Only if you believe "ID is a secular movement within science." Nobody with a brain does.
Next you ridicule Wells. (I will let the gentleman defend himself seeing that he already has ): [Links to Wells's Round Three performance of cafeteria dumb-dumbisms]
I'm not going into Round 3 in detail. Neither, apparently, is Wells. His foray looks nice and long-winded overall, but he simply leaves most of Gishlick unrebutted. Here's a sample. First, just take a quick skim of Gishlick on Miller-Urey. I only ask that you note the topics raised.
These allegations might seem serious; however, Wells's knowledge of prebiotic chemistry is seriously flawed. First, Wells's claim that researchers are ignoring the new atmospheric data, and that experiments like the Miller-Urey experiment fail when the atmospheric composition reflects current theories, is simply false. The current literature shows that scientists working on the origin and early evolution of life are well aware of the current theories of the earth's early atmosphere and have found that the revisions have little effect on the results of various experiments in biochemical synthesis. Despite Wells's claims to the contrary, new experiments since the Miller-Urey ones have achieved similar results using various corrected atmospheric compositions (Figure 1; Rode, 1999; Hanic et al., 2000). Further, although some authors have argued that electrical energy might not have efficiently produced organic molecules in the earth's early atmosphere, other energy sources such as cosmic radiation (e.g., Kobayashi et al., 1998), high temperature impact events (e.g., Miyakawa et al., 2000), and even the action of waves on a beach (Commeyras, et al., 2002) would have been quite effective.Now note that Wells answers with a feeble swing at the charges in paragraph one, then moves on to the next icon. Nowhere does he answer the bulk of Gishlick's charges on Miller-Urey.Even if Wells had been correct about the Miller-Urey experiment, he does not explain that our theories about the origin of organic "building blocks" do not depend on that experiment alone (Orgel, 1998a). There are other sources for organic "building blocks," such as meteorites, comets, and hydrothermal vents. All of these alternate sources for organic materials and their synthesis are extensively discussed in the literature about the origin of life, a literature that Wells does not acknowledge. In fact, what is most striking about Wells's extensive reference list is the literature that he has left out. Wells does not mention extraterrestrial sources of organic molecules, which have been widely discussed in the literature since 1961 (see Oró, 1961; Whittet, 1997; Irvine, 1998). Wells apparently missed the vast body of literature on organic compounds in comets (e.g. Oró, 1961; Anders, 1989; Irvine, 1998), carbonaceous meteorites (e.g. Kaplan et al., 1963; Hayes, 1967; Chang, 1994; Maurette, 1998; Cooper et al., 2001), and conditions conducive to the formation of organic compounds that exist in interstellar dust clouds ( Whittet, 1997).
Wells also fails to cite the scientific literature on other terrestrial conditions under which organic compounds could have formed. These non-atmospheric sources include the synthesis of organic compounds in a reducing ocean (e.g., Chang, 1994), at hydrothermal vents (e.g., Andersson, 1999; Ogata et al., 2000), and in volcanic aquifers (Washington, 2000). A cursory review of the literature finds more than 40 papers on terrestrial prebiotic chemical synthesis published since 1997 in the journal Origins of life and the evolution of the biosphere alone. Contrary to Wells's presentation, there appears to be no shortage of potential sources for organic "building blocks" on the early earth.
Instead of discussing this literature, Wells raises a false "controversy" about the low amount of free oxygen in the early atmosphere. Claiming that this precludes the spontaneous origin of life, he concludes that "[d]ogma had taken the place of empirical science" (Wells 2000:18). In truth, nearly all researchers who work on the early atmosphere hold that oxygen was essentially absent during the period in which life originated (Copley, 2001) and therefore oxygen could not have played a role in preventing chemical synthesis. This conclusion is based on many sources of data, not "dogma." Sources of data include fluvial uraninite sand deposits (Rasmussen and Buick, 1999) and banded iron formations (Nunn, 1998; Copley, 2001), which could not have been deposited under oxidizing conditions. Wells also neglects the data from paleosols (ancient soils) which, because they form at the atmosphere-ground interface, are an excellent source to determine atmospheric composition (Holland, 1994). Reduced paleosols suggest that oxygen levels were very low before 2.1 billion years ago (Rye and Holland, 1998). There are also data from mantle chemistry that suggest that oxygen was essentially absent from the earliest atmosphere (Kump et al. 2001). Wells misrepresents the debate as over whether oxygen levels were 5/100 of 1%, which Wells calls "low," or 45/100 of 1%, which Wells calls "significant." But the controversy is really over why it took so long for oxygen levels to start to rise. Current data show that oxygen levels did not start to rise significantly until nearly 1.5 billion years after life originated (Rye and Holland, 1998; Copley, 2001). Wells strategically fails to clarify what he means by "early" when he discusses the amount of oxygen in the "early" atmosphere. In his discussion he cites research about the chemistry of the atmosphere without distinguishing whether the authors are referring to times before, during, or after the period when life is thought to have originated. Nearly all of the papers he cites deal with oxygen levels after 3.0 billion years ago. They are irrelevant, as chemical data suggest that life arose 3.8 billion years ago (Chang, 1994; Orgel, 1998b), well before there was enough free oxygen in the earth's atmosphere to prevent Miller-Urey-type chemical synthesis.
He doesn't answer Gishlick's section on Archaeopteryx at all. A whole icon, skipped.
I assume the rest is of a piece, but I have better things to do.
Wells is out of obfuscations. Are you?
LAVANDERA: Today, Texas educators are debating which biology books will be used in the future and that ignites the debate of evolution versus creationism, or intelligent design as some now call it.The meeting had nothing to do with this. Beckwith and Bohlin only pointed out errors in the textbooks - that's all. Creationism and ID were not discussed.
Futhermore, ID is not creationism. Creationism is a literal Biblical account for all of creation, ID only posits that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause and not an undirected process such as natural selection. A Buddhist, an Islamic, and even atheists could see and believe this. I personally know an atheist that believes we were 'seeded' here from aliens.
Intelligent Design Creationism
LAVANDERA: Evolution is the theory that all living things have a common ancestor but others say that doesn't explain the beginning of life. They support the idea of intelligent design, that an intelligent being created life on Earth. Supporters of this side want more space textbooks.Again, Beckwith and Bohlin only pointed out errors in textbooks. They did not request space in the textbooks for ID.
I point this out and you respond with:
Only if you believe "ID is a secular movement within science." Nobody with a brain does.
Now even if one was to grant you that ID is not a secular movement (although I've already shown that it is) what does even matter considering what was discussed? You just say it's guilt by association and ignore the facts. I have seen you call people out many times that you observed doing exactly what you are doing now. Once again, be consistent and remember that on the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the Earth.
Note: I could point out the same items from NCSE and the AP.
Now you go on to the Miller-Urey experiment. This is interesting to me because you have argued many times that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. So I ask you, is OOL and abiogenesis part of evolution? Be consistant.
Well, regardless Wells points out that it is in many textbooks:
Campbell, Reece and Mitchells Biology (5th Edition, 1999), one of the most widely used introductory textbooks for college undergraduates, discusses the Miller-Urey experiment in Unit Five: The Evolutionary History of Biological Diversity. Similarly, Maders Biology (6th Edition, 1998), Starr and Taggarts Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (8th Edition, 1998), Schraer and Stoltzes Biology: The Study of Life (7th Edition, 1999), Guttmans Biology (1999), Audesirk, Audesirk and Byerss Life On Earth (2nd Edition, 2000), and Purves, Sadava, Orians and Hellers Life: The Science of Biology (6th Edition, 2001) all feature the Miller-Urey experiment in their sections dealing with evolution. Alberts, Bray, Lewis, Raff, Roberts and Watsons upper-division textbook for biology majors, Molecular Biology of the Cell (3rd Edition, 1994), discusses it in a chapter titled Evolution of the Cell. The Miller-Urey experiment is also standard fare in upper division and graduate-level textbooks devoted entirely to evolution, such as Futuymas Evolutionary Biology (3rd Edition, 1998) and Freeman and Herrons Evolutionary Analysis (2nd Edition, 2001).
Now lets look at how Wells gave a grade. A majority of the textbooks received:
F = includes a picture or drawing of the Miller-Urey apparatus with a misleading caption claiming or implying that the experiment simulated conditions on the early Earth; the text contains no mention of the experiment's flaws, and leaves the student with the impression that it demonstrated how life's building-blocks formed on the early earth.
Even if Wells had been correct about the Miller-Urey experiment, he does not explain that our theories about the origin of organic "building blocks" do not depend on that experiment alone (Orgel, 1998a). There are other sources for organic "building blocks," such as meteorites, comets, and hydrothermal vents. All of these alternate sources for organic materials and their synthesis are extensively discussed in the literature about the origin of life, a literature that Wells does not acknowledge. In fact, what is most striking about Wells's extensive reference list is the literature that he has left out. Wells does not mention extraterrestrial sources of organic molecules, which have been widely discussed in the literature since 1961 (see Oró, 1961; Whittet, 1997; Irvine, 1998). Wells apparently missed the vast body of literature on organic compounds in comets (e.g. Oró, 1961; Anders, 1989; Irvine, 1998), carbonaceous meteorites (e.g. Kaplan et al., 1963; Hayes, 1967; Chang, 1994; Maurette, 1998; Cooper et al., 2001), and conditions conducive to the formation of organic compounds that exist in interstellar dust clouds ( Whittet, 1997).
What did Wells say:
According to reviewer David Ussery, however, I failed to notice that Miller himself describes his own more recent experiments under the conditions now believed to be those of the primitive atmosphere, where he found he could still generate many organic compounds. (Ussery, p. 73)I would thank Ussery for setting me straight, except that the organic compounds that are produced in this fashion are not amino acids. Instead, when a mixture of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor is used in a Miller-Urey-type experiment, the reaction products tend to be toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde and cyanide.
This is not late-breaking news. As I pointed out in my book, Sidney Fox and Klaus Dose reported in 1977 that no amino acids are produced by sparking a carbon dioxide-nitrogen-water vapor mixture. In 1983, Miller himself reported that he could produce no more than a small amount of the simplest amino acid (glycine) by sparking an atmosphere containing carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, and then only if free hydrogen was added. And Miller conceded that glycine was the best he could do in the absence of methane. In 1984, Heinrich Holland confirmed that mixtures of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor yield no amino acids at all. Perhaps Ussery was ignorant of these facts.
And now you move on to the famous missing link. Unfortunately you did not read the links and they were not missing. So what did Wells say about Archaeopteryx:
(a) Many biology textbooks call Archaeopteryx a link that once was missing but now is found. Starr and Taggarts Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (8th Edition, 1998) calls Archaeopteryx the first of the missing links. Maders Biology (6th Edition, 1998), describes this fossil as a transitional link between reptiles and modern birds. Schraer and Stoltzes Biology: The Study of Life (7th Edition, 1999) calls it an evolutionary link between reptiles and birds. And according to Raven and Johnsons Biology (5th Edition, 1999), Archaeopteryx is an example of a fossil linking major groups. If the NCSE ever launches a campaign against misconceptions in biology textbooks (such as calling the origin of life part of evolution, or using homology as evidence for common ancestry), it can add missing link to its list.(b) In any case, the NCSEs claim that missing link is a misconception is odd, since if Darwins theory is true there MUST have been organisms in the past that were transitional links between ancestors and descendants. Transitional links are a logical consequence of evolutionary theory, yet most of them are missing from the fossil record. Archaeopteryx is famous precisely because it is one of the few supposed links that have been found. So the notion of missing link cannot possibly be any more out-of-date than evolutionary theory itself. Of course, whether any PARTICULAR fossil can be determined to be a transitional link is open to serious doubt. According to Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature, the intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent. But if the NCSE is suggesting, like Gee, that NO fossil can be identified as transitional between its ancestors and descendants, why does it call Archaeopteryx a transitional fossil that shows reptilian ancestry as well as bird-like features?
(c) Archaeopteryx is the oldest bird in the fossil record. It appears fully formed, and it is not preceded by fossils showing gradual transitions from reptiles to birds. So the NCSEs claim that it shows how a branch of reptiles gradually acquired bird-like features is false. If the NCSE is suggesting that this gradual transition is seen in bird-like dinosaurs (a view passionately--and controversially--defended by NCSEs president, Kevin Padian), the problem is that these supposed ancestors do not appear in the fossil record until tens of millions of years AFTER Archaeopteryx. Without fossils of the appropriate age, the NCSE has no grounds for saying Wellss claim that supposed ancestors are younger than Archaeopteryx is false.
(d) Calling bird-like dinosaurs uncles instead of ancestors of Archaeopteryx merely obscures the problem: Although an uncle isnt the ancestor of his nephew, and the former can be younger than the latter, the two--by definition--are no more than a generation apart, and they are members of the same species. Yet according to the fossil record, Archaeopteryx is millions of generations older than the bird-like dinosaurs. Furthermore, the two are not in the same species--in fact, theyre not even in the same genus, family, order or class! It makes no sense to call David Ben-Gurion the uncle of Abraham--much less to call bird-like dinosaurs the uncles of Archaeopteryx.
D = presents Archaeopteryx as the transitional link between reptiles (or dinosaurs) and modern birds; does not point out that modern birds are probably not descended from it, but at least hints at the fact that there is a controversy over its ancestry or its transitional status.
So again, in summary:
Did CNN fabricate and misrepresent? Yes
Are you consistent with your ridicule of others? No.
Has Wells addressed your issues? Maybe, read and see.
Are textbooks correcting errors that Wells pointed out? Yes.