Complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees

_{Mario A. Lopez
March 12, 2008

Biology, Darwinism, Evolution

1}_{Categories
Biology
Darwinism
Evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

John Wakeley¹

Abstract

Arising from: N. Patterson, D. J. Richter, S. Gnerre, E. Lander & D. Reich Nature 441, 1103–1108 (2006); Patterson et al.

Genetic data from two or more species provide information about the process of speciation. In their analysis of DNA from humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and macaques (HCGOM), Patterson et al.¹ suggest that the apparently short divergence time between humans and chimpanzees on the X chromosome is explained by a massive interspecific hybridization event in the ancestry of these two species. However, Patterson et al.¹ do not statistically test their own null model of simple speciation before concluding that speciation was complex, and—even if the null model could be rejected—they do not consider other explanations of a short divergence time on the X chromosome. These include natural selection on the X chromosome in the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, changes in the ratio of male-to-female mutation rates over time, and less extreme versions of divergence with gene flow (see ref. 2, for example). I therefore believe that their claim of hybridization is unwarranted.

[Bold added]

Just curious…How does interspecific hybridization occur between a Pan & Homo ?

Comments

Final thoughts. 1. I submitted what I thought was a reasonable "middle ground" for public education science standards. Unfortunately, none of the Darwinists decided to discuss this option but instead chose to focus on supporting standards that favor their preferred philosophy of science as the only option. This by itself is highly revealing. 2. Jack and others were essentially attacking the method by which information content is calculated. I'm not sure what to make of this objection, especially after Atom defeated it so soundly using Jack's own example. Earlier I linked to a primer on information theory that is independent of ID that shows how calculations are done. Even Dawkins in 2003, in his book A Devil's Chaplain (pg.93), agrees that this method is proper. For biology, Dembski is using the same methods as Haldane I would assume.
If the minimal organism involves not only the code for its one or more proteins, but also twenty types of soluble RNA, one for each amino acid, and the equivalent of ribosomal RNA, our descendants may be able to make one, but we must give up the idea that such an organism could have been produced in the past, except by a similar pre-existing organism or by an agent, natural or supernatural, at least as intelligent as ourselves, and with a good deal more knowledge." (Haldane, J.B.S., "Data Needed for a Blueprint of the First Organism," in Fox, S.W., ed., "The Origins of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices," Proceedings of a Conference Conducted at Wakulla Springs, Florida, October 27-30, 1963, Academic Press: New York NY, 1965, p.12). "The first enzyme very possibly contained the sequence Asp-Ser-Gly, which is part of the active centers of phosphoglucomutase, trypsin, and chymotrypsin. Ribonuclease contains 124 amino acid residues. If all were equally common, this would mean 540 bits. The number is actually a little less than that. This number could be somewhat reduced if some amino acids were rare both in the medium and in the enzyme. I suggest that the primitive enzyme was a much shorter peptide of low activity and specificity, incorporating only 100 bits or so. But even this would mean one out of 1.3 x 1030 possibilities. This is an unacceptable, large number. If a new organism were tried out every minute for 108 years, we should need 1017 simultaneous trials to get the right result by chance. The earth's surface is 5 x 1018 cm2. There just isn't, in my opinion, room. Sixty bits, or about 15 amino acids, would be more acceptable probabilistically, but less so biochemically. I suggest that the first synthetic organisms may have been something like a tobacco mosaic virus, but including the enzyme or enzymes needed for its own replication. More verifiably, I suggest that the first synthetic organisms may be so constituted. For natural, but not for laboratory life, a semipermeable membrane is needed. This could be constituted from an inactivated enzyme and lipids. I think, however, that the first synthetic organism may be much larger than the first which occurred. It may contain several different enzymes, with a specification of 5000 bits or so-about the information on a page of Chamber's 7-figure logarithm tables. This should be quite within human possibilities. The question will then arise: How much smaller may the first natural organism have been? If this minimum involves 500 bits, one could conclude either that terrestrial life had had an extraterrestrial origin (with Nagy and Braun) or a supernatural one (with many religions, but by no means all)." (Haldane, Ibid., p.14).
Obviously he was focused on issues related to OOL, but the point still remains: Haldane was calculating informational bits for biology in the same manner before Dembski was even born! Now as to not misconstrue Jack's argument, he apparently believes that in order for the EF to work a different method of calculating the informational bits is required. His approach, which is different than Dembski's, has major issues: a. Requires causal history, which would make this modified EF useless in most historical cases (not just biology, but archeology, murder cases, etc.). Obviously this was his intent. Never mind, Atom and I showed multiple examples for how causal history is not required for the standard EF to function. And if biology is indeed a special case as Jack asserts then positive evidence for an unknown law must be gathered. b. Requires investigation of all potential hypothetical pathways. The results of such calculations would be different. So how does one decide which result to use in regards to the modified EF? 3. In order to determine whether or not there exists sufficient chance for any given sequence to occur it’s helpful to know the maximum size of the probability space. The probabilistic resources are limited by the maximum number of action quanta, h_bar, (Planck’s quantum of angular momentum) available. If the universe is finite with total mass/energy Mc^2, then the maximum number, N, of action quanta is readily calculated by: N = G * M^2 / (h_bar * c) ~ 10^123, where M is ~ 10^56 gm. For physio-chemical processes, probability space is greatly reduced compared to the estimated maximum of 10^123. I’ve read estimates of 10^40 for biological events, plus or minus one order of magnitude (more likely minus). 4. Jack did not seem to understand our reference to the "unknown law". He dodged the issue by referring to an "interplay of many laws". Well, of course. For example, snowflakes are crystals. Crystals are just the same simple pattern repeated. Simple, repeated patterns are not complex. Repetitive structures, with all the info already in H2O, whose hexagonal structure/symmetry is determined by the directional forces - ie wind, gravity- are by no means complex. However, repetitive structures, such as crystals, do constitute specificity. Snowflakes, although specified, are also low in information, because their specification is in the laws, which of course means that node 1 in the Explanatory Filter (Does a law explain it?) would reject snowflakes as being designed. Contingency/laws can explain complexity but not specification. For instance, the exact time sequence of radioactive emissions from a chunk of uranium will be contingent, complex, but not specified. On the other hand, laws can explain specification but not complexity. The formation of a salt crystal follows well-defined laws, produces an independently known repetitive pattern, and is therefore specified; but like the snowflake that pattern will also be simple, not complex. The problem is to explain something like the genetic code, which is both complex and specified. The point that Jack misses is that Node 1 need not only refer to just ONE law. It can be an interplay of laws, as in this snowflake example. Let me give a further example of an unknown law. Let’s say we found a 2001-style monolith on the moon and all the planets. Design would likely be inferred. But suppose later on we discover unknown processes (a Law) that is observed to create these monoliths in space as an emergent property of an interplay of processes. ID theory would be revised to take this Law into account. Similarly, formalized design detection in regards to biology is open to falsification based upon new observations. It’s possible there is an unknown Law operating upon biology. If evidence of this unknown Law were found, ID theory would need to be revised. The limits of this Law would be analyzed. For example, this Law may only operate under limited circumstances and be capable of producing limited forms of complex specified information. Now this is only in regards to self-replicating life; obviously a separate unknown Law or event would need to be found for OOL. But if positive evidence is uncovered that these Laws are capable of operating uniformly then the entire ID scientific program in regards to biology is kaput. 5. Recently there was an uproar in Florida over science standards. I remember listening to the radio and hearing those who objected be cast as the villains. But wait a minute...are not the Darwinists the ones making the changes? It was also a joke when some of those Darwinists claimed that Florida was "stuck back in the 50's" and did not include lessons related to evolution. I live here...I KNOW that not to be the case. If anything, the changes they were pushing for just increased the level of indoctrination. All the changes did was include Darwinist assertions instead of increasing the teaching of what we do know.Patrick_{March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

stephenb, you said "Jerry, three quick lightning round questions. 1) Am I to understand you are OK with Jack’s standards? 2) Do you believe that those standards reflect the ideology of methodological naturalism? 3) Are you favorably or unfavorably disposed to methodological naturalism?" 1. I would change "This is because science currently has no tools to test explanations using non-natural (such as supernatural) causes." to "There may be some things that science may never be able to explain." and leave out the reference to supernatural. The kids will get the meaning. 2. Probably yes. I do not think it is a big deal if my last sentence were inserted. It may not be a big deal even with the last sentence currently in there. I personally think it would be devastating if Darwinian evolution was rejected from the Kansas curiculum because it does not meet their standards. And from what I said above to congregate, it does not. It would be interesting to see how they re-wrote them to fit Darwin in. 3. As I said in #2, I don't think it is a big deal if the student and the scientists acknowledge that there may be some things that science can not answer. Science then becomes another human activity that is useful. But I would object to the point of view that every phenomena must be the result of natural causes which is different from a human activity examining natural causes. Such a statement or sentiment should not be in the science standards.jerry_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

This is starting to look like a John Davison blog entry. Comments are now closed on it.DaveScot_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

Addendum: "Artifacts are the only evidence a person can have of the historical presence of an intelligent agent." Well, what if they found bones? That could work too. So not the "only" evidence, but sufficient evidence.Atom_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

congregate, Here is the science standards as proposed by Kansas. If this is not the exact standard then someone correct them. "Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Throughout history people from many cultures have used the methods of science to contribute to scientific knowledge and technological innovations, making science a worldwide enterprise. Scientists test explanations against the natural world, logically integrating observations and tested hypotheses with accepted explanations to gradually build more reliable and accurate understandings of nature. Scientific explanations must be testable and repeatable, and findings must be confirmed through additional observation and experimentation. As it is practiced in the late 20th and early 21st century, science is restricted to explaining only the natural world, using only natural cause. This is because science currently has no tools to test explanations using non-natural (such as supernatural) causes." As part of this standard there is the phrase, "Scientific explanations must be testable and repeatable." No theory of evolution has ever passed this test except for trivial changes regarded as micro evolution. And no forensic evidence in the fossil recorde exists that supports a gradualistic mechanism leading to non trivial evolution. So no theory of evolution has ever been tested with positive results let alone had repeatable results to confirm it. Therefore Darwinian evolution should be removed from the Kansas curriculum except for the trivial examples that it can explain.jerry_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

congregate, What specifically enables us, as humans, to build such machines? It is our Intelligence. So Intelligence is the general cause, humans are just one example (so far the only undisputed one, I concede, but by no means is this written in stone...there may be other intelligent agents out there in the universe) of this causal class. Artifacts are the only evidence a person can have of the historical presence of an intelligent agent. When we first found stone artifacts in the Americas from the ice age, it overturned the long-held idea that there were no humans on the continent during that time: the designed artifacts established historical presence. So ancient carbon-based machinery establishes the prescence of (an) ancient Intelligence(s).Atom_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

-----Jerry: "The Darwinian theory of evolution fails to meet the Kansas science standards." Jerry, three quick lightning round questions. 1) Am I to understand you are OK with Jack's standards? 2) Do you believe that those standards reflect the ideology of methodological naturalism? 3) Are you favorably or unfavorably disposed to methodological naturalism?StephenB_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Jack Krebs, now that you are back, will you answer my question about theistic evolution. You insisted that I characterized it inaccurately. Please tell me why this is so.StephenB_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

Atom- You are using intelligence when a simpler word will do. Humans. There is indeed positive evidence that humans can create and modify genomes, and produce complex, integrated, digital machines. I love my iPod. A proposed mechanism with no one proposed to use it and no particular time when it was proposed to be used is not a scientific theory fleshed out enough to be appropriate for discussion in US public school science courses.congregate_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

-----Daniel King: "It’s one question: is a design inference of value to evolutionary biologists? If so, how? If not, to whom is it of scientific value?" I think intelligent design’s s most useful function is to restore intellectual and mental health, which will help not only the study of biology but every other discipline as well. Ever since Hume and Kant destroyed the West’s confidence in the mind’s ability to apprehend reality, rationality has been losing currency. According to them, the mind cannot grasp reality as it is. Notice that I didn’t use the term, “rationalism,” which is an unwarranted and radical faith in reason’s ability to solve problems. I said “rationality,” the very thing that allows us to make sense of our world. If Kant had not first denied the image of design in the mind, Darwin would never dared deny design in nature. As Mortimer Adler has pointed out, Kant’s skepticism was based on a faulty epistemology. Sadly, that didn’t stop both philosophers and scientists from institutionalizing that skepticism it and using it as a tool for social and academic oppression. With the advent of the formal design inference, we now have ways of measuring the constituent elements found in a living organism. Science is proving that we do indeed live in a rational, designed, purposeful universe. Only the other day, a neurosurgeon pointed out that approaching the human brain as if it was designed, rather than a product of random variation and natural selection, has made him a better doctor. In effect, he felt that he was “reverse engineering,” which should be the mind-set for all scientific research and practice. To know that something was designed for a purpose is to know that there is a proper and an improper way for it to be working. That is what rationality is supposed to do--- to get beyond description and search for function. Accordingly, all the great scientists of the past taught that [A] We live in a rational universe, [B] We have rational minds, and [C] The logic of each corresponds to the other. Skepticism and Darwinism has challenged that world view by encouraging us to act as if the world created itself and everything can be reduced to matter. As such, it challenges the very foundation of rationality and logic. That is why Darwin’s theory has not provided a single benefit for mankind in 150 years. It is irrelevant to cosmology, useless to physics, and unnecessary for biology. ID does not have a tough act to follow. It is no wonder that its enemies are so defensive and paranoid. Instinctively, they know they have no case. That is why they persecute when they are in power and dissemble when they are in dialogue. It’s the inevitable result of living and playing in that intellectually deprived, functionally disordered, madhouse called Darwinism. ID can rescue us from this madhouse and restore us to mental and intellectual health.StephenB_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

There is no positive evidence for design sufficient to require discussion in a US public school classroom.
I disagree. KD Kalinsky points out in the paper I mentioned that intelligent agents appear capable of producing almost limitless amounts of functional information. Recent work by Venter and company show that intelligence can indeed create and modify genomes. Therefore, if there is circumstantial evidence that unguided mechanisms may be able to create and diversify life, there is direct empirical evidence that intelligent agents can do so. Much more so than for Darwinism. (What genomes have you witnessed Darwinistic mechanisms produce?) So I respectfully diagree with your minimizing of ID evidence.
Some religious texts state that design happened, but that is not scientific evidence.
Who brought up religious texts? Please don't bring them into the discussion, at least not with me.
Modern design arguments all boil down to “I don’t see how evolution could have done it”. That is not positive evidence for anything.
Again, you are incorrect. ID makes a positive case. It proposes its own mechanism, Intelligence, and studies to see what kinds of effects intelligent agents can produce. What we find is that Intelligent causes are capable of producing complex, integrated, digital machines (just like cells and molecular machines), and so are the current best explanation for the origin of machines of that type. This is positive evidence for design.Atom_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

I apologize for being a little wary about the meaning of the "Darwinian Theory of Evolution", but there are some commenters on this blog who define it a little differently than I would, so it's best to clear up any ambiguity. See, for example, on the Dawson in Austin thread:
Anyway we can be thankful that Dawkins loudly proclaims one core truth: DARWINISM IS ATHEISM.
congregate_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

Atom- I used the term ignoramus because it was in the posting under discussion. There is no positive evidence for design sufficient to require discussion in a US public school classroom. Some religious texts state that design happened, but that is not scientific evidence. Modern design arguments all boil down to "I don't see how evolution could have done it". That is not positive evidence for anything. jerry- I have trouble agreeing with that statement because I am not clear on what you mean by the "Darwinian theory of evolution," and because the standards are very long. Do you have a specific definition and specific portion of the standards in mind?congregate_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

The Darwinian theory of evolution fails to meet the Kansas science standards. congregate, do you agree with this statement. If not then tell us why. Jack Krebs who helped write the standards and has a background in evolutionary theory cannot tell us why so maybe you can.jerry_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

And on a personal note, a wise man once said that you should treat others as you'd like to be treated. Unless you'd appreciate being called an "ignoramus" maybe you should pause before using that term to label others. Very smart people can disagree about fundamental issues.Atom_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

congregate wrote:
Those who think that there is enough positive evidence for intelligent design to make it an appropriate topic for a U.S. public school science classroom are ignoramuses
congregate, as a long time commenter on UD I can tell you that people have been banned from this blog for writing much less than what you just wrote. I suggest you apologize for the name-calling before a mod notices.Atom_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

And what is wrong with this strategy anyway? Politicians who support the inclusion of non-scientific topics in science class in order to pander to their constituents are political opportunists. Believers who want to use government education to proselytize for their own religious views are evangelicals activists. Those who think that there is enough positive evidence for intelligent design to make it an appropriate topic for a U.S. public school science classroom are ignoramuses. Etc. etc. This may be an unpleasant reality for you, but it's the only reality there is.congregate_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Guys: Try open office, and I don't sleep much. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

I think that is because of the feature they have (which is nice) that shows you a live preview of what you are about to post. The trick is to write in a text editor (even a short post such as this) and then paste the text in.Jack Krebs_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

I believe that kf is misleading his readers.
Who should be mislead? I can’t imagine anybody reading his comments. If I didn't know better I would say KF is a sockpuppet. BTW Dave, do you have problems with your server? In the moment characters show up much slower than I type (1 character per second). I wonder how KF deals with this issue provided that he is not only recycling old stuff he already published elsewhere.sparc_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Jerry, thanks.kairosfocus_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

PS: C, notice especially that verbal slip late in the excerpt: OUR target . . . kairosfocus_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Congregate: I sympathise with wanting to think the best of those who are in an exchange. And, God knows, I wish the matter were not as serious and sobering as I have had to document. But, sadly, it is. For instance, if you had read the full exchange among commenters, you would have seen the below, from FTK at 533, and this is an eyewitness speaking, C – and one whose witness from my own cross-checks is accurate:
Oh, good grief…kf, don’t let Jack BS [pardon, I am citing in toto] you. That “personal opinion” came from LIZ CRAIG, Jack’s right hand gal at KCFS and very much a part of their public relations. She was also the president of KCFS at one time. She made the statement in the KCFS forum, and I didn’t see Jack or anyone else correct her. He’s the moderator so you’d think he’d set her straight if she was off base.
Someone WAS being misleading and manipulative of those without personal knowledge of what was going on in Kansas in 2005, indeed. But it was not me. It was those who were carrying out the same destructive ad hominem based PR policy from 1999 to 2007. So, bearing in mind such context, “my strategy” properly translates as below, attempts to deny or deflect notwithstanding:
[KCFS’ PR] strategy [as declared in their online forum by their PR person, circa 2005] . . . is the same as it was in 1999: notify the national and local media about what’s going on and portray them [i.e. those who advocate for objectivity, fairness and balance in science definitions and in teaching about the science of origins] in the harshest light possible, as political opportunists, evangelical activists, ignoramuses, breakers of rules, unprincipled bullies, etc . . . . Our target is the moderates who are not that well educated about the issues, most of whom probably are theistic evolutionists . . . . The solution is really political . . .
, That is a most unpleasant reality, and it is one that will be officially denied even as it is implemented, but it is a reality we have to reckon with and not dismiss because it seems too ruthless to be an act of persons who respect civility. But the problem is, what of how the UNCIVIL behave – starting with the school yard bully? [Do you think the stuff in the forthcoming Expelled is a matter of mere accidents and incidents of misunderstanding?] GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

congregate, I think you should read more. Read #533. "Oh, good grief…kf, don’t let Jack BS you. That “personal opinion” came from LIZ CRAIG, Jack’s right hand gal at KCFS and very much a part of their public relations. She was also the president of KCFS at one time." So I think you owe kairosfocus an apology.jerry_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

I can't imagine anyone is still reading kf's extended contributions, but in a brief skim I noticed one particularly blatant and probably emblematic misrepresentation. Kf quoted a message board comment from a member of Kansas Citizens For Science. In this message board comment, quoted in its entirety somewhere earlier in this endless thread, I'm sure, the individual commenter stated her own particular strategy for dealing with challenges to the state educational standards from individuals concerned that the standards did not properly reflect their own religious views. She used, in the comment at issue, the words "my strategy". Kf, in quoting this comment, omits the word "my" and replaces it with the bracketed [KCFS' PR]. I believe that kf is misleading his readers.congregate_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

PS: "second excerpt" is a bit misleading. In 123 - 4 it refers to the Kansas science standards attempted redefinition of science circa 2007.kairosfocus_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT}

3] On want of technical substance from the evo mat advocates This thread actually began its life on a substantial issue – the alleged cross-species hybridisation of proto-humans and proto-chimps, leading to claimed tracers in our DNA. But -- though we must pause and thank especially Mr MacNeill for his willing participation -- once we probed for more than more or less just-so level ad hoc presentations that assume what they are to show, there was surprisingly little substance from the advocates of the thesis. This set the pattern for matters of substance that came up as the thread progressed, whether on the original scientific point, or points tangential to it, or on the educational and definitional matters that came up. I actually still would like to see some solid answers to the following points from 263:
a –> We speak, vocalising ideas in spoken words in sound-based languages; chimps etc. evidently cannot (though of course parrots can verbalise words and in some cases may possibly understand some of what they say). How is this accounted for on the known claimed small percentage DNA differences between us and our “cousins” [was it 1%, 2%, or – per ericB at 178, 5%, and BTW where does that figure come from, and to what phenotypical significance, chromosome by chromosome?]? How has this been accounted for in terms of chance + necessity only, working through random variation and natural selection, beyond ad hoc just-so stories, i.e. on an empirically testable “scientific” basis? I see here ericB’s telling remark: {{The traditional X% figure only considered differences in protein coding sequences in DNA, not the rest of DNA, which now is known to be able to influence interpretation . . . . Even in regard to coding DNA, the traditional X% figure ignores sections where chimps and humans have nothing in common. It only measures differences in shared coding regions.}} b –> We express ourselves in complex, arbitrary verbal codes that embrace concepts of identity, action, effect, purpose, past, present, future, abstract concepts etc. The various apes etc do not. How is this accounted for on the same terms? c –> We have fully opposable thumbs, apes etc — as a rule — evidently do not. That seems a simple enough modification, and is plainly highly useful – it is critical to the capability of the human hand. If our populations diverged in similar environments at the same time [and were close enough to hybridise with ancestral chimps], why did we develop such full opposability fairly rapidly, while our ape “cousins” as a whole did not? Conversely, if our ape cousins did not need it to survive and thrive in evidently similar environments, why and how did we develop the fully opposable thumb? [I am here speaking to the issue of mutations, environmentally driven selection and change vs stability of organism architecture.] d –> In short, I am speaking to two key differences between us and our cousins: (i) the verbalising, conceptualising mind-brain system, and (ii) the hand that gives effect to what is conceived. That is, the issue is: how do we account for these key differences within the allegedly small genomic changes, and the time available and the similarity of environments in which the change vs stasis are claimed to have happened? e –> Further to this, how do we account for the issues on fertility and reproductive isolation vs hybridising that are associated with this thread, in the context of the key changes noted?
4] On their want of educational substance: We are dealing with an attempted, evolutionary materialist re-definition of science, through forcing students to lean that:
Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. . . . Scientific explanations must be testable and repeatable, and findings must be confirmed through additional observation and experimentation. As it is practiced in the late 20th and early 21st century, science is restricted to explaining only the natural world, using only natural cause. This is because science currently has no tools to test explanations using non-natural (such as supernatural) causes.
This utterly contrasts with the sort of historically and philosophically valid definition we can say find in high quality dictionaries before the current controversy, which inter alia stress the empirically anchored search for the untrammelled truth about our cosmos and in no wise countenance censoring out one of the causes of contingency, agent action [for natural regularities tracing to necessity do not account for contingency as Newton noted in his General Scholium to the Principia cited at 544 above: highly contingent situations trace to agents or chance, e.g why is this die sitting with a 6 uppermost?] :
science: a branch of knowledge [= “true, justified belief”] conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. [Concise Oxford, 1990 — and yes, they used the “z” Virginia!] scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge [”the body of truth, information and principles acquired by mankind”] involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. [Webster’s 7th Collegiate, 1965; I have deliberately chosen definitions from dictionaries that were published before the current controversies.]
Ever since 123 – 4, I have therefore objected [and have yet to see a cogent response on the merits]:
a –> Since there is a clear context in which “natural” in effect in context means evolutionary materialist [i.e. “the best materialistic explanation of the cosmos from hydrogen to humans”], the second excerpt clearly and improperly begs a lot of big questions. b –> It is indoctrination, not education – and I say that as one who has taught in science and technology at high school and college level and has had a hand in curriculum and programme development . . . . c –> Further to this, I observe that statistics is a major tool used in observational and experimental studies in science, and that in hypothesis testing, it in fact articulates several tools that are precisely useful for distinguishing [I] chance, [II] law-like natural regularities and [III] design/intent/agent action as possible causal factors, in the context of situationally plausible alternative hypotheses. d –> Indeed, these tools are commonly used in the design of experiments, e.g. the use of control cases and various treatments, leading to ANOVA to analyse the impact of various factors to appropriate levels of confidence. So it is simply falsehood backed up by slanderous allusion, to say that “science currently has no tools to test explanations using non-natural (such as supernatural) causes.” [Subsequently, cf. 470, we learned that Mr Krebs TEACHES statistics, i.e he immediately must have known in 2004 – 5, that the attempt to redefine science so that one blocks inference to agency relative to observed signs in the data as one of the major causal factors [ i.e. chance, necessity, agency] cuts across a whole swath of real-world science; of course it was handy to disguise that by in effect slanderously tagging the inference to intelligent design as an inference to the supernatural] e –> For: [a] non-natural has a very relevant meaning, i.e “[intentional, intelligent] agent,” and [b] all of this is in the unacknowledged context of the too often INTENTIONAL misrepresentation of Intelligent Design as being about claimed scientific inference to the supernatural, where [c] in fact ID and a lot of pure and applied science works in a context where agent-cause is a relevant consideration and methods have been developed for addressing agent action – which is in this context a very relevant meaning of “non-natural.” f –> I say “too often intentional,” as: if you [JK] and others of your ilk don’t know the basic context of the design inference across chance law-like regularity tracing to mechanical necessity and design, that is because of willful refusal to do basic homework on the nature and context of design theory. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is time to call you and your ilk to basic intellectual duty.
Bottomline: evolutionary materialism is insofar as it is a scientific research programme from cosmological evolution to chemical evolution and OOL to macroevolution to socio-cultural evolution, , a programme in crisis. But since it is also a major component of a self-refuting worldview and agenda that dominates key cultural institutions, there are some really nasty Plato's Cave style power games going on to insulate it from the effects of that double-crisis in science and philosophy. We need to be aware of that, and to respond appropriately, especially if and when advocates for the evolutionary materialist status quo go over the line into incivility. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT}

Vivid: Thanks, ever so much. Usually, when one undertakes the sort of bruising toe-to-toe exchange that we see above, it is a painful, thankless task, and one is spattered by the spray of mud from those who resort to character assassination [subtle or blatant], not to mention, bruised by the blows one inevitably takes in the course of the exchange -- including not a few below the belt. A few remarks on tactics and substance, perhaps even a stab at the impossible – a summary of the thread – are in order. 1] On evolutionary materialist stratagems exposed I am of the opinion that one aspect of the tactics you excerpted on is to disgust decent but ill-informed people, who will think that BOTH are more or less “equally” guilty. (This is the classic fallacy of [im-]moral equivalency that -- if you may pardon so strong a comparison -- so often has been used to intimidate rape victims as “inviting” assault. Indeed, if one accepts that unjustly trashing reputations and destroying careers is among other things a very personal assault, the comparison is more apt than we like to think. At least, the upcoming movie, Expelled will expose some of the more notorious cases.) Sadly, too often we are taken in by the stratagem, instead of identifying it and strongly repudiating those who resort to character assassination instead of strictly engaging the issue. Notice, for instance, the ill-founded accusations of a person or two above who fit into the KCFS' “ill-informed moderate” target group; statements that, though corrected, have never been withdrawn or apologised for. Of course, when it comes to the likes of Mr Krebs, he has yet to apologise, even for outright deception, as was last just exposed when FTK pointed out at 533 just who Ms Clair is/was in KCFS [contrary to the impression Mr Krebs tried to give at 529], and when I cited the relevant memo in shocking details at 537, showing just where it had appeared – in the discussion forum for the KCFS, by one who on the evidence of those who know was the relevant KCFS PR person. As to acknowledging that this exchange and citations further documents an utterly uncivil campaign of attacking the man instead of cogently addressing the issue on the merits -- much less apologising and turning from it; Mr Krebs is as usual silent. 2] The PR strategy Let us hear the strategy again, so that we will never forget what we are up against:
[KCFS' PR] strategy [as declared in their online forum by their PR person] . . . is the same as it was in 1999: notify the national and local media about what’s going on and portray them [i.e. those who advocate for objectivity, fairness and balance in science definitions and in teaching about the science of origins] in the harshest light possible, as political opportunists, evangelical activists, ignoramuses, breakers of rules, unprincipled bullies, etc . . . . Our target is the moderates who are not that well educated about the issues, most of whom probably are theistic evolutionists . . . . The solution is really political . . .
Let us analyse a bit: a --> The first line of action in “defense” of injecting tendentious, historically and evolutionary materialist redefinitions of science into science education and refusing to allow for a balanced, objective statement of the state of the art on origins science, is to slander those who stand for fairness and objectivity to the media, in the intent that the media will then propagate the slander to the public. b --> That in itself tells us a lot about just what a known factor the media in our day are: the media, as a whole can be relied upon to distort and propagate slanders, in service to their own agendas. This immediately means that alternative media have to be created, and the public has to be increasingly made aware of the sadly biased, or even deceptive and manipulative nature of the general run of the media. c --> The nature of the slander is itself telling: portraying people “in the harshest light” as opportunists, EVANGELICAL activists, ignoramuses, rule-breakers, and bullies. So, right out the starting gate, if one has Bible-believing Christian convictions, one is a not-welcome ignoramus intruding by bullying and rule-breaking into the public arena of militantly secularist Western culture. That is the worst form of blatant bigotry, pure and straight. d --> As to “rule breaking” it is worth pausing to cite KFS's opening web page on what actually happened in that committee on which Mr Krebs sat in 2004 – 5 [by contrast with what one would naturally infer from JK at 212 and 225], which is pretty much as I suspected and remarked on at 246 -7 above based on my own experiences with curriculum development work-groups and manipulative or even outright deceptive “facilitators”:
May 2004 In 2004 the Kansas State Board appointed a Science Writing Committee of 25 scientists and educators to revise Kansas Science Standards. The Writing Committee began its work in May 2004. October 2004 In October 2004 authors of the proposed revisions discussed on this site presented their proposals to the Science Writing Committee for discussion and a vote. However leadership of the committee ruled the motions out of order and did not allow consideration and vote on the proposals. December 2004 On December 10, 2004, and because of the action of the leadership mentioned above, the Authors, consisting of eight members of the Science Writing Committee, delivered to the Kansas State Board of Education proposed revisions to Kansas Science Standards. The proposals seek objectivity in origins science . . . . [MORE]
e --> In short, we need to ask -- based on what we have seen in this thread, and what we now learn, -- just who the real “bullies” are. f --> Furthermore, it is plain that if the minority blew the whistle and the Board broke “rules” in order to balance the plainly high-handed and arbitrary behaviour of the domineering evolutionary materialist group in the Science Writing Committee, there was good reason to do so, in the name of basic justice. Good reason that we will never hear of from those who acted in a tyrannical and abusive fashion and who have consistently twisted or suppressed the truth. g --> Let us therefore draw the appropriate conclusion: [1] the evolutionary materialism advocates have no good case on the merits [as we have seen from their evasiveness and distractors on the merits in this thread], but [2] figure -- sadly, with some prospect for success -- that they can manipulate the public often enough to get their way. Such can only be refuted, exposed and defeated; they cannot be merely shamed as they seem to be shameless. [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT}

assasination, charactervividblue_{March 26, 2008
March
03
Mar
26
26
2008
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

"In that context, he has been associated with — and in fact is a leader of — a movement in promotion of evolutionary materialist views that has sought to suppress teaching the longstanding controversy surrounding NDT and the gaps ion its account of the origins of life, has distorted alternative views such as ID [which is at technical level most certainly NOT about the inference to the supernatural hinted at in the 2007 Kansas attempted re-definition of science but rather to agent action] and has trashed the reputation of a lot of people, and in some cases, their careers. In particular, he has been associated with a tendentious redefinition of science that has slandered movements in science and seeks to turn science into in effect “the best evolutionary materialist account of the cosmos from hydrogen to humans,” instead of an empirically anchored, progressive search for the truth about the cosmos. In short, we are dealing with a responsible policymaker and opinion-maker, not an ordinary private citizen and teacher who just happened to be tapped to sit on some advisory committee or other. His degree of responsibility and accountability, as well as his level of duty to justice and truth, are very, very much higher than that of an ordinary citizen or teacher. Precisely because of the potential to do harm." and "My strategy at this point is the same as it was in 1999: notify the national and local media about what’s going on and portray them in the harshest light possible, as political opportunists, evangelical activists, ignoramuses, breakers of rules, unprincipled bullies, etc. There may no way to head off another science standards debacle, but we can sure make them look like asses as they do what they do. Our target is the moderates who are not that well educated about the issues, most of whom probably are theistic evolutionists. There is no way to convert the creationists. The solution is really political. . . . Posted by Liz Craig, Member no 70 KCFS .org Discussion Forum" KF, Atom great thread. A thorough trashing of Krebs and others of his ilk who engage in charactar assination, slander and any other tactic to further their agenda. I am very familiar with Liz Craig from my ARN days, she posted under Lizard. This is indeed a culture war furthermore this is not about science rather it is about metaphysics. Krebs and his cohorts misuse science and use it as a club to promote their own particular worldviews, hypocrite comes to mind. I can understand why Jack keeps wanting to cease posting since you, attom and others have stripped him of his emperors clothes. Well done! Vividvividblue_{March 26, 2008
March
03
Mar
26
26
2008
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 20 Next