Posted on 10/11/2002 9:02:01 PM PDT by gore3000
When, a dozen years ago, I first published my view that Darwinism is scientifically flawed, I immediately encountered a kind of opponent who was to become very familiar to me over the next decade. I mean the kind who (quite sincerely) believes that anyone who challenges the conventional Darwinist view must be someone who is simply ignorant of the scientific facts. Such an opponent thus sets out to cure the ignorance he meets by the simple expedient of rehashing over and over again the tenets of the received wisdom, as found in the pages of Nature and Scientific American.
These guardians of Darwinian truth find it literally impossible to believe that anyone could actually have conducted some research and analysis that has led them to conclude rationally that Darwinism is scientifically flawed and think that -- like an Englishman abroad -- if only they shout a little louder, the dimwit foreigner might finally get the Darwinist message.
Michael Brass is such an upholder of the received wisdom on Darwinism, and his book, The Antiquity of Man, is just such a rehashing of that received wisdom. There is nothing new here. No new facts, no new scientific discoveries, not even a new interpretation or new analysis, merely the repetition of all the same old stuff that anyone who has ever spent time in a dentist's waiting room, leafing through old copies of National Geographic, is already thoroughly familiar with.
But in his book, Brass is not merely sounding off about anti-Darwinists in general -- he has some specific targets in his sights. From the outset he attacks scientific creationists for their views and he singles out the book 'Forbidden Archaeology' by Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson.
As I'm not a creationist, and I don't have any religious beliefs, I don't intend to try to speak for Cremo, Thompson or anyone else, and I'm sure they are well able to look after themselves. But I am concerned, as a secular critic of the scientific content of Darwinism, that writers like Brass are getting away with obscuring the real scientific issues under the guise of 'debunking' what they pretend is merely 'creationist propaganda', a pretext that enables them to continue to dodge engaging in real scientific debate.
dodge engaging in real scientific debate.
gore3000: Now you go back on what you said and there are such things as scientific facts [sic].
Junior wrote that a) there are facts, and b) the theory of evolution is supported by those facts. Junior has also said that "clue" = "evidence."
It's called "Reading for Comprehension." You more more interested in grandstanding than in actual debate. Your position does not gain any extra credibility via the volume of your posts.
What a book like Forbidden Archaeology shows, in my view, is that if even a half (or even a tenth) of the objections raised by its authors are valid scientific objections, then Darwinism is a theory that is in deep, irremediable trouble. And the best that Brass can do in the way of rebuttal is to question a handful of their cases as unproven or badly chosen. His preferred method of rebuttal in almost all cases is that described earlier: he simply recites again, more loudly, the accepted Darwinist view.
We get an early glimpse of Brass's fundamentalist stance on the evidence claimed to support Darwinism such as dating of fossils. On page 38 he presents a table of two kinds of fossil dating. He labels the first as 'relative dating' and the second, radiometric dating by the potassium-argon method, he calls 'absolute dating'. Now, as his degrees are in history and archaeology, it is perfectly possible that Brass is completely unaware of the important scientific error he is making in describing radiometric dating of fossils as 'absolute' dating, and is merely taking it on trust from his physicist colleagues that his belief is correct -- as most scientists do. But the fact remains that the words 'absolute dating' can never be used in connection with the radiometric dating of fossils of any kind. (For background to dating fossils, see 'Shattering the myths of Darwinism' chapters 3, 4, and 5.)
To be fair, I should add that Brass is far from being the only professional scientist who is confused about this question. Most Darwinists are. Even Gavin de Beer, director of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote in the museum's Guide to Evolution, first published in 1970, that the rocks forming the geological column and the fossils in them had been directly dated by radiometric methods -- a claim which is scientific nonsense and based solely on ignorance of the real facts.
In the same passage, Brass tries to make his claims for the potassium-argon method seem credible by pointing out that '0.01% of all natural potassium is radiopotassium.' To the uninitiated, this rarity must make the method seem special. But Brass forgets to mention that the substance this radioactive potassium turns into, the end product that is measured, is argon-40. Argon is the twelfth most abundant element on earth, and more than 99 per cent of it is argon-40. And there is no physical or chemical way to tell whether a given sample of argon-40 is the residue of radioactive potassium or was present in the rocks when they formed.
There are many other places where Brass shows he has swallowed Darwinist urban scientific myths hook, line and sinker. On the very first page of his introduction he repeats the commonly-made claim that Darwinian evolution is supported by observed speciation, when the true scientific facts are that there is not a single real case of observed Darwinian speciation (the cases listed in the talk-origin "FAQ" being entirely bogus [more information available here]).
when the true scientific facts are that there is not a single real case of observed Darwinian speciation
For example, the work of zoologist Solly Zuckermann, has long been a thorn in the side of Darwinists because Zuckermann conducted a study which concluded that Australopithecines (like 'Lucy') were predominantly ape-like and not human-like creatures and thus not ancestral to humans. Brass dismisses the work of Zuckermann, one of Britain's most distinguished zoologists, by reference to a quote from Jim Foley. Who is Jim Foley? He is the author of the talk-origins "FAQ" on human origins, which is as badly-researched and bogus as the rest of the talk-origins "FAQs" [more information available here].
In writing this book, Michael Brass has put on his arms and armour, chosen a cause about which he feels passionately, selected a battleground and engaged those he perceives as the enemies of science. Unfortunately, his armour doesn't fit him, his weapons are blunt, his passionate cause is already lost and, worst of all, he has chosen the wrong battle. For instead of attacking the real enemies of science -- the brain-dead pedlars of urban scientific myths -- he is attacking the few people who are making an honest attempt to question a theory that is long past its sell-by date.
This book is designed to bring aid and comfort to the excrement-hurling howler monkeys that infest Internet groups such as talk-origins, by reaffirming once more the oft-told Darwinist tale of human origins. It does not advance the cause of scientific investigation nor, despite its title, does it shed any light on the antiquity of mankind.
Richard Milton is the author of Shattering the Myths of Darwinism and 'Alternative Science'.
reaffirming once more the oft-told Darwinist tale of human origins.
Me: So you realized it's there.
G3K: Yup, I know it's there, and many articles disproving evolution say they prove evolution. Many people just say that as a mantra without thinking or perhaps because they are afraid to be called kooks. Most scientists are concerned with discovering things, they do not want to get engaged in politics and the evolutionists have turned science into a political arena. The evidence disproves evolution.
You know better than Dr. Baltimore what his work entails and what it means. Have you let him know yet? Have you notified the Nobel Committee?
You also claim to know why people say what they say. Fascinating. You must, therefore, be reading peoples' minds. Can you prove it? I’m thinking of a number between 1 and 10. What is it?
Evolution, uniquely among the sciences, is in the political arena because people who fear it have dragged it there. You now throw the blame on the theory of evolution itself. How utterly Clintonian.
G3K: Such complexity cannot arise by chance.
Me: This is entirely undemonstrated.
G3K: Not according to Darwin. He said that if a complex thing could not be shown to have been able to occur by many small gradual steps then it would disprove evolution. This complexity disproves evolution because in the first place you need many things working together to add any kind of improvement. In the second place, because these changes have to be made without affecting any of the other complex processes of the organism.[sic] So yes, the complexity disproves evolution. Together with all the other problems I mentioned such as the problem about spreading mutations and the problem of the complexity of genes they all join to show that evolution is impossible.
You, not Darwin, said “Such complexity cannot arise by chance.” You have not demonstrated this and neither has anyone else. Your argument amounts to a claim that evolution can’t be true because it can’t be true. You make assertions about what can or cannot happen, but not only do you have no “proof” (your standard), you you’ve been caught right here distorting the words and the works of the scientists you yourself have cited in support of your claims. In these cases, the distortions have been so blatant and easily exposed that what you are now attempting to do is truly pathetic.
Leland Hartwell: My laboratory is beginning a new research program aimed at studying how molecular circuits support evolution.
G3K: If he had proof of such he would not be doing research on it now would he? Therefore his statements about this supporting evolution are assumptions totally unsupported by evidence. My statements therefore are what science knows about the matter. The statements of Hartwell, like most of the garbage evolutionists state are assumptions and therefore are not evidence and in no way contradict my statement, indeed they verify it.
Your utter recklessness is breathtaking. How many times have you been told that scientific theories aren’t ever “proven”? How many times have I told you myself that no one, anywhere, is claiming “proof,” at least in your peculiar sense? Equally breathtaking is your assertion that Hartwell’s “statements about this supporting evolution are assumptions totally unsupported by evidence.” Are you calling Hartwell a liar? A cheat? An incompetent? You're the one who brought him up as the expert in the field.
On the other hand, you keep claiming disproof of evolution. This potential for disproof is real, and in fact is why the theory of evolution is scientific. However, your much-touted disproof has apparently not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of Leland Hartwell, who is still actively studying the subject! He’s the expert you chose. You are now engaged in attempting to discredit the very authority you quoted as having “disproved” evolution. He’s done nothing of the sort, doesn’t claim to have done anything of the sort, and is in fact still, “studying how molecular circuits support evolution.” (His words). You lied, you were caught, and now you are trying to weasel out by claiming Hartwell has no "proof." No one ever claimed he did! You were the one who fraudulently claimed he'd disproved evolution.
All of this is utterly typical of you and utterly dishonest. It is here for all to see. Thank you, sincerely, for starting this thread and thereby giving us the tools to demonstrate beyond any possibility of a doubt the depths to which you will sink to achieve your ends.
[In this thread (broken down into 3 sections to avoid detection):]
Evidence Disproving Evolution -- Post 701.
Same thread, spam continued in #703.
Same thread, spam concluded in #704.
[In other threads:]
School Board Panel: Ohio Students Should Be Taught Evolution, Controversies -- post 145 .
[In that same thread, the spam was repeated in Posts 173, 174, and 175 (broken down into three sections)
[In earlier threads, the spam is in one large post per thread:]
Professor Rigid on Evolution (must "believe" to get med school rec) -- post 58.
Living dinosaurs -- post 389.
Ga. school board OKs teaching creationism -- post 44.
Evolution Coverage Missed Real Story -- post 67.
Study: Humans, Chimps More Different -- post 30.
Earth's magnetic field 'boosts gravity' -- Post 99.
Your lame brain caught in trick-lie box with no side--top---bottom...
floating panthom---ms untouchable---evo fairy-god?
Is that the best you can do...give up---L*****!
There is a lot of DNA, sometimes called "junk" DNA. Although that name overstates the case, it is not generally expressed (read as a protein). Mutations there (and pre-existing oddities) will not generally express themselves, but such coding can do so if the right "start reading DNA code here" sequence is added.
I'll leave it to anyone who cares to see if they recognize the caricature you made of it in your reply.
I know better what his discovery proves than what Dr. Baltimore said. I supported my position, Dr. Baltimore did not support his view of how the discovery backs up evolution. The whole extent of the evidence is against evolution and Dr. Baltimore did not say anywhere how his discovery proved evolution. In fact both he and Hartwell said that they had to see how it might be possible to show that their discoveries were in accordance with evolution, nowhere did they say that they had proof that they were explainable by evolution.
I see, we are down to insults - that means you lost. In post#695 I carefully explained why junk DNA is not junk, I gave a citation from a Noble Prize Winner, and in addition I gave more links supporting that junk DNA is not junk. What I gave you is not blather, it is called IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE and here it is again in case you wish to refute it instead of indulging in lame insults:
If you had read post#659 you would know that 'junk DNA' is just one more evolutionist assumption which has been proven false. From the article by Baltimore on post#659:
The most discussed are coding regions that specify the sequence of proteins. Proteins are the actual machines that do the work of the body. The protein-coding regions are all that is captured by most metaphors for DNA. DNA as a book implies that all DNA has are letters that transform into words, the meaningful units of language, and that words are like proteins. But the regions of human DNA that encode proteins are only a few percent of the 3 billion-long string of letters. Most of it does other things. What are these other things?
The DNA code can specify the sites and nature of many different events. While we don’t know them all, there are easily 10’s of others aside from the sequence of proteins. For instance, DNA does not encode proteins directly, it uses an intermediary chemical string called RNA. Each RNA encodes one protein so an RNA is a form of packaging of the DNA string into meaningful, bite size pieces. But then the DNA must have a code for where to start an RNA, and where to end an RNA. The RNA is not used as a direct copy of DNA but rather is processed by destroying parts of it, modifying other parts and putting special structures at each end. There is code for each of these events.
I already explained why the fruit fly's new wings were useless - because you need much more than a single mutation, a single gene to provide something useful. Read the 2nd paragraph on the quote above - the protein production needs more than the gene, much more. You are still following the discredited evolutionist assumption that the non-coding DNA is useless. Also check out the links in the article above on 'junk DNA' if you need more evidence.
Again, the Taliban of evolution is trying to make trouble for an opponent. Placemarker Patrick is complaining about someone posting how evolutionists do not discuss their theory honestly by trying to get the post pulled. It seems to me Patrick that you are showing exactly the kind of behavior that the post is addressing!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.