we have a "bias" (as Karl might put it) toward the scientific method. Does that make us weak or less credible? Instead of claims that God created the world only 6,000 years ago, imagine that someone complained about a post discussing evolutionary biology, complaining that the TRUTH is that people did not evolve from earlier life forms. Rather, the Egyptian persona Atum started the process by "masturbating,"
Should we go back and forth, arguing whether the ancient Egyptian account is more correct than the Darwinian account? Or do we conclude that we are speaking two languages? One language is heavily laden with metaphor and ancient lore. The other is the scientific method based on unrelenting skepticism, and that skeptcism is abated only by precise and replicable experimentation, upon which scientific theories arise. The former approach (allow religious explanations to compete with scientific explanations) would lead to tribal disputes rather than progress based on replicable facts, admittedly with stops and fits along the way, punctuated with paradigm shifts. This is the way science works as its explanations evolve based on new facts–it's not a failure but a process that has spread the beacon of dependable knowledge wider and wider, ever since disciplined people decided that they would rather know than not know, even if religious icons must be sometimes insulted, abused or damaged along the way.
It is sheer arrogance for scientist to repeatedly affirm their hypotheses or theory as fact while obfuscating straight forward scientific laws and facts clearly pointing out to both casual and many scientific observer alike that there is evidence both for and against their hypothesis or theory.
If there are laws there must be a Lawmaker and if there is cause and effect there had to be an ultimate first cause. Fact; one never gets an increase in information with matter and energy alone, intelligence and a functional system at some level are required. Life could not have, therefore, arisen by spontaneous generation.
Common observation – Explosions do not produce an increase in order nor do they produce life when none existed prior to them no matter how much time one is given.
Common observation – Mutations nearly always subtract information with the rare exception of when they duplicate existing information and then they are nearly always always fatal.
It would be, therefore, impossible for mutations to have built up the gene code to produce the millions of lines of code via DNA to code for such complex structures as we know exist in the cell, let alone the human body. How, then, did we arise from even amoebas by a mechanism constantly subtracting information?
Dr. Lee Spetner found in his metaresearch while at Johns Hopkins, that mutations have been observed to subtract information. But has not been shown to increase observable information transmitted through DNA inheritance. Information science is the death of evolution. Gallop has consistantly found that about 80% of Americans believe life could not have come about without God. And about 50% of Americans find the evidence for evolution to be scientifically untenable. Ironically nearly 100% of secular media outlets continue to censor the thousands of credible scientists who have rejected Darwinian evolution for scientific reasons.
The debate will never be over simply because someone repeatedly wishes it so…
http://creation.com/not-by-chance
Karl: Interesting how Einstein found "God" in the physical orderliness of the universe. He was delighted that the universe is "marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws." You, on the other hand, are threatened by the thought that the universe might be fully physically determined, and you valiantly seek causal gaps–you crave to justify a law-free zone where your God can reside. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,… You want it so bad that you'll call scientists "arrogant," even though they base their conclusions on warehouses full of evidence that continues to grow.
Karl writes:—"If there are laws there must be a Lawmaker and if there is cause and effect there had to be an ultimate first cause. Fact; one never gets an increase in information with matter and energy alone, intelligence and a functional system at some level are required. Life could not have, therefore, arisen by spontaneous generation."
Please. "Law" and "Lawmaker" are artifacts of human concepts from the outset. They are colloquialisms, if you will. Easier than always saying "The way things seem to work" all the time.
"Gravity: it's not just a good idea, it's the law."
Human linguistic concepts.
As for the latter, what about crystals? No intelligence there at all, yet we see order and complexity forming out of mere matter and energy. We have also witnesses the compilation of complex proteins out of basic molecules and the introduction of energy in many famous lab experiments. This is another roundabout way on your part to suggest the second law of thermodynamics argues against evolution, and yet always when that argument is raised the one doing the raising always forgets the part about closed systems.
—"Common observation – Explosions do not produce an increase in order nor do they produce life when none existed prior to them no matter how much time one is given."
No, but they certainly increase complexity in certain areas. I suspect you're referring obliquely to supernovae creating more complex elements? Fusion explosions are qualitatively different than ordinary combustion, but you know that.
—"Common observation – Mutations nearly always subtract information with the rare exception of when they duplicate existing information and then they are nearly always always fatal."
Somewhat misstated, but overall no evolutionary biologist would argue with you. The key phrase there is "nearly always" and given the time parameters involved…
Hell, we've been over that. Again, in the lab, we have seen mutation occur that resulted in a change in organism that made possible survival and eventually separated out a new species. THAT HAS BEEN WITNESSED! The fact that it happens quickly in single cell organisms does not mean it cannot happen in multicelled organisms over longer time spans. Your assertion is false based on OBSERVATION.
—"It would be, therefore, impossible for mutations to have built up the gene code to produce the millions of lines of code via DNA to code for such complex structures as we know exist in the cell, let alone the human body. How, then, did we arise from even amoebas by a mechanism constantly subtracting information?"
We didn't. You've stated it wrong. It didn't happen that way. And obviously it did happen, because here we are.
Hint: the big leap forward was sexual dimorphism.
—"Dr. Lee Spetner found in his metaresearch while at Johns Hopkins, that mutations have been observed to subtract information. But has not been shown to increase observable information transmitted through DNA inheritance. Information science is the death of evolution."
He's wrong.
—"The debate will never be over simply because someone repeatedly wishes it so…"
Ain't that the truth. But if all you've got is a wish that it weren't so, then debate becomes fruitless.
We've been over this ground before, Karl, and the fact is there is one rather large and obvious problem with your thesis—the vast and complex plenum of life on this planet that evolves (witnessed) and does so by mechanisms having nothing to do with the tooth fairy.
Karl: You seem to be giving equal weight to a survey of a subset of literature (metaresearch) that shows that in some cases mutations drop bases (yes, this does happen frequently, no argument)
vs.
experimental research by the likes of Lenski who irrefutably demonstrated (not just a theory) that information is added by random natural processes to DNA (duplication and substitution) and can (did) create a new species that has superior survivability compared to its ancestors (evolution).
BTW, Spetner is the who, with Fred Hoyle, tried to argue that the fossil Archaeopteryx was a fraud. The error was based on his misunderstanding of lithification processes. He has a bee in his bonnet (just like Karl does) that drives him to mischaracterize or ignore evidence and he aligns himself with other dubious critics. Much of his work informs Behe's arguments against evolution, all of which were soundly trashed in the Dover trial.
You really had to go digging for this one, Karl. He was right down there with the conspiracy theorists, UFOlogists, Abductees, and believers that FDR had syphilis.
A survey of Americans can show legion ignorant conclusions. That almost half of those surveyed don't "believe" in certain conclusions of hard, proven science does not refute those conclusions.
Most people can recite E=MC<sup>2</sup>, but only those who can derive Maxwell's equations, Special relativity, and the Schrödinger equation are likely to understand that it really means that blue light and bricks are different forms of the same stuff.
Both individual common sense and the Wisdom of the crowd fails most of the time when dealing with things beyond the scale of normal human interactions. This was my thought when I wrote The Universe is not Specified to Human Scale in 2006.
Anyone who wants to comment on this comment should probably follow at least some of my links.
Karl: "If there are laws there must be a Lawmaker." Really? Humans are the law makers. Natural laws (scientific theories) are conclusions of how the universe works. Always and forever. These laws describe how things change, like the mid-1800's Maxwell’s equations. As we get better at seeing bigger and smaller scales, these immutable laws do change. Incrementally and asymptotically. Hawking modified Einstein modified Newton. But Newton's 1600's models are still completely valid within known, wide boundaries.
The way the universe behaves doesn't change (at least, not in the currently visible last 13 billion years or so). But our understanding, our theories, our "laws" changed.
The universe "is". No agent had to create it. As a tool-making species, we have a natural propensity to feel that anything that "is" was made. This idea can neither be proven nor can it make predictions. Therefore it can be ignored as irrelevant to anything within the universe, like matter and energy, life and death.
If any agent had created the universe and its functions, then the natural question is, "Who made the agent?"
If you answer that the agent always was, why not simply accept that the universe always was? This reduces the complexity of the theory (Occam).
Dan:
That. Was. Awesome! (I'd need to go back and crack the books to perform the derivations). Maxwell's equations are a thing of utter beauty. Special Relativity is just mind-blowingly cool (and simple and strange and easy and obvious and hard and complex all at the same time). And my trouble with tensors makes Schrodinger complex to resolve – but it it truly awesome and simple to state (and does not involve any such silliness as 'observer collapsing the quantum superposition' in the math)
Karl: Epic Fail!
Especially the projection encompassed by your opening line: It is sheer arrogance for scientist to repeatedly affirm their hypotheses or theory as fact
That sounds awfully like your continued assertions in favor of that unproven (unprovable) so-called god whom you so confidently state (without a smidgen of proof) is the creator of all, and that you use to deride any science that you find icky or that disagrees with your man-made god book.
Dan et al,
You believe studies like the one written up and desccribed by Lenski irrefutably demonstrates that information is added by random natural processes to DNA.
First of all Lenski is assuming he is somehow tracking genetic changes – which may or may not be.
There has not been any actual mutation in the DNA that has been identified as being responsible for the apparent ability of a strain of e-coli to process citric acid as a means of energy production. It has not been shown – but assumed that this e-coli has increased in information, but it may actually have decreased in information as more than likely crucial nutrients were probably being altered. Until the actual location of the gene "information gain" can be verifably identified by comparison to the e-coli strains that do not have this ability it is only wishful thinking.
What he is tracking is phenotypic expression of a trait that could eventually find it way into the DNA of any bacteria given enough time and enough exposure to the environment of citric acid.
Show me just one paper, book or experiment anywhere in the history of biology that empirically demonstrates and proves that random mutation of DNA produces novel adaptive features (eyes, wings, legs, functional organs); and that the mutations that produced those features were in fact random. (And not existing Mobile Genetic Elements or some other systematic process.)
There are ample cases of mutation studies that show identified random mutations as deleterious.
Theodosius Dobzhansky's fruit fly radiation experiments
Goldschmidt's gypsy moth experiments.
Lenski's work is not even of high importance in Wikipedias rating of significance.
Erich,
You make it sound like Einstein was not religious – he was “religious” to an extent that you refuse to admit about him. Yes, Einstein was very much amazed at the orderliness to the Universe – but he did not see random causitive events producing either the elegant patterns or the scientific laws he sought to understand. To him there always was always at least a mind of some sort behind the physical world because he was constantly trying “to think the thoughts of this mind after this mind had already thought them.
These are all Qoutes from Einstein
“I want to know God’s thoughts; the rest are details.”
“The only real valuable thing is intuition.”
“I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.”
“God is subtle but he is not malicious.”
“Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.”
The Time article ends with a summary from a Jewish Rabbi concrning Einstein’s faith journey and his response to the pressures of the media to express himself concerning Spinoza’s concept of God.
“Einstein would have done better had he not proclaimed his nonbelief in a God who is concerned with fates and actions of individuals. Both have handed down dicta outside their jurisdiction.”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,…
Erich, You make it sound like Einstein was not religious – he was "religious" to an extent that you refuse to admit about him. Yes, Einstein was very much amazed at the orderliness to the Universe – but he did not see random causitive events producing either the elegant patterns or the scientific laws he sought to understand. To him there always was always at least a mind of some sort behind the physical world because he was constantly trying "to think the thoughts of this mind after this mind had already thought them. These are all Qoutes from Einstein "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details." "The only real valuable thing is intuition." "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." "God is subtle but he is not malicious." "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." The Time article ends with a summary from a Jewish Rabbi concrning Einstein's faith journey and his response to the pressures of the media to express himself concerning Spinoza's concept of God. "Einstein would have done better had he not proclaimed his nonbelief in a God who is concerned with fates and actions of individuals. Both have handed down dicta outside their jurisdiction." Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,…
Karl
Karl: You are cherry picking again. Please read the following DI article http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/04/08/einst… Make sure you read the resources added by Ebonmuse: http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/04/08/einst…
It includes passages like this:
I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.
I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.
I know that you want Einstein to play on your team, but he’s already agreed that he is playing on my team.
Please keep in mind that 1,000 people have 1,000 meanings for “God.”
Karl:
A truly skeptical mind will stay adrift in a sea of ideas, while one that has lost its skepticism will seek a harbor where the port of call is to their liking and appropriate to their worldview.
Sounds like you are stating that you are not a skeptic – since you adhere strongly to a single worldview against all evidence. Absolutely no surprise there.
You also suggest that skeptics are lost, with ‘butterfly’ minds flitting continuously from thought to thought, continually moving and never settling. That could not be further from the truth.
Instead, a skeptic is anchored firmly to the bedrock of reality. When our vision clears, as a result of our constant questioning, we can see more of the foundations of reality. We can understand at more scales the true nature of reality. Our skepticism does not make our foundations weaker – it makes them stronger.
We are still skeptical, because to accept without question is to die mentally.
To accept, unquestioningly, is to destroy that which makes us human.
Tony,
I can admit that I am skeptical of many things – but not all. If you are not adrift – it means you lean in the direction of one worldview over another. This is what I was trying to say.
How much skepticism does it take to be skeptical of those who interpret evidences to fit their own world view? Obviously next to none – that's why we can read similar material and not agree on the importance of the words being spoken.
When skeptics of any persuasion have a personal stake in their theories and models being true they get offended and often abusive towards those who discuss/confront them.
This is why so many people with faith in God will get bent out of shape thinking they need to defend the object of their faith. It is also why people with faith in "whatever other beliefs they have" will also occasssionaly get bent out of shape thinking they need to either convince, ignore or belittle those with contrary worldviews.
If you can not see how the possibility of the label skeptic could allow you to think that your current worldview is fashioning how you interpret observational evidences perhaps you might at least like to consider that it really could be possibility.
Karl
To me a skeptic needs must be grounded in reality – at root one must be open minded and questioning… just not so open minded one's brains fall onto the floor.
So are you suggesting that I am not a skeptic, because it takes no effort for me to be skeptical of your interpretation of evidence to fit your preconceived worldview? (for example, your interpretation of geologic strata, of DNA evidence of hereditary lineage, of any evidence that suggests any reality counter to your bible?)
I always consider whether my particular biases (my worldviews, if you will) are shaping my interpretation of what I observe.
In my almost 50 years of life, I've changed my mind many times. I've strongly or weakly supported many different hypotheses, depending on the extant evidence. As new evidence/research arose to discredit or challenge previous orthodoxy, I've willingly (eagerly) changed my mind and my strongly (or weakly) held position.
In areas where I have expertise and work professionally (System Architecture; ERP Systems Integration; Business Process Design; Theory and Practice of Management; Theory and Practice of Compensation, Rewards and Benefits) I have changed my mind (or had it changed) many, many times. I remain skeptical whenever new 'theories' are touted or advanced – and require evidence and robust studies that demonstrate efficacy and applicability before I would reconsider my position (popular 'pop-management' theories are generally not persuasive – the underlying research that results in those faddish 'lite' interpretations sometimes is).
I am a professional skeptic, since I must deliver results. I am measured, and my people are measured, on the results we deliver. The techniques, tools, and theoretical underpinnings I use in my work today are vastly different from those I employed (or those my superiors employed) at the beginning of my career almost thirty years ago. I didn't change 'just because' and I don't act today 'just because'. What I do and what I have done is the result of my skeptical appraisal of evidence.
In my personal life, I take the same approach, with the same rigor. I consider everything skeptically. Is it effective? Is there evidence? What evidence, and how reliable are the sources?
I am not, however, adrift. I do not change my mind sixty times a second, nor indeed at the whim of external currents. My life's trajectory is consistent today with that at the beginning of my adulthood. It is a self-directed quest for knowledge, for understanding, and for comprehension.
Your's, it seems, is a quest to mold the world into the narrative of a single book.
So who, between us, is truly the skeptic?
Karl
Regarding your diatribe against the Lenski experiment.
Are you a PhD biologogist? Even better, do you have a specialty in genetics, or micro-biology?
I'll assume not.
Therefore, you are in exactly the same position as I regarding Lenski's groundbreaking experiment.
You are making unwarranted assumptions, based on absolutely no knowledge or expertise, that Lenski, his team, and every single reputable scientist who has peer-reviewed or cited his paper are not only mistaken, but completely and utterly fabricating their stated position. According to specialists whose knowledge and expertise suggests trust is warranted – speciation was demonstrated.
No reputable scientist said the words 'information was added to the DNA'. They didn't have to.
That it is a DNA-based heritable characteristic is clear from the evidence. That it required a precursor mutation (around population 20K IIRC) that was largely neutral, was also clearly demonstrated – due to the care they took with the multiple populations.
However – if you claim that additional inherent abilities, passed via DNA, are somehow a reduction in information – a gentleman named Shannon would like to have a word with you about your lack of understanding of that word.
E.coli, in the new Lenski strain, can metabolize citrate. They use citrate for a reason. Hardly anything eats it! It keeps populations separate and controllable! Sounds pretty NEW to me.
Now – about where you get 'data' to support your stance.
Your trust is in, what? Your gut? A bunch of DI hacks? Forced mutagenic experiments (I irradiated the subjects, and they got sick!) d'oh! Radiation must be bad…. Oh, except when it's good, and except when… Conditions matter! Context matters!
Even in grade school, citations must be apposite. They need to pertain to the subject at hand, and they need to be demonstrably applicable (pro or con) in support of the argument. Your's don't. You would fail even an English paper with such citations, never mind one in a science!
Lastly, you seek to discredit Lenski's ongoing experiment by noting his lowly position on a 'ranking of importance' on Wikipedia? Really? You couldn't provide any real evidence? What were the sources used for the ranking? What methodology was used? What metrics determined 'importance'?
This is all you have. Bullshit apologetics in place of real science.
Reality encroaches on your ragged and disintegrating biblical puppet show each and every day. And every day it becomes harder and harder to convince anyone serious that your interpretation has any foundation in reality. That must really rankle!
You must really hate that Christianity has gone from 'top dog' and ruler of all thought, to a has-been philosophy, fine for some moral guidance (so long as it's appropriately edited), useful only for a sense of 'belonging' among those who need that crutch.
Your time has passed.
Reality is superior to fantasy.
If I were a "respected" specialists in the fields you state I would need to tow the evolution montra in everythng I published.
Why has Lenski's team not found the changes to the DNA codons yet?
This is taken from Creation-wiki – the bain of the internet.
As of this time (March 2010), the actual mutations have not been identified by the researchers in the literature and the latest publication found at their website (Lenski) does not report anything particularly noteworthy in this regard (Barrick, Kauth and Strelioff).
The research paper (Blount, Borland and Lenski) describing these results seems to have created some real excitement in the evolution community. In fact the author of the summary article in New Scientist (Holmes), Bob Holmes quotes an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago who says: “Lenski’s experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne…‘The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events. That’s just what creationists say can’t happen.’ This “poke is the eye” caused a number of intelligent design and creation scientists to respond (Batten), (Purdom), (Behe, 2008).
In general, these responders presented the following arguments:
E-coli have the ability to import and digest citrate in anaerobic conditions. With oxygen present, the transporter protein is switched off. A dysfunctional mutation jammed the switch in the open position to bring the citrate into the cell under all conditions.
There is no new functionality discovered or information added to the cell. Rather a loss or gain of function from preexisting information took place
Lenski’s experiments make no contribution to the explanation of the source of that preexisting information or the transition of one organism to another or the origin of life itself.
http://creationwiki.org/E-coli_mutation_and_evolu…
I'm patient enough to see if Lenski really has witnessed the formation of bacteria that have increased DNA functionality in keeping with an increase in information somehow newly written into the DNA.
Until then I do not need to worry about being poked in the eye.
Karl repeatedly demonstrates that he doesn't actually comprehend modern science. We've been round and round with him in geology, nuclear physics, biology, cosmology, and meteorology. He regularly proves that he does not have the background to understand the actual science. But his grounding in populist denialism is solid. He builds magnificently solid castles of reason on a quicksand foundation.
Occasionally he claims that there is proof of this or that long-disproven idea (like Noah's Flood). I respond by asking him to provide it, and to claim the Nobel prize that such evidence would warrant. See How Did Noah’s Flood Deposit the Iridium Layer? or the related Deep Water Effects on Radioactivity
Any disproof of a long-held theory is welcome in science. The scientific community would rather be correct in every detail than "right" for historical reasons. It's the nature of the beast. Individual scientists — however learned and well trained — are not always right. But the scientific method is designed to reward and propagate correct (provable, repeatable, useful) answers, from any source.
Karl illustrates that there are two basic types of skepticism. One is well focused, and serves as a tool for testing and accumulating dependable information. The other is nihilist skepticism. I conceive of it as though it were a widespread shotgun wielded like a 2-year old who blasts away at everything inconvenient in order to eliminate it, never offering any positive program, and never coming up with anything useful, except in the mind of the denier. It is the equivalent of nihilism with a blind spot for one's own cherished pre-conceived religious beliefs.
It is so much easier to tear down buildings than to design and create them.
I'm still looking for anything useful created by these nihilist skeptics. Real scientists have discovered information that has allowed airplanes that really fly, cameras that take gorgeous photos and medicines that save lives. I'm waiting to hear of the accomplishments of those who have eyes, but won't see.
Dan,
Seems a simple statement like "I will reserve from swooning over Linski's research until the "genetic change" that has produced a "new species" has been quantifiably linked (genotype)to some specific codon or codon(s)in actual strands of DNA – was worthy of the sack.
It is obvious bacteria are good at adaptation, that doesn't mean all adaptation has come directly from changes in DNA, let alone this one that is proposed to have given rise to a completely new species.
Seems to me we are looking more at an interaction between cellular membrane formation and the raw materials available in the environment and actually used to form these cell membranes.
Please note that the shapes of Linski's proposed new species also had cells which were not the standard shape as most other varieties either. This would also point to a change in cell membrane structure and therefore also function.
But then I don't know anything about science so I suspect this will find its way into the sack as well.