Review of Godless -- (Centers on Evolution)

Powells Review a Day ^ | August 10, 2006 | Jerry Coyne

[Quark2005]

G-N are all human skulls and all within the range of modern human variability. (A) is a modern chimp, neither ancestral to humans or Australopithecus. B,C,D, & F are all Australopithecus apes, also not ancestral to humans. And E, like F, was in so bad of shape when found that it could have been reconstructed to be almost anything.

Glad you drew the line in the sand based on your own opinions. Interesting to see where you fall on the spectrum of other creationist opinions on the identity of transitional hominid skulls:

Creationist Classifications of Hominid Fossils

Specimen		Cuozzo (1998)	Gish (1985)	Mehlert (1996)	Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) Gish (1979)	Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995)	Taylor (1996) Lubenow (1992)
	ER 1813 (510 cc)	Ape	Ape	Ape	Ape	Ape	Ape
	Java (940 cc)	Ape	Ape	Human	Ape	Ape	Human
	Peking (915- 1225 cc)	Ape	Ape	Human	Ape	Human	Human
	ER 1470 (750 cc)	Ape	Ape	Ape	Human	Human	Human
	ER 3733 (850 cc)	Ape	Human	Human	Human	Human	Human
	WT 15000 (880 cc)	Ape	Human	Human	Human	Human	Human

Interesting that you are so adamant about which skulls are human and which are apes (particularly those in the F-H range), when 'renowned creationist experts' don't come to the same conclusions. It's almost as if - are you ready for this - it's not entirely clear as to where the apes end and the humans begin - like there's some sort of transitional fossils around!

DOUBLESPEAK Alert!!!

Come on now, no one's doublespeaking here. All I said was No one ever claimed that this was lineal series of transitionals, but the relation and progression through time is clear. Ever heard of cousins? Neanderthals, for example, were a 'cousin' species (and a clearly distinct species) of humans that happened to more closely resemble our apelike ancestors than we do - this ain't rocket science here, and no one's trying to 'doublespeak'. I'm trying to clarify.

BTW, Austalopithecus and Homo habilis are not the same species.

Also, it's not as if this photograph represents the entire depth of evidence of of the evolutionary link between apes and humans. There is a wealth of evidence coming from many fields of research. The paleontological evidence (the depth of which cannot be represented by a single photograph) is by itself damning evidence - but it goes far beyond that (but I think you already know that). I hate to say it, but O.J. is guilty, and we're related to apes.

Still waiting for a specific prediction, showing some idea of how and/or where a particular item, organism, or phenomenon will be found, according to 'creation science'. Here's another one relating to this topic (albeit older and more general than the other predictions I've listed, but still more specific than any creationist 'prediction'):

"Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000)."

Excerpts from the wonderfully informative website talkorigins.org, putting creationism in its rightful place as pseudoscience since 1996

[DannyTN]

It's no surprise that some of the older opinions from creationists had 1470 as human. After all the only information they had was pictures of it's first reconstruction that showed a flat face.

In light of the ear drum x-rays and new information, I bet there is not as much dissagreement.

[alarm rider]

Good point.

[Diamond]

You're misrepresenting the talkorigins write-up. The data in this case were fabricated to match the prediction.

I didn't even read the talkorigins write-up so how could I misrepresent it? I just knew that's what I would probably get. Are they the source of the outrageous and libelous allegation of fabricated data?

Cordially,

[Diamond]

I don't see the peer review. I don't see independent research verifying this.

I would like to see "peer reviewed" research attacking it, to see if it holds up.

What journal was this printed in?

It is linked in a footnote to the article I linked. http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf

Cordially,

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

I didn't even read the talkorigins write-up so how could I misrepresent it?

There's no doubt about that.

But you said:

Figure 2. Model-predicted (red and magenta diamonds) and measured (blue dots) helium leak rates of zircons. The data fit the 6,000-year prediction very well.

That is a "single Creationist prediction" that has been proven correct.

Before I get a knee-jerk reference to TalkOrigins, read one of the reseachers wrote about it himself.

This is a simple tautology. Talkorigins doesn't support this at all.

[Diamond]

Talkorigins doesn't support this at all.

Of course they don't. I don't even have to read it anymore to know that they would have to come up with some wild accusation that I suspected would be referred to in rebuttal to this data. If on the other hand, some 'peer reviewed' researchers can destroy this hypothesis, more power to them. That's what science should be.

Cordially,

[Stultis]

and its unearthly appearance, scrawny and pallid. (Wikipedia notes that "a white or pale flamingo ... is usually unhealthy or suffering from a lack of food.")

Analogy doesn't quite work. The flamingo gets it's color from the food it consumes. Since Anne reportedly (even, I believe, self-reportedly) subsist primarily on cigarettes and red wine, she should be Cabernet colored.

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

If on the other hand, some 'peer reviewed' researchers can destroy this hypothesis, more power to them.

Now if only the author would submit it to a journal.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Open paths have, up until recently been used to refute irreducible complexity (basically it indicates that individual parts of an organism evolve independently - each of which is generally useless - until they reach a point where the sum of the parts is useful. e.g. the flagellum).

Since, the logic behind open Darwinian paths is untenable (being neither falsifiable nor testable), irreducible complexity critics have recently generally conceded the Open Darwinian Paths argument is a dead-end and bring up closed Darwinian paths instead - where a useless appendage evolves, then sub appendages (which by themselves are useless) evolve within the appendage until the appendage gains functionality.

This is untestable (and probably unfalsifiable). The advantage, from the standpoint of Darwinists, is that this brings the whole thing into acceptable probability from a mathematical perspective. That is, if you only consider the probability of each part evolving separately rather than the probability of the whole evolving as a useful function. If the probability of the whole function itself is considered (rather than the individual parts making up the function), the probability of irreducible complexity being resolved in a non-designed fashion are somewhat less than the number of atoms in the universe.

So you'll have to excuse me if I get a big laugh when Darwinists shout down ID because it is "neither testable nor falsifiable" but have no problem accepting non falsifiable and non testable theses which support their position.

As far as Darwin falsifying his theory, let me quote you from his "Origin of Species:"

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Sounds to me like I have to take a lot on faith in his posit there.

[curiosity]

Wow, for a scientist, this guy sure has some whit:

"I wouldn't want Coulter to roast (there's not much meat there anyway), but I wish she'd shut up and learn something about evolution. Her case for ID involves the same stupid arguments that fundamentalists have made for a hundred years. They're about as convincing as the blonde hair that gets her so much attention. By their roots shall ye know them."

That had me rolling on the floor!

[js1138]

Open paths have, up until recently been used to refute irreducible complexity (basically it indicates that individual parts of an organism evolve independently - each of which is generally useless - until they reach a point where the sum of the parts is useful. e.g. the flagellum).

But, of course, the parts of a flagellum are independently useful, and a path can be found in which all steps are useful.

I find it interesting that the unnamed Designer would lavish so much love and attention on an object having the primary function of killing infants and children.

[tortoise]

The advantage, from the standpoint of Darwinists, is that this brings the whole thing into acceptable probability from a mathematical perspective. That is, if you only consider the probability of each part evolving separately rather than the probability of the whole evolving as a useful function.

This is true if and only if you presume a single arbitrary path. However, one can prove mathematically in the abstract that there are an astronomical number of fully functional development paths between any two points in the phase space such that the aggregate mathematical "improbability" of the transition is not particularly improbable at all. The probability of the transition occurring is very different than the probability of any particular transition occuring. The mathematics is correct, but your model is wrong -- you are not computing the improbability you think you are computing.

Probability theory has never been terribly intuitive. Most people are terrible at applying correctly.

[Stultis]

I don't find it funny myself. A conservative wielding arguments as pathetic, weak, and just plain stupid/ignorant as those Coulter puts forward against "Darwinism" -- as much so as any Michael Moore has ever used against Walmart or Halliburton -- is just sad.

[Stultis]

Sorry, but Humphreys' response to Henke just strikes me as pathetic. There's all sorts of evasion, will PRETENDING to answer the criticisms. Try searching for the word "vacuum" in the Humphreys article, for instance. It's not there! And this was one of the primary criticisms (using Helium diffusion measured in a vacuum to model diffusion in the high pressure environment of deep rocks). But it's only one of the many that Humprheys ignores, while dishonestly claiming to list and respond to them all.

Then there all manner of little nasties, like describing Henke as a "part time instructor" [FULL STOP] without noting that he holds a Ph.D. and is an active research scientist.

In all, very typical of "creation science". Thanks for the instructive example.

BTW, Henke's response to the Humphreys article you linked is here:

Young-Earth Creationist Helium Diffusion "Dates"
Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

[Stultis]

I didn't even read the talkorigins write-up

How convenient! You're a good little creationist. This is exactly the behavior Humphreys and ilk expect of you.

so how could I misrepresent it? I just knew that's what I would probably get.

So much easier to "just know" than to just read!

Are they the source of the outrageous and libelous allegation of fabricated data?

Yeah. That's instructive too. Only reading Humprheys would (and apparently did) lead you to believe that the charge (which, btw, wasn't that the data was fabricated, but that the samples were tainted) came directly and quite logically FROM THE CREATIONISTS OWN DATA (quoting Henke's original article):

Inadequate Biotite Separations from the 750-Meter Sample

Successful helium diffusion studies on biotites and zircons require mineral samples that are sufficiently pure. In Appendix C of Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 20), Dr. Kenneth A. Farley notes that the purity of the 750-meter zircon samples was good:

"We verified that the separate was of high purity and was indeed zircon."

In contrast, the following statements by Dr. Farley and Humphreys et al. {in braces} in Appendix B of Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 19) raise serious doubts about the acceptable purity of the 750-meter biotites:

"He diffusion in this [Fenton Hill core biotite] sample follows a rather strange pattern, with a noticeable curve at intermediate temperatures. I have no obvious explanation for this phenomenon. Because biotite BT-1B [Beartooth Gneiss, Wyoming, USA] did not show this curve, I doubt it is vacuum breakdown. I ran more steps, with a drop in temperature after the 500°C step, to see if the phenomenon is reversible. It appears to be, i.e., the curve appears again after the highest T step, but the two steps (12, 13) that define this curve had very low gas yield and high uncertainties. It is possible that we are dealing with more than one He source (multiple grain sizes or multiple minerals?). {We [Humphreys et al.] think it is likely there were some very small helium-bearing zircons still embedded in the biotite flakes, which would be one source. The other source would be the helium diffused out of larger zircons no longer attached to the flakes.}"

According to Humphreys et al. (2004), Jakov Kapusta of Activation Laboratories, Ltd., extracted the biotites and zircons from both the 750-meter (p. 4-5) and 1490-meter (p. 5) samples. However, Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 6, 17) give a different account and claim that ICR personnel were responsible for extracting the biotites from the 750-meter specimen. Considering the ICR's poor record at separating specific minerals from rocks, it's not surprising that Farley and Humphreys et al. (2003a) would discover impurities in the biotites if ICR personnel were actually responsible for the separations. Of course, separating minerals from rocks is not easy and pure separations are not always possible. Nevertheless, many geochemical studies require high purity separations even if it means sorting and cleaning microscopic grains by hand. Because Humphreys et al. (2003a, p. 19) admit that their samples probably contain microscopic zircon impurities or other sources of helium contamination, the 750-meter biotite results in their Appendix B cannot be trusted.

[curiosity]

Oh, I agree with you about Coulter's arguments. They're just stupid and sad, not funny for the most part. The only exception is the line in her book about scientists "bussing" white moths to the inner-city and black moths to the suburbs. That got a chuckle out of me.

In my previous post I was talking about the reviewer's closing paragraph. You've got to admit that was hillarious.

[Stultis]

I just don't think it's funny when you can JUSTIFIABLY savage a conservative like that! But, yeah, it was well written rhetoric/polemic.

And, yeah, as disappointed as I am with Coulter, I still also get a kick out of many or her lines! (She had a really funny one about the Senator Allen "macaca" controversy, but it escapes me at the moment. Anybody?)

[freedumb2003]

I would like to see "peer reviewed" research attacking it, to see if it holds up.

There is no peer reviewed "attacks" on cook books, readers digest articles, b.c. comic strips, Star Trek novels or lots of other things. Peer reviewed science journals are reserved for science. Peer reviewed critiques are also reserved for science.

http://www.icr.org...

ICR is not a scientific organization. At best, it is a political organization.

But I would like to think that your heart is in the right place.