Scientific American threatens AiG : Demands immediate removal of Web rebuttal

AIG ^ | 2002/07/11 | AIG

[ZGuy]

The prominent magazine Scientific American thought it had finally discredited its nemesis—creationism—with a feature article listing ‘15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense’ (July 2002). Supposedly these were the fifteen best arguments that evolutionists could use to discredit the Bible’s account of Creation. (National Geographic TV also devoted a lengthy report to the article.)

Within 72 hours, Dr Jonathan Sarfati—a resident scientist at Answers in Genesis–Australia—had written a comprehensive, point-by-point critique of the magazine article and posted it on this Web site.

So Scientific American thought it would try to silence AiG with the threat of a lawsuit.

In an e-mail to Dr Sarfati, Scientific American accused him and AiG of infringing their copyright by reproducing the text of their article and an illustration. They said they were prepared to ‘settle the matter amicably’ provided that AiG immediately remove Dr Sarfati’s article from its Web site.

AiG’s international copyright attorney, however, informed Scientific American that their accusations are groundless and that AiG would not be removing the article. Dr Sarfati’s article had used an illustration of a bacterial flagellum, but it was drawn by an AiG artist years ago. AiG had also used the text of SA’s article, but in a way that is permissible under ‘fair use’ of copyrighted materials for public commentary. (AiG presented the text of the SA article, with Dr Sarfati’s comments interspersed in a different color, to avoid any accusations of misquoting or misrepresenting the author.)

Why the heavy-handed tactics? If AiG’s responses were not valid, why would Scientific American even care whether they remained in the public arena? One can only presume that Scientific American (and National Geographic) had the ‘wind taken out of their sails.’ Dr Sarfati convincingly showed that they offered nothing new to the debate and they displayed a glaring ignorance of creationist arguments. Their legal maneuver appears to be an act of desperation. (AiG is still awaiting SA’s response to the decision not to pull the Web rebuttal.)

[laredo44]

Let him who has eye to see, see.

And he who hasn't, just tough noogies?

[Dimensio]

There are "truths", but science can never claim with 100% accuracy that it has found them.

Repeated tests with consistent results do not prove a theory, they merely show that the test method used produces results consistent with predictions derived from existing theory. There is always the possibility that the theory is wrong and that the consistent results either occured because the theory only works under specific circumstances that happened to be present during testing or because of an incredible coincidence (though the former is far more common than the latter).

[laredo44]

If any of that related to anything I'be posted here, I'm unaware of it.

[Prolix]

What do you mean by "evolutionist?" Do you mean to say "scientist?" If so, a scientist uses observation and genius to develop theories. These theories are used to predict results of events. For example, the theory of gravity will predict that an object sufficiently close to the Earth's center will be attracted to it. The theory does not prove that gravity exists but it describes the behavior of objects well enough that I make sure that my fragile possessions do not become victims of gravity.

[f.Christian]

8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving ‘desirable’ (adaptive) features and eliminating ‘undesirable’ (nonadaptive) ones.

But the raw material on which natural selection acts is random copying errors (mutations). If evolution from goo to you were true, we should expect to find countless information-adding mutations. But we have not even found one.

As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.

An example would have been nice.

As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence ‘TOBEORNOTTOBE.’ Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet’s). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare’s entire play in just four and a half days.

These computer programs have been widely popularized by the atheist Richard Dawkins, but are a lot of bluff. Such simulations as Dawkins, and now Rennie, propose as ‘simulations’ of evolution work towards a known goal, so are far from a parallel to real evolution, which has no foresight, hence a ‘Blind Watchmaker’. The simulations also use ‘organisms’ with high reproductive rates (producing many offspring), high mutation rates, a large probability of a beneficial mutation, and a selection coefficient of 1 (perfect selection) instead of 0.01 (or less) which parallels real life more accurately. The ‘organisms’ have tiny ‘genomes’ with minute information content, so are less prone to error catastrophe, and they are not affected by the chemical and thermodynamic constraints of a real organism.

For more information, see this refutation of Dawkins’ book Climbing Mt Improbable, Weasel Words and Dawkins’ weasel revisited. Also, in the coming issue of TJ (16(2)), we will have an article about a more realistic computer simulation, which will be downloadable (i.e. the program) from the AiG Web site, which shows that the goal is NOT reached if realistic values are programmed, or it takes so long that it shows that evolution is impossible. For a refutation of the whole idea of computer simulations of evolution, particularly in the guise of genetic algorithms, see Genetic algorithms—do they show that evolution works?—all these problems also apply to the simplistic ‘simulation’ Rennie writes about.

Also, when it comes to the origin of first life, natural selection cannot be invoked, because this requires a self-reproducing entity. Therefore chance alone must produce the precise sequences needed, so these simulations do not apply (see Q&A: Probability). And a further problem with the alleged chemical soup is reversibility, intensifying the difficulty of obtaining the right sequence by chance—see Could Monkeys Type the 23rd Psalm.

[EBUCK]

What about the left over psuedogenes that serve no purpose other than to cause cancer (supposedly). It makes sense that some new genes (and their functions) would sometimes become un-used as that particulat trait became useless.

There is a good example in the human anatomy.

Prediction 2.3: Molecular vestigial characters Vestigial characters should also be found at the molecular level.

Humans do not have the capability to synthesize ascorbic acid (otherwise known as Vitamin C), and the unfortunate consequence can be the nutritional deficiency called scurvy. However, the predicted ancestors of humans had this function (as do most other animals except primates and guinea pigs). Therefore, we predict that humans, other primates, and guinea pigs should carry evidence of this lost function as a molecular vestigial character (nota bene: this very prediction was explicitly made by Nishikimi and others and was the impetus for the research detailed below) (Nishikimi et al. 1992; Nishikimi et al. 1994).

Confirmation:
Recently, the L-gulano-g-lactone oxidase gene, the gene required for Vitamin C synthesis, was found in humans and guinea pigs (Nishikimi et al. 1992; Nishikimi et al. 1994). It exists as a pseudogene, present but incapable of functioning (see prediction 4.4 for more about pseudogenes). In fact, since this was originally written the vitamin C pseudogene has been found in other primates, exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory. We now have the DNA sequences for this broken gene in chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999). And, as predicted, the nonfunctional human and chimpanzee pseudogenes are the most similar, followed by the human and orangutan genes, followed by the human and macaque genes, precisely as predicted by evolutionary theory. Furthermore, all of these genes have accumulated mutations at the exact rate predicted (the background rate of mutation for neutral DNA regions like pseudogenes) (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999).

There are several other examples of vestigial human genes, including multiple odorant receptor genes (Rouquier et al. 2000), the RT6 protein gene (Haag et al. 1994), the galactosyl transferase gene (Galili and Swanson 1991), and the tyrosinase-related gene (TYRL) (Oetting et al. 1993).

Our odorant receptor (OR) genes once coded for proteins involved in now lost olfactory functions. Our predicted ancestors, like other mammals, had a more acute sense of smell than we do now; humans have >99 odorant receptor genes, of which ~70% are pseudogenes. Many other mammals, such as mice and marmosets, have many of the same OR genes as us, but all of theirs actually work. An extreme case is the dolphin, which is the descendant of land mammals. It no longer has any need to smell volatile odorants, yet it contains many OR genes, of which none are functional – they are all pseudogenes (Freitag et al. 1998).

The RT6 protein is expressed on the surface of T lymphocytes in other mammals, but not on ours. The galactosyl transferase gene is involved in making a certain carbohydrate found on the cell membranes of other mammals. Tyrosinase is the major enzyme responsible for melanin pigment in all animals. TYRL is a pseudogene of tyrosinase.

It is satisfying to note that we share these vestigial genes with other primates, and that the mutations that made these genes nonfunctional are also shared with several other primates (see predictions 4.3-4.5 for more about shared nonfunctional characters).

Potential Falsification:
It would be very puzzling if we had not found the L-gulano-g-lactone oxidase pseudogene or the other vestigial genes mentioned. In addition, we can predict that we will never find vestigial chloroplast genes in any metazoans (i.e. animals) (Li 1997, pp. 284-286, 348-354).

Lnk to source

EBUCK

[f.Christian]

In regards to origins...

If you believe in God(Creator)...the evo option is gone---over!

[DaveyB]

What do you mean by "evolutionist?" Do you mean to say "scientist?" If so, a scientist uses observation and genius to develop theories. These theories are used to predict results of events.

So let's look at the predictions of evolution, does the fossil record contain all the tweeners, no? Hmmm, maybe we'll just have to adopt that punctuated equilibrium theory, anything but God.

[balrog666]

What about the left over psuedogenes that serve no purpose other than to cause cancer (supposedly). It makes sense that some new genes (and their functions) would sometimes become un-used as that particulat trait became useless. There is a good example in the human anatomy...

Ooooh. Aaah. Science!

[BlazingArizona]

I'm firmly in the Darwinist camp, but Scientific American has no right trying to suppress free speech with RIAA-like tactics. If it thinks that competing hypotheses can be attacked by use of lawyers, then it has no understanding of the scientific method.

[foolish-one]

Not sure if you're addressing micro or macroevolution, but vestige genes still don't add up to additional chromosomes. In fact, the loss of function is the usual and expected result of mutation. I would look at the same evidence you have just presented and say it is proof that evolution is usually in a negative direction. Therefore, using this example, macroevolution to a more complex state is counterintuitive.

[f.Christian]

9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law.

It would be most surprising, in our experience, if an anti-creationist lacking training in physics or chemistry understood the Second Law himself. As will be shown, biologist Rennie is no exception. I should say that Rennie’s formulation of the creationist argument is not how informed creationists would argue—see Q&A: Thermodynamics.

If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

No, as usual, this anti-creationist confuses order (repetitive, low information) with complexity (non-repetitive, high information). See this answer to another anti-creationist science writer who made the same mistake.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) …

It’s more usual for those qualified in physical chemistry to refer to this as an isolated system, and use the term closed system for one where energy but not matter can be exchanged with its surroundings.

… cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

We totally agree, and point this out often.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun’s nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.

This energy input is necessary but not sufficient. The proverbial bull in a china shop produces disorder, but if the same bull was harnessed to a generator, this energy could be directed into useful work. Similarly, living organisms have machinery to direct the energy from sunlight or food, including the ATP synthase motor. But machinery presupposes teleology (purpose), which means that the machinery must have had an intelligent source.

[EBUCK]

If you agree to type in full sentances I agree to debate you.

Otherwise you shall be deposited in the city of Ignore, county of Irrelevant, State of Denial, population you and G3K.

EBUCK

[Dominic Harr]

The expression of an existing gene is hardly the same as creating new reproducible genes.

Millions of small changes over hundreds of millions of years certainly would equal big changes.

You don't disagree with that, do you?

The only difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution is the timespan.

[Dominic Harr]

Nothing against you, but I know what you're up against ;)

You've seen my wierd hobby before, so you know how I am.

I enjoy finding partisans who've locked themselves into what I feel is an obviously incorrect position and then trying to challenge those 'sacred cows'.

I'm wierd like that.

[foolish-one]

Not true. Belief in God does not prevent a person from exercising their choices in opinions or beliefs in other areas. You don't get to say what someone believes or doesn't or what is in the heart of anyone. Jenna can love and admire George and still register as a Democrat if she wishes.

[EBUCK]

He's debating whether or not an organism can evolve new genes as opposed to modification of existing ones.

EBUCK

[balrog666]

I would look at the same evidence you have just presented and say it is proof that evolution is usually in a negative direction. Therefore, using this example, macroevolution to a more complex state is counterintuitive.

So, using your "logic", worms are more evolved than we are? Amoebae are more evolved yet? Then virii? Then dirt, perhaps?

[Dominic Harr]

Microevolution usually involves mutations and changes in genes - hereditary units within chromosomes. Macroevolution requires the addition of entire chromosomes.

Macroevolution requires that the genes change enough that they appear to be completely different.

And certainly you agree that a bunch of small changes will equal a big change.

The only difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution is time.

Ya'll don't disagree with 'evolution', oddly enough.

[Right Wing Professor]

Then why are more and more scientists every year questioning it's validity?

Evidence? No scientist of my acquaintance questions it. And I personally know probably a couple of hundred scientists.

Why does the theory fail to persuade over 60 per cent of the public, even after they have been force-brainwashed it in public schools?

Scientific truth is not established by opinion polls.

Why is evolution the only major theory that cannot stand up to scrutiny?

On the contrary, it stands up beautifully.

That has no answers for countless questions about it?

Nonsense

That continually loses in public debates, so much so that Creationist debate societies can no longer find evolutionist volunteers to debate them in public forums?

Scientific truth is not established by debate. And frankly, I don't spend much time debating creationists, any more than I debate the question of whether Elvis is alive, contrails are a government plot, or Jews kill Christian infants at Passover. I find ridicule a more appropriate response, though I am distressed that a singificant number of conservatives adhere to this particular brand of folly.

You cling to your religious belief in evolution because the thought of a moral God who will one day judge us all, frightens you.

I am a Catholic. Neither I, nor my Pontiff, considers there to be a conflict between evolution and a moral God. And John Paul II, for one, shows no sign he's frightened of being judged by a moral God.