Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | May 26, 2012 | FRANK ELTMAN

[eekitsagreek]

Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history.

Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.

Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that "even the skeptics can accept it."

"If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it's solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive," Leakey says, "then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges."

[hopespringseternal]

For anyone who is well-trained in science, recognizing a charlatan is as easy as recognizing a non-native speaker of English.

I have spent far too much time working in a university with scientists to buy this shamanistic crap. If he is a charlatan you have to be able to explain why.

Behe makes a very specific claim concerning evolutionary science: There is almost nothing in the field on the specific evolutionary path of just about every complex biochemical system. You talk about evolution working on the scale of individual DNA blocks but when you talk about the evolutionary path you pull out to the 10,000 foot level. There is a whole in the middle.

How did the various protein mechanisms in the cell evolve? Your fish paper makes the point for Behe. I see nothing in it explaining how fish A turned into fish B biochemically.

He is the perfect example of a scientist who clings to dogmatic belief despite all evidence, and ends up not accomplishing much as a result.

Please explain. Elaborate on his dogmatic belief that you can't explain how the protein mechanisms in the cell evolve.

[varmintman]

The big problem along these lines which politicians face at present is how to deal with the Chris Mathewses of the world...

The basic act goes like this: Mathews, an evil scowl on his face, appears on television and in a stern voice asks:

"Are you actually enough of a ****4brains, inbred, triple-chromosome dufeless ******-****** that YOU don't believe in evolution?? ANSWER ME!!!! Yes or no??"

And the poor politician, who has never made enough of a study of this sort of thing to have any sort of a good answer ready to hand just sort of sits there with a sort of a cowed look on his face:

"Well, uh, gee Mr. Mathews, if you say so..."

Here's the right answer and the answer which he need to TEACH our own pols:

[laughter...] "You know, that's really a sort of a cute act you have there Mr. Mathews, but it kind of indicates that your own education in science topics must have stopped somewhere before 1970...

Are you aware of the abject failure of the fruit fly experiments which were designed to prove macroevolution or that prominent scientists had denounced evolution because of those experiments? Do you even understand the difference between microevolution and macroevolution?

Are you aware of the concept of irreducible complexity and the problem that presents for evolutionists?

Are you aware of the extent of the analogy between RNA/DNA cell biology and modern computers and information theory? Have you read Dr. Don Johnson's "Programming of Life"?

Are you aware that evolution requires an infinite series of probabilistic miracles and outright zero probability events, and belief in things happening despite probabilities which look like one divided by a number which looks like one folloowed by tens of thousands of zeros ?

Are you aware of the Haldane dilemma and the impossible amounts of time it takes to spread ANY sort of a genetic change entirely through some species of animals? Are you also aware of the fact that researchers are finding proteins and soft tissue in dinosaur remains, strongly indicating that those animals died a few thousand or at most a few tens of thousands of years ago?

Are you aware that in our present internet age, nobody can hide that sort of information any more or bury it any more?

Are you aware that growing numbers of Americans can now see through this little scowling act of yours, and that the act itself makes you look like an ignoramus??

It might also help if every GOP pol had a copy of Don Johnson's book in his pocket:

and could speak on the subject when the Mathews inquisition comes up.

[central_va]

Feel free to enlighten me by providing links to the original research reports, and post the statistical analyses which demonstrate that the observations and analyses in the reports are mistaken.

I will explain this like you were a 3 year old. Turn off all the bullcrap you learned in university for one minute. And listen to me. You are not the only person who has studied math and science around here. You are not special. The fact that the evolutionists identify specific species both extinct and living disproves the theory of evolution. THe theory is self destroying. What I am saying is that evolution thru natural selection should be a smooth linear process and identifying specific species through genetics should be theoretically impossible. The genetic code for a species should be unidentifiable say to the family level as all species are in continual evolution, right? And no I don't think the earth is 5,000 years old so don't go their. Your mind has been closed by your "education".

[airborne]

So .... We’re all Kenyan?

[central_va]

I case you are a diction Nazi I meant to say “don’t go there” not “don’t go their”. My bad.

[trubolotta]

College calculus? All of the engineers and scientists I attended classes with didn't stop their math education until they reached PDEs. That's a huge gap in the study of mathematics between calculus and PDEs.

The ability to plug data into spread sheets or programs for statistical analysis does not qualify a person as having an understanding of higher mathematics. That doesn't cut it.

If I recall, it was evolutionist Julian Huxley that pointed out that evolution theory had a huge flaw from a purely probabilistic viewpoint, though he remained a believer. Others have added to and reinforced his work.

[varmintman]

There's one thing basically wrong with your graph and the understanding involved is very recent, and that is that even the Neanderthal does not belong in the same genus or whatever you want to call it as us:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2860792/posts

Basically, the Neanderthal has been ruled out as a plausible ancestor for modern man precisely because the genetic gap is too wide, and all other hominids were at least morphologically as far removed from us as the Neanderthal. That basically means that there is nothing on this planet which we could be descended from via any process resembling evolution.

[central_va]

Really? I've studied statistics, and math up through college calculus.

Calc? You quit at the beginning, you had a long way to go.

[exDemMom]

But seriously, evolution of mammals seem to be a step function, with a lot of "suddenly appearing" phrases in the evos literature. The evos best trick is to claim the non-evos think the earth is 5000 years old. It is their last card in the deck.

No scientist claims that any species "suddenly appeared". That, I'm afraid, is the literal young-earth creationist claim.

[varmintman]

I was a math major in school but the basic reality is that the most major thing a person should take away from that is a firm grasp of logic, and that’s all anybody should really need to reject evolution and evoloserism.

[varmintman]

No scientist claims that any species "suddenly appeared".

Sorry, but that's dead wrong. ALL species appeared suddenly.

[exDemMom]

In fact no real science theory would survive five years worth of the history of disproofs which is involved in the theory of evolution. Evolution survives on pure inertia and quasi-religious belief.

What, exactly, are these "disproofs"? As far as I can tell, the theory of evolution is still the unifying theory of biology--so far, no one has provided any evidence that it isn't.

[exDemMom]

Lets look at this human species graph from a mathematical perspective. At the tail end we have genus homo, showing h.erectus and h.heidlebeurgenus ending and h.neandertal and h.sapiens "suddenly appearing" in a short period of time. I have no problem with this. What I do have a problem with is trying to explain this as being caused by natural selection. No cross over species have been found, it is a step function by their own admission all are independent separate species. This is laughable on face value. Believe me, if any cross over species had been found it would have been MAJOR news.

No probability that a mutation occurred in a few thousand years that changed h.erectus into h.sapiens. No linear progression, are evos blind they will not see?

You're making an error in assuming that current species, homo sapiens in particular, were the goals of the evolutionary process all along, and then looking backward and remarking that it was so improbable that these particular mutations would happen randomly so as to result in the existence of homo sapiens. Trying to get to a planned goal through a random process *is* pretty unlikely--it's like planning to win the lottery. But if you realize that homo sapiens is only one of many possibilities, it's like realizing that someone will win the lottery--you can't predict a winner before the lottery, even though it becomes fait accompli the second after the drawing.

The evolution of h. sapiens from h. erectus was not the result of a single key mutation. It was the result of an accumulation of mutations that made h. sapiens sufficiently different from h. erectus to be called a different species.

[eartrumpet]

“The evolution of h. sapiens from h. erectus was not the result of a single key mutation. It was the result of an accumulation of mutations that made h. sapiens sufficiently different from h. erectus to be called a different species. “

There must have been great numbers of transitional skeletons left along that journey. Where could I view some?

[exDemMom]

I have spent far too much time working in a university with scientists to buy this shamanistic crap. If he is a charlatan you have to be able to explain why.

It is not "shamanistic crap" to be able to say that I can quickly recognize whether someone is an expert in my field or whether they're trying to pass a bunch of nonsense. I *did* explain why Behe is a charlatan: while he is trying to pass himself off as an expert in evolution, his publishing and academic history indicates that he actively avoids the subject, and avoids any line of research even remotely related to it. That makes him NOT an expert. It also makes him not a very well-rounded scientist.

Behe makes a very specific claim concerning evolutionary science: There is almost nothing in the field on the specific evolutionary path of just about every complex biochemical system. You talk about evolution working on the scale of individual DNA blocks but when you talk about the evolutionary path you pull out to the 10,000 foot level. There is a whole in the middle.

As I pointed out above, in his professional career, Behe actively avoids any area of research that even touches on the subject of evolution. That means he is incredibly limited as a scientist; it also means he does not have very detailed knowledge of actual evolutionary processes. He can make any claim he wants about evolution, but he simply is not credible.

When I talk about evolution at the level of DNA, that's because that is the level at which evolution occurs. Everything that happens at the level of the organism, happens because it was encoded in the DNA first. Every genetic engineering project I've done involves altering the DNA, even though the end product is an altered protein.

How did the various protein mechanisms in the cell evolve? Your fish paper makes the point for Behe. I see nothing in it explaining how fish A turned into fish B biochemically.

The proteins evolved because the DNA mutated. I did not link that paper to show the process of the fish developing that particular trait; I linked it to show the level of mathematical/statistical analysis that goes into the evaluation of even a small fragment of evolutionary research.

It is not the purpose of most scientific papers to give the "big picture" of the topic they are addressing: most scientific papers only provide enough background to place that particular bit of research into context for those who are already familiar with the topic. If you want to know how the fish developed that one particular trait (not how "fish A became fish B"), you will have to pull up and read all of the references in that paper--and then the references contained in those references--and so forth, so that maybe in a few months, you'll have a good understanding of the actual DNA changes that led to the expression of that single trait.

"He is the perfect example of a scientist who clings to dogmatic belief despite all evidence, and ends up not accomplishing much as a result."

Please explain. Elaborate on his dogmatic belief that you can't explain how the protein mechanisms in the cell evolve.

The dogmatic belief that I was refering to is Behe's belief that the book of Genesis is a literal account of how the earth and all life came into existence, presumably 6,000 years ago. That dogmatic belief has greatly hampered his scientific career. His assertion that the evolution of protein mechanisms in the cell defies explanation is a direct consequence of his avoidance of any scientific topic that touches on evolution--by avoiding molecular biology, he doesn't have even a basic understanding of how changes in DNA result in changes to the organism. I'm rather amazed that he managed to earn a PhD while avoiding that subject...

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

They've found proteins in some of the trex remains and those proteins are all but identical to those found in chickens,

You say "all but identical," the Times report says "Three of the seven reconstructed protein sequences were closely related to chickens....Two others appeared possibly elated to living creatures, a frog and a newt."

Is that you, Brian?

[exDemMom]

I will explain this like you were a 3 year old. Turn off all the bullcrap you learned in university for one minute. And listen to me. You are not the only person who has studied math and science around here. You are not special. The fact that the evolutionists identify specific species both extinct and living disproves the theory of evolution. THe theory is self destroying. What I am saying is that evolution thru natural selection should be a smooth linear process and identifying specific species through genetics should be theoretically impossible. The genetic code for a species should be unidentifiable say to the family level as all species are in continual evolution, right? And no I don't think the earth is 5,000 years old so don't go their. Your mind has been closed by your "education".

Sorry, but majoring in math or statistics does not qualify anyone as an expert in any life science. Therefore, claiming that such a background makes one as qualified to speak about such a topic as someone who studied life sciences exclusively for several years is unjustified.

Do you have any idea of the natural spontaneous mutation rate of DNA? Any idea of how often the repair enzymes fail to correctly repair those spontaneous mutations? How does the incorrect repair rate compare between humans, bacteria, yeast, viruses, etc.? Are those topics even mentioned in statistics courses? How many times have you downloaded the DNA sequence for a specific protein and compared it across dozens of species to generate a phylogenetic tree that tells you about the evolutionary relationships between the different species? Is that a function of the SPSS software used by many statisticians? You don't specify exactly how the fact that evidence of both extinct and living species negates the theory of evolution, nor explained how the theory is "self-destroying". Nor did you specify why I shouldn't expect to be able to identify a species through genetic sequences. If you're going to make such assertions, you need to back them up with some sort of logical/factual explanations.

[hopespringseternal]

I *did* explain why Behe is a charlatan: while he is trying to pass himself off as an expert in evolution, his publishing and academic history indicates that he actively avoids the subject, and avoids any line of research even remotely related to it.

So unless Behe promotes evolution, he is a charlatan? Nice little circular argument you have there. You still have not gone into any detail as to why his argument is illegitimate. That anything he published did not cross the borders of your narrow little world has no bearing on the validity of his argument. Publishing arrangements do not count.

When I talk about evolution at the level of DNA, that's because that is the level at which evolution occurs. Everything that happens at the level of the organism, happens because it was encoded in the DNA first. Every genetic engineering project I've done involves altering the DNA, even though the end product is an altered protein.

But you haven't been able to explain how those systems of proteins evolved.

If you want to know how the fish developed that one particular trait (not how "fish A became fish B"), you will have to pull up and read all of the references in that paper--and then the references contained in those references--and so forth, so that maybe in a few months, you'll have a good understanding of the actual DNA changes that led to the expression of that single trait.

More handwaving. Behe's charge has been out there for years. If you could refute it then you wouldn't need to resort to veiled references and insinuate the problem is just too complicated to explain to the rest of us rubes or try to use Behe's financial arrangement with his publisher to discredit him. Since you brought up his name, you should at least have some clue what the man's argument is.

It is clear that you are simply thinking what you have been told to think with regards to Behe. All you really know is that he is one of "them", and so you are pulling out your multipurpose talking points to use against him.

[exDemMom]

Sorry, but that's dead wrong. ALL species appeared suddenly.

The sudden appearance of all species is based in religious belief, and is unsupported by scientific evidence.

[exDemMom]

So unless Behe promotes evolution, he is a charlatan? Nice little circular argument you have there. You still have not gone into any detail as to why his argument is illegitimate. That anything he published did not cross the borders of your narrow little world has no bearing on the validity of his argument. Publishing arrangements do not count.

Unless he uses actual scientific evidence to support his claims, he is a charlatan. I presume you are refering to the claim you mentioned earlier, "Behe makes a very specific claim concerning evolutionary science: There is almost nothing in the field on the specific evolutionary path of just about every complex biochemical system." That claim is so false that it hardly even merits mention. Choose a complex system, go to www.PubMed.org, search for evolution of that system: voilà, thousands of references pop up. When I discussed Behe's publishing history, that was his history publishing as a scientist, which is very limited. He may have 500 books published through some literal creationist publisher, but those are not scientific documents.

But you haven't been able to explain how those systems of proteins evolved.

As I have already pointed out, proteins evolve through DNA mutations. I believe I have also pointed out many types of DNA mutation that occur. If you want to know how a specific pathway evolved (which I'm going to assume is what you mean by "those systems of proteins"), then you need to specify which pathway. And once you've decided on a specific pathway whose evolution you'd like to understand more fully, you can start searching over at www.PubMed.org for the research articles detailing everything known so far about the evolution of that pathway.

More handwaving. Behe's charge has been out there for years. If you could refute it then you wouldn't need to resort to veiled references and insinuate the problem is just too complicated to explain to the rest of us rubes or try to use Behe's financial arrangement with his publisher to discredit him. Since you brought up his name, you should at least have some clue what the man's argument is.

Well, no offense, but it *is* complicated. You're basically challenging me to put several PhD dissertations' worth of material into a single forum post, and it can't be done. Again, no offense, but I am sorry that you do not have the scientific background to understand that I already did refute Behe's "charge" at least twice, and again above.

It is clear that you are simply thinking what you have been told to think with regards to Behe. All you really know is that he is one of "them", and so you are pulling out your multipurpose talking points to use against him.

Told by whom, exactly? I am not familiar with most of the charlatans who sell literal creationism; he happens to be one I *am* familiar with, and so I mentioned him, along with the others I have heard of. Oh, and where did my supposed "talking points" come from, anyway?