Replies

Forum sites are so interesting the amount of vitriol is truly outstanding.

To the person who asked why I have not responded: I have a practice to run, I’m typing between patients.

My first line was “For anyone who cares” I certainly realize that there are those that will not care or will not believe me. (This is a forum site – I could make up anything that I wanted.) The purpose for mentioning them is that there are many reading the forum that my not realize that there are scientists that do not believe in the Theory of Evolution. Of course my credentials do not make me an expert on the Theory of Evolution. Do yours? I offered my credentials, I have yet to hear anyone offer theirs. If you have to be a paleontologist or taxonomist in order to hold an opinion on the Theory of Evolution then what are we all doing here talking about this?

Someone criticized my “observation or experimentation” statement and compared it to historical research. There is a world of difference between proving that someone or something existed in history and proving something in science.

As a physician I deal with scientific studies all the time. (I’m a family and occupational physician for anyone who cares) Does drug X treat disease Y? Does chemical Z cause cancer? Does test W help us diagnose disease V with accuracy? The good studies take an observation or even an educated guess by a biochemical engineer and test it. It requires large numbers of subjects and a placebo controlled randomized methodology for the medical community to accept the investigators theory as fact. Even then errors occur. We thought that Vioxx was a safe drug. Now we know its not so safe. We thought that estrogen replacement therapy prevented heart disease. Better studies have taught us otherwise. My point is that even with modern techniques using the best methods available we have difficulty proving with a high degree of accuracy many many theories. So now I have people trying to convince me that you can take some fossils and extrapolate from them an explanation for the diversification of species and the origins of man?

In the realm of scientific proof (by the way I should not have used the word “law” in my original post, those who pointed that out are correct on that point – my apologies) (Damn it Jim I’m a doctor not a writer!!) or accepting a theory as fact with a high degree of confidence you need direct observation or experimentation. If I observe a caterpillar spin a cocoon and change into a butterfly, I can state with a high degree of confidence that a caterpillar can metamorphosize into a butterfly. I do not need to experiment unless I am testing theories on how that process occurs. If I had never seen that metamorphosis I could not prove that metamorphosis occurred by looking at the fossil of a caterpillar and the fossil of a butterfly. The Theory of Evolution is very weak because no direct observation is ever possible only conjecture. My other tool is experimentation. If someone could tell my how to take a single celled organism in the lab and turn it into a fruit fly I would love to hear it.

We could spend lots of time arguing over the fossil record or dating methods. We could line up all sorts of “experts” on both sides to use as cannon fodder. We could compare our lists of books with one another or attack one another’s credentials.(I fully expect that someone will call into question my intelligence and pick apart everything that I’ve written) I’m about typed out and I have patients waiting so I’m going to close out. If anyone is interested here are some books that I think are very thought provoking.

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Paperback)
by Michael J. Behe

Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing (Hardcover)
by John Wilson (Foreword), William A. Dembski (Editor)

"The purpose for mentioning them is that there are many reading the forum that my not realize that there are scientists that do not believe in the Theory of Evolution."

A tiny minority.

"Of course my credentials do not make me an expert on the Theory of Evolution. Do yours?"

Credentials don't mean anything; it's the strength of the argument.

"There is a world of difference between proving that someone or something existed in history and proving something in science. ..
In the realm of scientific proof..."

Science doesn't deal in proofs. It deals with evidence.

"or accepting a theory as fact with a high degree of confidence you need direct observation or experimentation."

What about indirect observation? How many people have seen an atom, directly?

"The Theory of Evolution is very weak because no direct observation is ever possible only conjecture."

See above about atoms.

"My other tool is experimentation. If someone could tell my how to take a single celled organism in the lab and turn it into a fruit fly I would love to hear it."

Why is it that people who attack evolution have no grasp of even the basics of the subject? Why would anybody think that the inability to change a single celled organism into a fly in the laboratory has ANYTHING to do with how evolution operates?

"We could spend lots of time arguing over the fossil record or dating methods. We could line up all sorts of “experts” on both sides to use as cannon fodder."

We could provide evidence, you, not so much.

"Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Paperback)
by Michael J. Behe "

Do you know that Behe accepts both the long age of the earth and common descent? As does Dembski and a number of leading ID proponents.

If someone could tell my how to take a single celled organism in the lab and turn it into a fruit fly I would love to hear it.

That would be intelligent design, not evolution.

Forum sites are so interesting the amount of vitriol is truly outstanding.

But is it really surprising given the frontal assault your ilk are waging on the integrity of the public school system?

I offered my credentials, I have yet to hear anyone offer theirs. If you have to be a paleontologist or taxonomist in order to hold an opinion on the Theory of Evolution then what are we all doing here talking about this?

You can't have it both ways: either you are an expert on evolution or you're not, and if you're not then your credentials are irrelevant. I have a Ph.D in an unrelated field (physics) too -- and it neither validates nor invalidates my points.

So now I have people trying to convince me that you can take some fossils and extrapolate from them an explanation for the diversification of species and the origins of man?

Yes. However, we don't just have fossils at our disposal, we also have primitive and derived morphologies in extant species, and genetic ties as well. One of the amazing things about the field is that you can make all kinds of hypotheses (concerning the morphology of "missing links" that are later found, about the genetic similarities between species, etc.) that are testable. You can tally the number of parallel random mutations in mtDNA, for example, and determine the date that two species diverged -- and what's remarkable is that that date is inevitably within the range of dates we get from fossil evidence -- so we get two different, complimentary sources of testable information.

This stuff is textbook scientific method. And I should remind you that you can't reproduce astronomical observations in the lab either -- do you consider astronomy to be a science?

We could spend lots of time arguing over the fossil record or dating methods.

Please, go ahead. Challenge whatever you'd like.

accepting a theory as fact with a high degree of confidence you need direct observation or experimentation.

Huh. When was the last time you directly observed an atom splitting? A continental drift? A stellar lifetime on the Hartzsprung-Russell diagram? How do you think astronomers or plate tectonic geologists do experimentation? Why don't you think the same rules apply to paleontologists and micro-biologists?

The purpose for mentioning them is that there are many reading the forum that my not realize that there are scientists that do not believe in the Theory of Evolution.j

There are scientists who read their horoscopes every morning, do you think that makes astrology a well-accepted modern science?

We could line up all sorts of “experts” on both sides to use as cannon fodder.

No, we couldn't. You could muster, at best, a handful, and their net credentials in evolutionary biology would amount to a fart in a hurricane.

We could compare our lists of books with one another or attack one another’s credentials.

You might want to have a look at "Finding Darwin's God" by an author of one of the most used College intro to bio texts, before touting "Darwin's Black Box" again.

(I fully expect that someone will call into question my intelligence and pick apart everything that I’ve written)

I think it's sufficient to point out that you vastly overrate the strength of the arguments you are touting.

If anyone is interested here are some books that I think are very thought provoking.

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Paperback) by Michael J. Behe
Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing (Hardcover) by John Wilson (Foreword), William A. Dembski (Editor)

For your education and amusement I post the following thought provoking data:

Fossil: KNM-WT 15000

Site: Nariokotome, West Turkana, Kenya (1)

Discovered By: K. Kimeu, 1984 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.6 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7, 10), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Male (based on pelvis, browridge) (1, 8, 9)

Cranial Capacity: 880 (909 as adult) cc (1)

Information: Most complete early hominid skeleton (80 bones and skull) (1, 8)

Interpretation: Hairless and dark pigmented body (based on environment, limb proportions) (7, 8, 9). Juvenile (9-12 based on 2nd molar eruption and unfused growth plates) (1, 3, 4, 7, 8). Juvenile (8 years old based on recent studies on tooth development) (27). Incapable of speech (based on narrowing of spinal canal in thoracic region) (1)

Nickname: Turkana Boy (1), Nariokotome Boy

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=38