Christian medical students want anti-evolution lectures

Aftenposten (Norway News) ^ | 19 Nov 2003 | Jonathan Tisdall

[yonif]

Medical student John David Johannessen and the leader of the Christian Medical Students Circle have petitioned the medical faculty at the University of Oslo for lectures "that not only argue the cause for evolution, but also the evidence against", student newspaper Universitas reports.

"The theory of evolution doesn't stand up and does not present enough convincing facts. It is one theory among many, but in education it is discussed as if it is accepted by everyone," Johannessen said.

Johannessen is a believer in creationism, based on the biblical account.

"Of course one has to know the theory of evolution, it is after all part of the curriculum. But certain lecturers demand that one believe it as well. Then it becomes a question of faith and not subject," Johannessen said.

Johannessen told the newspaper that he and his fellows are often compared to American extremists. Besides not being taken seriously or being able to debate the topic relevantly, Johannessen said that 'evolutionists' practically harass those who do not agree with them.

Dean Per Brodal said it was regrettable if any university staff were disparaging to creationists, but that there was no reason to complain about a lack of relevant evidence. Brodal also felt that evolution had a rather minor spot in medical education.

Biology professor Nils Christian Stenseth argued that instead of indulging an 'off-topic' debate the medical faculty should offer a course in fundamental evolutionary biology, saying that nothing in biology could be understood out of an evolutionary context.

The Christian Medical Students Circle want three basic points to be included in the curriculum:

1 According to the theory of evolution a mutation must be immediately beneficial to survive through selection. But many phenomena explained by evolution (for example the eye) involve so many, small immediately detrimental mutations that only give a long-term beneficial effect.

2 There is no fossil evidence to indicate transitional forms between, for example, fish and land animals or apes and humans.

3 Evolution assumes too many extremely improbably events occurring over too short a span of time.

[Junior]

The pig is not a viable source of transplanted organs. The only pig part used in humans so far has been a heart valve, and even then lots of drugs are required to keep it going.

[DoctorMichael]

Hopefully, they'll stay in Norway.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Actually I believe a creationist is one that believes life/the universe was created rather than always existed or evolved into existence - this group does contain Biblical literalists but clearly there are more non-Christian creationists than Christian creationists because there are more people of faith that are not Christian than are Christian. Sounds like you have taken the beliefs of one group of creationists and forced it on all people that believe in a creation.

I should have said I liked your response. Part of the problem is that it's difficult to get creationists to explain exactly what they think. From the threads here on FR it seems like there are more brands of creationism than there are biologists' definitions for species.

I should point out that evolutionists don't think the universe evolved from nothing, evolutionary biology is only about organisms on this planet. The big picture still belongs to the cosmologists.

[VadeRetro]

I would also like to point out something on my interpretation of Gould's quote on punctuated equilibrium. The quote shows a major change in the theory over classical Darwinism ...

I gave you a link that rebutted this already. It makes Last Risible Dog unhappy every time I notice it, but a dialog in which one party totally ignores the other is not an intelligent one. I'll go over it again. This time I'll blast the whole long relevant section in-line, since apparently creationists can't click on links.

Contrary to the claims of E&G, Charles Darwin was not a phyletic gradualist. The first tenet of phyletic gradualism (PG) is common to any and all theories of speciation, and it is not unique to PG. The following two quotes show that phyletic gradualism has been wrongly attributed to Darwin, since he did not hold the last three tenets of PG:

"... natural selection will generally act very slowly, only at long intervals of time, and only on a few of the inhabitants of the same region. I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed." (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 140-141)

But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification. (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 152)

"It is a more important consideration ... that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change." (Darwin, Ch. 10, "On the imperfection of the geological record," p. 428)

Darwin did not believe speciation to be even (tenet 2 of PG), since he describes natural selection as "intermittent," "irregular," and since he emphasizes that the evolutionary history of a species is characterized by stasis punctuated by change. Evolution does not "[go] on continuously," since each species remains for long periods unaltered." Neither did he think that speciation involves the entire population (tenet 3 of PG) over a large geographic range (tenet 4 of PG), as he says "only on a few of the inhabitants of the same region." These are not isolated or exceptional quotes from Darwin; they are characteristic of his views on evolution (see the additional quotes given below). Thus, Darwin is not the originator of PG. In fact, as I will further prove below, Darwin's views were in direct opposition to PG, as he did not believe the last two consequences of phyletic gradualism listed by Eldredge and Gould.

Darwin did not believe that the fossil record "should consist of a long sequence of continuous, insensibly graded intermediate forms linking ancestor and descendant," as E&G falsely claim in "Consequence 1" of PG. Close after the above quote, Darwin wrote emphatically and with notable frustration:

It has been asserted over and over again, by writers who believe in the immutability of species, that geology yields no linking forms. This assertion, as we shall see in the next chapter, is certainly erroneous. As Sir J. Lubbock has remarked, "Every species is a link between other allied forms." If we take a genus having a score of species, recent and extinct, and destroy fourfifths of them, no one doubts that the remainder will stand much more distinct from each other. If the extreme forms in the genus happen to have been thus destroyed, the genus itself will stand more distinct from other allied genera. What geological research has not revealed, is the former existence of infinitely numerous gradations, as fine as existing varieties, connecting together nearly all existing and extinct species. But this ought not to be expected; yet this has been repeatedly advanced as a most serious objection against my views. (Darwin, Ch. 10, "On the imperfection of the geological record," p. 428)

... we have no right to expect to find, in our geological formations, an infinite number of those fine transitional forms, which, on our theory, have connected all the past and present species of the same group into one long and branching chain of life. We ought only to look for a few links, and such assuredly we do find--some more distantly, some more closely, related to each other; and these links, let them be ever so close, if found in different stages of the same formation, would, by many palaeontologists, be ranked as distinct species.

In fact, over 100 years later, E&G are still repeating this objection to Darwin's views, even though Darwin strongly argued that we should not find "infinitely numerous gradations" in the geological record. Additionally, Darwin did not think that "Morphological breaks in a postulated phyletic sequence are due to imperfections in the geological record" only (E&G's "Consequence 2" of PG). Darwin gave one example of what we should expect in the fossil record with a thought experiment about how biota of the Malay Archipelago would fossilize. Half of what Darwin wrote concerned the imperfect geological record; the other half concerns probable evolutionary population dynamics:

It is also probable that each great period of subsidence would be interrupted by oscillations of level, and that slight climatical changes would intervene during such lengthy periods; and in these cases the inhabitants of the archipelago would migrate, and no closely consecutive record of their modifications could be preserved in any one formation.

Very many of the marine inhabitants of the archipelago now range thousands of miles beyond its confines; and analogy plainly leads to the belief that it would be chiefly these far-ranging species, though only some of them, which would oftenest produce new varieties; and the varieties would at first be local or confined to one place, but if possessed of any decided advantage, or when further modified and improved, they would slowly spread and supplant their parent-forms. When such varieties returned to their ancient homes, as they would differ from their former state in a nearly uniform, though perhaps extremely slight degree, and as they would be found embedded in slightly different sub-stages of the same formation, they would, according to the principles followed by many palaeontologists, be ranked as new and distinct species.

From Something You Skipped.

Bonus Prize: My Personal Punk-Eek Example from last year. Note that this is a Darwinian, non-shazam scenario. I don't care how dumb you can be about this, my version is what real science is saying and yours is the Duane Gish parody. ("Even if a dinosaur did give birth to a bird, where was there another little bird for it to mate with?")

[VadeRetro]

For that matter, you didn't read the other link either, did you?

Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species.
The Origin of Species, Chapter 14, p.439

[montag813]

Why would anyone question "evolution"? It is by a preponderance of evidence a fact, not a theory. However it is not incompatible with creation of nature by God. I believe in God's creation and dominion and also in the science which appears to prove the evolution of species. I don't see why evolution-defenders have to attack religion, nor why evolution-deniers have to attack science.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The only pig part used in humans so far has been a heart valve, and even then lots of drugs are required to keep it going.

My dad got a cow valve. Apparently leather wears better. ;)

[Junior]

And is a lot more stylish. Note, Jews, Moslems and Seventh Day Adventists wouldn't consider spare parts from pigs for obvious reasons...

[bluejay]

The pig is not a viable source of transplanted organs. The only pig part used in humans so far has been a heart valve, and even then lots of drugs are required to keep it going.

In my post 251, I provided a link to an article that talks about the serious consideration researchers are giving to using pig as a heart donor.

Every organ transplant (including organ transplants from human donors) requires huge amount of medications. I do not know the details of all of these, but most of the medications are used to suppress the immune system. Keep in mind, that every individual has an immune system that is different from every other individual of the same species. Even identical twins would have immune system with different markers (immune markers are randomly generate at some point during development - i.e., after fertilization). Even transplants from siblings (e.g., kidneys) require a large amount of medications.

[Abe Froman]

If you will go ahead and condense into a nutshell what you think they are saying (you don't like it when I interpret them) I will respond to it with the various scenarios and why they are wrong.

[VadeRetro]

You don't interpret them, you ignore them. This is not scoring you any points at all. Punctuated Equilibrium is a Darwinian scenario and involves no saltational mechanisms.

[VadeRetro]

For people who are actually trying to learn something: Tempo and Mode of Speciation.

[Abe Froman]

Then my objections to lack of transitional forms and my comments about Gould were largely correct, except for the fact that he asserts micro-changes at the puncuations, not macro. The lack still exists. One should still be able to throw out periods of equilibrium and still arrive at the "innumerable intermediate forms" conclusion.

[Last Visible Dog]

My point is, you defined the term and I debated using that definition. "Mr. Pedant," pah!. I feel like I'm talking to "Mr. Obtuse."

And as I proved earlier, so did it. I did not redefine the word. Once again, what is your point?

[VadeRetro]

Then my objections to lack of transitional forms and my comments about Gould were largely correct ...

Perhaps--for hyper-liberal interpretations of "largely." I've heard that 1 + 1 = 3 for very large values of 1. Virtually nothing you've said is right. If it were a test you'd probably have spelled your name wrong at the top.

The lack still exists.

I linked the following before, we both know you didn't read it and it's the answer so I'll blast it inline. Never mind that it was originally addressed to someone named "Darwin_is_passe."

Just a few posts, and we've already gone far enough to see how dumb your little dumbshow is. You issued a challenge for the production of transitional fossil evidence from the fossil record. This challenge is meant to fool the naive lurker into believing that something to be reasonably expected in that record is actually missing. In fact the fossil record is full of extinct life forms which outline branching progressions from the long ago few and simple to the extant many and varied.

...

Even before Darwin and Russell published, enough evidence had accumulated to make many people suspect that some kind of evolution had occurred. Darwin and Russell compiled, clarified, and added more evidence to the pile, but their real contribution was in clarifying the mechanisms. They gave the first rough outlines of "why" and "how."

Now, almost all of the data you have been reviewing were unknown in Darwin's day. For all the evidence that they did have, there were a lot of holes. Darwin et al. fearlessly predicted based upon the already-outlined tree of life that certain kinds of "intermediates" would be found. Precambrian life of any sort, legged whales, legged sirenians, ape-human intermediates, etc. Other intermediates, amphibian-bird mixes for instance, violate the presumed evolutionary scenario and are not predicted.

This prediction is a certain kind of inference. Creationists who believed that God on certain days created certain "kinds" scoffed then and denied that such an inference from the then-available data was valid at all. They began to mockingly ask for "the missing link," which is exactly how you, who bill yourself as a scientist, opened the discussion.

The history since then has filled in gap after gap in the areas where evolution says the intermediates have to have existed. The people who will not make certain inferences because God will burn them in Hell for so doing still will not make them. Nevertheless, the ground under their feet has shrunk to nothing compared to the situation in 1859.

That of course was from the last sub-link in this sequence, the rest of which is a sampling of things that don't exist.

[Last Visible Dog]

I should point out that evolutionists don't think the universe evolved from nothing, evolutionary biology is only about organisms on this planet. The big picture still belongs to the cosmologists.

Sounds good. The issue I have is I see evolutionists arguing cosmology with creationists and then retreating to biological evolution when their positions become unsupportable.

My major question about evolution is "how did it all start". My background is the philosophical side of the debate. I can not understand how evolutionists can be so cocksure of their theory when it rest upon the foundation of "Jeepers, I don't know"

My position on the subject is not fully solidified but if I had to sum it up I would do it this way: Evolution as a concept can not be denied but from a cosmological perspective, there are more questions than answer related to evolution and there seems to still be giant holes in man's knowledge of this subject - maybe it is God, maybe it is not. Evolution is a piece or many pieces of the puzzle but evolution is not the entire puzzle.

[Last Visible Dog]

And is a lot more stylish. Note, Jews, Moslems and Seventh Day Adventists wouldn't consider spare parts from pigs for obvious reasons...

As long as they did not eat the spare parts, they would be ok.

[Last Visible Dog]

Perhaps--for hyper-liberal interpretations of "largely." I've heard that 1 + 1 = 3 for very large values of 1. Virtually nothing you've said is right. If it were a test you'd probably have spelled your name wrong at the top.

VadeRetro, if insults and empty rhetoric (and claiming that you are laughing) won debates - you would be the big winner. They don't and you aren't.

[VadeRetro]

I'll make it harder to mischaracterize. The following critter is just some kind of funny dinosaur and in no way a transitional, right? After all, nothing is a transitional.

If it seems to have more feathers than scales, who cares? It's still "just a dinosaur" in the funny world of creationism secular skepticism of evolution.

Now, what do we notice about this skeleton?

It's almost the same. Teeth, tail, large hand bones. A very similar bipedal dromaeosaur.

One hitch. It's Archaeopteryx, supposedly "A bird! Just a bird!" in the creationist secular evolution skeptic mantras. (For some reason, debating secular evolution skeptics is absolutely positively indistinguishable in every way from debating creationists.)

Shouldn't any two dinosaurs at all be more related to each other than any two birds? Apparently not. The source for the first pic says,

The entire skeleton is preserved on two counter slabs, in a pose much like that of its close relative the oldest bird (Archaeopteryx lithographica) from the Jurassic of Germany.

A dinosaur has a bird for a "close relative?" OK, it doesn't look as much like a Triceratops as it does Archy there, but can that be right? "Close relative?"

Yes. Dromaeosaurid Archaeopteryx.

Archaeopteryx truly is a flying theropod that shows virtually no avian characters not observed in other theropods (the large, distal, fully reversed hallux may be the only exception). Contrary to reports otherwise, there is no evidence for avian skull kinetics, and the postorbital bar was probably complete. The palate and braincase are entirely theropodian in structure.

Archaeopteryx is not only a theropod, it is a dromaeosaur because it shares a number of detailed characters only with dromaeosaurs. Some other characters are found only in the two forms and some basal birds. Some of the Archaeopteryx-dromaeosaur characters are as follows...

What is happening here between birds and dinosaurs happens again and again in the fossil record as you go backwards.

Moving further up the taxonomic hierarchy, the condylarths and primitive carnivores (creodonts, miacids) are very similar to each other in morphology (Fig. 9, 10), and some taxa have had their assignments to these orders changed. The Miacids in turn are very similar to the earliest representatives of the Families Canidae (dogs) and Mustelidae (weasels), both of Superfamily Arctoidea, and the Family Viverridae (civets) of the Superfamily Aeluroidea. As Romer (1966) states in Vertebrate Paleontology (p. 232), "Were we living at the beginning of the Oligocene, we should probably consider all these small carnivores as members of a single family." This statement also illustrates the point that the erection of a higher taxon is done in retrospect, after sufficient divergence has occurred to give particular traits significance.

Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record.

As you go back and down in the sediments, things start getting more related to each other. That's called "common descent."