Evolutionists retreating from the arena of science

CMI ^ | December 1, 2009 | Dave Woetzel

[GodGunsGuts]

Evolutionists retreating from the arena of science

--snip--

Today, the Darwinian scientific consensus persists within almost every large university and governmental institution. But around the middle of the 20th century an interesting new trend emerged and has since become increasingly established. Evolutionary theorists have been forced, step by step, to steadily retreat from the evidence in the field. Some of the evidences mentioned earlier in this article were demonstrated to be frauds and hoaxes. Other discoveries have been a blow to the straightforward expectations and predictions of evolutionists. Increasingly, they have been forced to tack ad hoc mechanisms onto Darwin’s theory to accomodate the evidence. Their retreat to unfalsifiable positions is now evident in every arena where they once triumphed. Let us examine how Darwinian theorists have moved from concrete predictions and scientifically observable supporting evidences to metaphysical positions in several key fields of research...

[GourmetDan]

"Exactly the way crevos evos pi$$ on your leg and tell you it's raining."

There, fixed it for you.

"Ellis did not have the data showing that the universe is far from symetrical, nor the proof from gravity lensing that far more universe exists out there [in some directions, and not others] than we can observe without 'special tricks' provided by nature itself."

Apparently the fact that that street runs both ways escaped you.

[allmendream]

What part of GRAVITY moving the Earth around the Sun are you having problems understanding?

My source HAD peer review references. Here they are in as you were obviously not smart enough to figure it out.

1. http://www.fhcrc.org/labs/trask/subtelomeres/

2. Yunis, J. J., Sawyer, J.R., Dunham, K., The striking resemblance of high-resolution g-banded chromosomes of man and chimpanzee. Science, Vol. 208, 6 June 1980, pp. 1145 - 1148

3. IJdo JW, Baldini A, Ward DC, Reeders ST, Wells RA, Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1991 Oct 15;88(20):9051-5; available on-line here:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/88/20/9051.pdf

4. Avarello R, Pedicini A, Caiulo A, Zuffardi O, Fraccaro M, Evidence for an ancestral alphoid domain on the long arm of human chromosome 2. Hum Genet 1992 May;89(2):247-9

[GodGunsGuts]

I’m not even sure what SC is talking about. Is he saying that taking umbrage to sacreligious keywords is blasphemous???

[GourmetDan]

"What part of GRAVITY moving the Earth around the Sun are you having problems understanding?"

What part of "The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.” do you not understand?

" My source HAD peer review references. Here they are in as you were obviously not smart enough to figure it out.

1. http://www.fhcrc.org/labs/trask/subtelomeres/"

Are you smart enough to post links that actually get to your reference?

"http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/88/20/9051.pdf"

From the scientists own words, "...the precise nature of this putative fusion is unknown..."

"putatative" definition -

1 : commonly accepted or supposed

2 : assumed to exist or to have existed

"...suggests that telomeres, the extreme ends of chromosomes, may have been involved in this [putatative] fusion."

"suggests" definition -

"to mention or imply as a possibility"

From the article:

"Normally, telomeres form a dynamic buffer against loss of internal sequence and prevent chromosomes from fusing."

"The telomere-telomere fusion at region 2q13 must have been accompanied or followed by inactivation or elimination of one of the ancestral centromeres, as well as by events that stabilize the fusion point."

Oops. Multiple putatative events required to support the initial assumed putatative event. The inverted arrangement of the TTAGGG array and the adjacent sequences are 'similar to' sequences found at present-day human telomeres and are offered as evidence to a putatative event that telomeres are designed to resist. Hmmm.

Then we read:

"These data, along with the observations of others (17, 22), suggest that the terminal regions of human chromosomes are dynamic structures, from which stretches of sequence are gained and lost at a relatively high frequency."

Therefore, more cherry-picking of data is needed to support the initial, putatative assumption.

And you haven't even begun to support your claim that "the DNA shows the same genes lining up".

[allmendream]

Because although either is fine as a COORDINATE system. One has the advantage of having the motion be explained by the force of gravity; the other has no force that could explain how the massive Sun if forced to orbit the tiny Earth.

So I needed references, but you somehow do not.

My reference HAD peer review literature references; but you insisted you needed peer review literature references - DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE THEY WERE.

All things in science are “putative”; you just parade your own ignorance by fixation upon that word.

The literature obviously supports all my statements.

You have nothing but your own scientific ignorance. But that is to be expected from someone who insists that the Sun circles the Earth.

[CommerceComet]

There are more creationists in high level positions in genetic research than non creationists.

I had an interesting conversation on Thanksgiving evening with a biology professor from a major research university. After criticizing creationist students who pester her, she said that most of her colleagues have no use for creation arguments but are generally sympathetic to ID, at least in private conversations. The former didn't surprise me but the latter did.

[itsahoot]

If you want to ignore the overwhelming evidence in support of the evolution theory, fine. But don’t pretend you’re following any sort of scientific approach.

If you want to ignore the overwhelming evidence in support of Global Warming, fine. But don’t pretend you’re following any sort of scientific approach.

Same tune different song.

[Gordon Greene]

“do you consider your assertion that teaching evolution delivers children into the “hands of Hell” an example of “reasoned debate”?”

I certainly do. If I was overstating my opinion then I would agree, but it is a matter of heaven or hell. That, to me is what the debate boils down to. The Bible says that someone who causes a little one to fall it would be better if a millstone were tied around their neck and they were cast into the sea.

If you draw evolution out to its ultimate end it either:

A. Denies the existence of God.
B. Denies His relevance.
C. Boils the Word of God down to a collection of alegory.

Unlike a lot of folks that share my beliefs in God and Creation, I don’t believe that faith in evolution automatically excludes you from Christianity. People are in different stages of their walk and some find the truth more slowly than others but that doesn’t mean they aren’t saved. But if you follow the (il)logic of evolution very far, it discounts faith in the God of the Bible.

[BenKenobi]

“To cite just one example, it is said that human and chimp DNA is something like 98% identical.”

This is completely untrue.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2833-humanchimp-dna-difference-trebled.html

“When Britten compared five stretches of chimp DNA with the corresponding pieces of human DNA, he found that single base substitutions accounted for a difference of 1.4 per cent, very close to the expected figure.”

“But he also found that the DNA of both species was littered with indels. His comparisons revealed that they add around another 4.0 per cent to the genetic differences.”

“The result is only based on about one million DNA bases out of the three billion which make up the human and chimp genomes, says Britten. “It’s just a glance,” he says.”

Do you have any more fables you’d like to peddle?

[GourmetDan]

"Because although either is fine as a COORDINATE system. One has the advantage of having the motion be explained by the force of gravity; the other has no force that could explain how the massive Sun if forced to orbit the tiny Earth."

What part of “The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view..." do you not understand?

"So I needed references, but you somehow do not."

One more time...

“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”

Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right."

Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:

“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”

Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995

"My reference HAD peer review literature references; but you insisted you needed peer review literature references - DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE THEY WERE."

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between posting a reference that contains peer-reviewed links and posting a peer-reviewed link. And we haven't even begun to address the weakness of your conclusions from that peer-reviewed link because you won't address them even when they are posted directly to you.

All we get is the incredibly ignorant statement that "All things in science are “putative”".

We never did get your other link to work as you indicated, did we?

We also never got your reference for the statement that "the DNA shows the same genes lining up".

"All things in science are “putative”; you just parade your own ignorance by fixation upon that word."

All things in science are 'putative', huh? You'd better put some ice on that. Your credibility just took a major slap on the nose.

"The literature obviously supports all my statements."

Only if you invoke the fallacies of cherry-picking the data and affirming the consequent. This is why understanding where logical fallacy enters into your pronouncements is so important yet so lacking in your posts.

"You have nothing but your own scientific ignorance. But that is to be expected from someone who insists that the Sun circles the Earth."

Oh, so once again your comments are based upon total ignorance and the lack of ability to learn anything for yourself.

[allmendream]

What part of all that spam has any answer to what FORCE could account for moving the massive Sun around the tiny Earth? Oh yeah, none of it.

How many Newtons of force can you get out of a coordinate system?

And I wanted peer reviewed references that contradicted my assertions about chromosomes; not more confirmation of your delusion about Geocentricism.

[Gordon Greene]

“I’m not even sure what SC is talking about. Is he saying that taking umbrage to sacreligious keywords is blasphemous???”

It’s the usual... these cats take small things out of the broad spectrum of information given and distort the meaning so they can prop up their misguided half-truths to support their faith in God knows what. Or in the case of their priests to insure future funding and community credibility.

Odd... that sounds like what the guys at CRU did? I think I’m seeing a pattern!

[SunkenCiv]

No, what it’s about is, your attempt to speak on behalf of God.

[Gordon Greene]

“No, what it’s about is, your attempt to speak on behalf of God.”

That’s rich coming from a group that says every word of scripture is unequivocally allegory.

And, for the record the Bible speaks very well on God’s behalf. If you’d read that a bit instead of un-scientific America you might learn something.

[Gordon Greene]

Sorry, I missed that your comment was about the nerve the CRU post struck.

Need a band-aid for that? Put some ointment on it... it’ll feel better in a millenia or so.

[GourmetDan]

"What part of all that spam has any answer to what FORCE could account for moving the massive Sun around the tiny Earth? Oh yeah, none of it."

What part of “The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.” do you not understand? Oh yeah, all of it.

"And I wanted peer reviewed references that contradicted my assertions about chromosomes; not more confirmation of your delusion about Geocentricism."

Your own reference showed that your assertions are wholly subjective and firmly based in the logical fallacies of cherry-picking, begging the question and affirming the consequent. Now maybe you think that constitutes 'support', but all it shows is that you are completely reliant on logical fallacy for your position.

I'm thinking we'll never see a reference for your claim that "the DNA shows the same genes lining up" since your defense of your previous reference has been limited to the claim that "All things in science are “putative”.

So once again we see that your comments are based upon total ignorance and the lack of ability to learn anything for yourself.

[allmendream]

I understand your codswallop about coordinate systems just fine. Sure, each is equally valid AS A COORDINATE SYSTEM.

Now what FORCE is moving the Sun around the Earth while leaving the Earth motionless. You dance uncoordinatedly around the question like a complete idiot, but still cannot provide an answer.

Gravity moves the Earth around the Sun.

Your misunderstanding of the provisional or putative acceptance of scientific information in no way invalidates that information. I provided sources, you provided NOTHING but your own ignorance; which is worth NOTHING.

But thanks for showing that creationists are a bunch of science rejecting Luddites who don't understand the principles of science, can't supply references to support their assertions, and are so confident in their ability to correctly interpret scripture that they may as well think the Sun orbits the Earth.

[GL of Sector 2814]

...it is a matter of heaven or hell. That, to me is what the debate boils down to.

This illustrates the futility of discussions such as this. One side tries to debate the issue on its scientific merits, while the other says that they're right because God is (literally) on their side.

I think my tagline is especially appropriate in this light.

[GourmetDan]

"I understand your codswallop about coordinate systems just fine.

/snicker/ Oops sorry...

"Sure, each is equally valid AS A COORDINATE SYSTEM."

If you did, then you wouldn't ask the following question.

" Now what FORCE is moving the Sun around the Earth while leaving the Earth motionless. You dance uncoordinatedly around the question like a complete idiot, but still cannot provide an answer. Gravity moves the Earth around the Sun.

I provide statements by astronomers who understand GR and the universe much better than you ever will showing the physical equivalence of geocentrism and geokineticism under GR. That you are incapable of understanding that is most unfortunate. That you are the one dancing around uncoordinated like a complete idiot is fine w/ me.

"Your misunderstanding of the provisional or putative acceptance of scientific information in no way invalidates that information. I provided sources, you provided NOTHING but your own ignorance; which is worth NOTHING."

I presented terms, quotes and arguments against the article that you thought definitive showing just how weak the inferences and their basis in logical fallacy. Your only response was the hilarious claim that "All things in science are “putative”.

Just because you provide a source doesn't mean it supports your belief. I know that would be a revelation were you ever able to understand it but, scream on brother, scream on.

"But thanks for showing that creationists are a bunch of science rejecting Luddites who don't understand the principles of science, can't supply references to support their assertions, and are so confident in their ability to correctly interpret scripture that they may as well think the Sun orbits the Earth."

So now you project your own lack of understanding onto a whole group of people because your assertions have been shown false and our beloved paradigm has been challenged.

I certainly appreciate your efforts because they actually demonstrate the exact opposite of what you think you are doing. Thanks.

[allmendream]

You have done absolutely nothing to show that what I have said about chromosomes was false. You took the phrase “putative fusion” from one of the sources and suddenly you have shown it false? Putative doesn't mean false.

And coordinate system doesn't explain what force is moving what and how; it just explains the COORDINATES. Quote people about CS’s all you want, it doesn't answer the question about what FORCE is doing the moving.

But thanks for showing the futility of reliance upon flawed scriptural interpretation in lieu of actual scientific discovery. How ludicrous and moronic your arguments are. That is why I like having you ramble on about coordinate systems and the Sun going around the Earth. HILARIOUS!