Replies

"So I simply challenged you to live up to your statement that this was obvious and irrefutable, I have quoted from the 'opponents' of this view, and I have Googled for most of the information on opposing views. (If I can find one biologist who disagrees with you, you are wrong, I found them and you question my honesty. Interesting, not attractive, but interesting.)"

The only quotation from biologists I see was from Dawkins and William Provine. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1684487/posts?page=298#298

How is that if you find 'one biologist' I am wrong? You also seem to challenge that most scientists accept evolution. The '97 Gallup survey concluded that approximately 95% of scientists in the U.S. (where the controversy is centered) accept evolution and in '87, it was concluded that about 99.84516~ % of scientists in the related life science and earth science fields accept evolution. There is no controversy in the scientific realm. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm)

"It is interesting to note that quoting from a source that you referred me to by saying I was using their methodology was reviled as basically 'Bad form' I posted opposing views and was almost immediately attacked with questions about my intelligence, and honesty. I have never found a subject which creates groups so willing to impute base motives to the opposition as this fight seem to engender on both sides."

I questioned your honesty because you posted clearly false information. As for your intelligence, this is due to the idea that I cannot understand how a person cannot look at the evidence and not support common descent.

"Most is not all, under pressure, you retreat from your stated position."

No. I made an error and I admit it. Most estimates put it around circa 12 MYA but the length remains in debate.

"Strange, neither you (I assume) nor I (I admit) have actually studied the rocks in question. Since neither of us has direct evidence, we are both going off of what we read."

Non-sequitur. You did not respond to the evidence in question and instead proposed a red herring. By your logic, when scientists go out to do research, when they cite a paper in support of their research, they should entirely re-do the research to verify that, and in turn, re-do the research cited by the supporting paper, and...

"Then in the same post you use that tactic your self to try to silence criticism."

How?

"Having a knowledge of Hybridization, I have looked over your articles about the plants and concluded they would be easy to fabricate, and or simply be mistaken about. Since the 'Science' of evolution is replete with fakes, and falsified evidence (Piltdown man, peppered moths, embryo drawings, etc) I hope you will understand my skepticism when presented with something I consider too pat and yet easy to fake."

Red herring. You've moved onto speculation. Also, concerning Piltdown, while indeed a hoax, I wonder why do you seem to present it as if the fraud itself defeats evolution? If anything, the exposure of Piltdown was a vindication of human evolution as Piltdown completely threw off research in human evolution for a while as biologists were incapable of deriving a phylogenetic tree from Piltdown.

The moth experiments weren't fakes. What are you talking about? Are you referring to the photographs?

Haeckel was discredited, although, amusingly enough, it remains factual that vertebrate embryos are similar.

"So, which is it are you a scientist, or a philosopher, degrees in both? How do you know fossils exist? They could be a figment of your imagination, or I could, or Free Republic, computers… Hey, where’d every thing go…

Descartes walks into a bar, the bartender asks hey buddy, want a beer, Descartes responds I think not (poof!)… Nothing follows /Humor...

I understand you philosophy, I once would have agreed with it, once. If you won’t admit that you exist, well, there is no point in talking to someone who does not exist, and in absence of an opposing view, I guess I have to conclude that I (being the only remaining voice) am correct. Dang, I was just asking questions, and now I am having a pointless discussion with myself. (Again /Humor)"

I'm not arguing that. I'm just pointing out that you're using the solipsistic argument incorrectly. I'm no solipsist; just pointing out the argument is only applicable to the self, not others.

Science does not hold that any discovery it makes, any research conducted, et cetra is infalliable. In that, it's correct. If it was completely correct, then it is not subject to change. However, science doesn't do that do allow for self-correction and change.

"ID never said it did."

That's precisely the problem. New theories must encompass previous theories to explain why predictions made by previous theories were accurate. That ID doesn't do that is one of the criteria it fails in being a scientific theory.

"The point is saying 'this is science, so you must agree' falls apart when closely followed by 'but we have to keep our options open, because we’ve been wrong a lot.' (It’s just not a good argument, don’t use it.) BTW you get that I’m laughing a lot while writing this, right? (One of my friends pointed out that if he didn’t know me he wouldn’t get half of my jokes here, I should use more humor tags…)"

You misunderstand. This relates directly to encompassing a theory. I completely agree that the theory is arguable and debatable and should be debated. But, what I find that I cannot understand is how people can deny evolution all together. Quantum mechanics and relativity did not deny Newtonian physics all together. That so much evidence exists for evolution in the sense of common descent (the mechanisms are debatable) is precisely what biologists agree with. Common descent is accepted, the way it happened is arguable.

"This is a common statement made by evolutionists that gives opponents a toe hold, don’t use it. To a non evolutionist, it sounds like “I can’t prove it because my proof didn’t fossilize like everything else, and give me more time, I can find my homework. All rolled into one excuse."

No, it isn't an excuse. This is precisely what to expect from the fossil record. Of course fossilization is necessarily a rare event and we should not expect complete species to species transitions. However, sometimes we do find particularly impressive preservations, such as reptile-bird transitions or cetacean transitions.

"There is a tree that was found diagonally crossing several million years worth of strata."

Since when are polystrate fossils problems with geology? Geologists understand that the rate of sedimentation is not constant and rapid sedimentation occurs. This is a fallacious argument. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html)

"There is fossil with a human foot print super imposed on a dinosaur foot print"

Paluxy? The so-called human footprints turned out be either dinosaur footprints or the effects of geology. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html)

"there just isn’t enough time for all the mutations necessary to happen in the time they would have to (Precambrian to Cambrian since that has been brought up here)."

Wrong. You amischaracterize evolution. Evolution is not a brute-force random search where random keys are entered until *one* gets it. No. Variation is introduced by mutations, genetic drift, gene flow, recombination, duplication, et cetra and selection then converges upon those traits.

"I know, I know, they did so there was, and the fittest are what survive because they are more fit and you know this because they survived…"

Strawman. Survival of the fittest was a term invented by *Herbet Spencer* and isn't a biological term.

"Genetic Mutation is random, and you get way more bad mutations. The more you deny it the more stupid you look."

Wrong. Most mutations are neutral. Every time your DNA replicates, you have an average of 4 mutations occuring. Some are corrected, others are not. Do you actually think that all those mutations are harmful?

"Um, ID posited that the so-called Junk DNA would have a purpose, and now we are discovering that some of it is used after all. (Some Non-Coding DNA is used by the Coding DNA kind of like a DLL is used by multiple programs as I understand it.) You assume that Non-Coding DNA proves Evolution, IDers assume that we just don’t know what everything is for yet. On this I would have to side with them since they have a chance of being proven right, while if you insist it’s junk you will not be looking, and therefore are less likely to learn anything at all about it"

The evidence suggest against that:

"At a recent debate with me Dr. Gish cited a review in Science entitled "Mining treasures from 'junk' DNA" (263:608, 1994), seeming to imply that this review suggests functions for pseudogenes and retroposons that would be consistent with the creationist view that they were designed to function similarly in similar species. In fact, this review discusses evidence for possible functions of centromeric and telomeric repetitive sequences, minisatellites, introns and 3' untranslated regions. It mentions pseudogenes and retroposons but makes no suggestion that these particular elements have function, so this review offers no argument against the points made in this essay. Nevertheless, since there have been other speculations about possible functions for DNA outside gene coding sequences, it is worth considering why scientists generally accept the notion that most of this DNA is junk.

First, we know several mechanisms by which DNA length can be increased through genetic accidents such as DNA duplications and insertion of retroposons, which have been observed in the lab or occurring in humans without apparent effects; so it is reasonable to suppose that these mechanisms operated in the past to increase genome size without affecting function. There appears to be little or no selective pressure to reduce the size of vertebrate nuclear genomes; and there is no apparent mechanism to selectively eliminate useless DNA. Large deletions that eliminate functional DNA are selected against. These observations would predict the accumulation of useless DNA as the result of random genetic accidents, so when we see DNA that seems non-functional, we shouldn't necessarily assume that it has function that we don't understand.

Second, when DNA sequence is compared between species like human versus mouse, sequences that are known to have function -- coding sequences of genes in particular -- are found to be highly similar, consistent with selective pressure that weeds out individuals that have deleterious mutations in these functional regions. Conversely, DNA regions with no known function -- e.g. non-coding sequences between genes -- generally behave as if they are under no selective pressure, that is they apparently accumulate mutations at a much higher rate so there is little sequence conservation between distantly related species. As an exception that probes the rule, comparisons of non-coding sequence across species occasionally detect "islands" of short conserved sequence in non-coding regions. Some of these have turned out to correspond to regulatory regions like promoter or enhancer elements that control when a nearby gene is expressed. An example of such an "island" conserved between rabbit, mouse and human was discovered in my own lab [Emorine et al., Nature 304:447, 1983]; it turned out to represent an important enhancer. These kinds of regulatory regions generally take up much less DNA than the coding sequences of the genes they regulate, so they cannot represent a likely function for most non-coding DNA. The good correlation between function and sequence conservation lends support to the idea that most poorly conserved sequences do not have function. However, it should be noted that for most of the "islands" of conserved sequence in DNA between genes (Shabalina et al., Trends Genet 17:373, 2001), no function has yet been discovered. Some may include RNA species that function without being translated into protein.

A third but related argument derives from the observation that the insertion of a retroposon into a functional sequence is a potent way to destroy that function. Examples of naturally occurring insertions were discussed in section 5.2 above; and intentional retroposon insertion is being widely used as a laboratory tool to create panels of mouse, drosophila or yeast strains with different gene functions destroyed. However, most examples of retroposon insertions between genes do not have any apparent affect on individuals harboring them; for example the Alu sequences that are polymorphic in human DNA appear to be harmless when present. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that these insertions did not interrupt any functional sequence. (Of course it is impossible to rule out the formal possibility that some hypothetical functional sequences outside genes can still function despite the presence of a retroposon insertion.)

Finally, several examples are known of pairs of species that have similar apparent complexity but widely different genome size (C-value paradox). The pufferfish Fugu has about one fourth the genome size of other fish species but about the same number of genes. The main difference is a smaller amount of DNA between genes in Fugu DNA (e.g. see Elgar et al. Genome Res 9:960, 1999). Although questions remain about the interpretation of this difference, it would seem that much of the DNA between genes in most fish genomes (and probably in ours also) is dispensable. (Conversely, the small regions of non-coding sequence that are conserved between Fugu and Homo frequently correspond to functional regulatory sequences.)

It is impossible to prove absence of function for any region of DNA. Moreover, it is likely that some function may be found for a few additional short regions of non-coding DNA that are not currently recognized to have function. Nevertheless, as indicated above, scientists draw tentative conclusions based on data currently at hand rather than on hypothetical possibilities of future data; and the arguments I just presented based on presently available evidence suggest that most DNA sequences that appear to be functionless are just that."

(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/)

For example, biologists were capable of removing millions of nucleotide base pairs from mice. No effect was observed. Junk DNA is indeed more or less junk.

"No, the Piltdown man… See my earlier list, Evolution has proponents who have been proven to be willing to “Manufacture evidence” to “Prove evolution is right” unfortunately, that has raised the bar on the honest scientist who would never do such a thing."

See above.

"I have never said that I am a creationist; you have also accused me of being an IDer earlier, if you must know, I am a theist in that I believe in God, I believe that he created the heavens and earth, but did not tell us exactly how. I believe God could have set everything up, and touched off the big bang so that we evolved, or dipped his hand in periodically ID, or done it all (including fossils) in six days. I really do not have a dog in this hunt because my faith is not at risk."

Why did you mention polystrate fossils or Paluxy tracks?

"God has reasons; he just didn’t tell you (or me) why he does what he does, must he?"

That's why creationism/ID is unscientific - the Designer is not falsifiable. You are speculating but you cannot offer hard evidence indictating the Designer's intentions. *Anything* fits into a Creationism/ID framework - all can be explained away as "God's mysteries" etc.

"Code reuse?"

Speculation and how what would a chromosomal fusion accomplish? What would be the point?

"To say other wise is to be intellectually dishonest."

It was a term invented by Herbert Spencer, a *philosopher.* It is not a scientific statment. Your strawman remains a strawman.

"Gibbs Free energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy So that’s the amount of energy available to do work, what does that have to do with constructively doing that work? Just because energy is available, and could be used to organize does not mean it will, there is lots of free energy in a tidal wave, I have yet to see an instance of one doing something constructive."

The information content of Gibbs free energy is the important thing. John Avery devoted a book to the topic. (Gibbs Free energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy So that’s the amount of energy available to do work, what does that have to do with constructively doing that work? Just because energy is available, and could be used to organize does not mean it will, there is lots of free energy in a tidal wave, I have yet to see an instance of one doing something constructive.)

Also, you seem to be mentioning how energy will not organize itself. You are incorrect. Snowflakes form spontaneously, tektites form, and other such things occur where energy is spontaneously organized.

"hey, it’s an analogy"

A wrong analogy. That it is not living makes all the difference.

"There are lots of models, but, they are not random"

Which is another reason why it is a wrong analogy. It is not subject to evolutionary pressures.

"Survival of the fittest"

That's not the definition of selection. Selection requires that organisms survive and reproduce to pass on heritable characters.

"See above for common association"

See above. It still remains the bicycles are not subject to selection.

"sn’t this c?"

They're related but distinct. Selection is the actual process whereas selection pressures are the forces that proliferate it.

"Heat alone will not perform the action we desire."

And yet, heat alone causes the complex wind currents. You were saying?