A Sermon by Jerry Coyne on Biogeography

_{Cornelius Hunter

July 14, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

It is remarkable that people pay evolutionist Jerry Coyne to indoctrinate their children according to his dogmatic religious beliefs. But they do, and he does. And the University of Chicago biology professor has now enshrined evolution’s theological convictions in his new book, Why Evolution is True, for all to see. Here is one example:

Continue here

Comments

Yes we all know that if God created life on earth all fauna would be equally distributed throughout the earth in a uniform manner. Also, all the mountains would be made of rock candy...
and we also know that "Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors", "Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms" and "Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions".Hoki_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

Phinehas,
Isn’t it interesting how some people are so committed to certain things about the God they don’t believe in?
Yes we all know that if God created life on earth all fauna would be equally distributed throughout the earth in a uniform manner. Also, all the mountains would be made of rock candy, and their would be a lakes of stew and whiskey too, where you could paddle around in a big canoe, plus lemonade springs where the blue bird sings, and the birds and the bees and the cigarette trees, the wind wouldn't blow, and it would never snow if the earth was created by a intelligent design.Jehu_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

I don’t know the religious positions of Coyne and Berra but it’s quite possible that neither of them even have a belief in God at all, but are merely postulating that if God was the creator there are at best some puzzling anomalies in the way the creation was carried out.
Isn’t it interesting how some people are so committed to certain things about the God they don’t believe in?
I thought it would help if I highlighted the important bits you seem to have missed.BillB_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

Isn’t it interesting how some people are so committed to certain things about the God they don’t believe in?
Perhaps they are dealing in hypotheticalsAdel DiBagno_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

Well, thylacines and wolves do look quite similar at least superficiallly.
Let's keep it at that level, thank you.Adel DiBagno_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

I don’t know the religious positions of Coyne and Berra but it’s quite possible that neither of them even have a belief in God at all, but are merely postulating that if God was the creator there are at best some puzzling anomalies in the way the creation was carried out.
Isn't it interesting how some people are so committed to certain things about the God they don't believe in?Phinehas_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT}

Kahn, Total nonsense. Panspermia is at least as testable a hypothesis as evolution. Not that I want to get into an argument defending panspermia. The so-called testable hypothesis for abiogenesis was nothing more than a proposal on how clay can catalyze RNA formation. Big. Deal. That would be just one step in whole abiogenesis process. In contrast, panspermia as a theory is far more developed than RNA world. Tests that would show positive support for panspermia. 1. can bacteria survive in space. 2. can genetic information be horizontally transfered. 3. does the genetic record show the sudden appearance of information. There are lots of tests for panspermia. Anyway, I don' t believe it but I find it far more plausible than RNA world. At least panspermia has a hope, which is more than RNA world will ever have. From the page I linked to:
Test Three: Reconstructing the Past Genomically Third-best are historical reconstructions of actual biological evolution based on genomic studies of existing species. To get any result one must assume that today's version and the ancient version of a given species are genetically very similar, and that gene transfer and gene loss will not obscure the remote past. Then, if new programs are produced by the darwinian method, their precursors should be present in the genomes of today's species that are ancestral to the one posessing the full program under study. These precursors should exhibit a pattern of gradual construction, one or a few nucleotides at a time, as one ascends through the phylogeny of the program. However, if new programs are imported by cosmic ancestry, the gradual intermediate steps will not be found. Instead, one would observe nearly identical programs, or nothing similar, in the ancestral species (4). Historical reconstructions like that by Raymond et al. (5) look hard for evidence of gradual construction. Claims of such finds are very few. Instead, geneticists are often surprised to find evidence that new programs were delivered to a species by gene transfer (6). Evidence for transfer, with program reassembly, favors cosmic ancestry over darwinism for the reasons stated above.
Jehu_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

jehu, none of those proposed tests would provide any positive support for their hypothesis (which is unclear to begin with). they would simply provide evidence against some evolutionary hypotheses. do you have any specific hypotheses that can be tested against a null hypothesis?Khan_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Khan, Of course not. For that, go here. Not that I believe it. But it is way better than the RNA world brain fart.Jehu_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

jehu @79, including the question about how the ID abiogenesis idea you linked to could be empirically tested?Khan_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

dbthomas, Please read post my post #60 again. Keep in mind that these quotes were made with the clay template hypothesis in hindsight. It answers your questions.Jehu_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

herb (#78) wrote: "Well, thylacines and wolves do look quite similar at least superficiallly." "When Darwin, on the voyage of the Beagle, visited Australia in 1836, he remarked that he might almost suppose that one maker had made the fauna and flora of the rest of the world, and another maker made Australia's - "An unbeliever ... might exclaim 'Surely two distinct creators must have been at work'", he mused in his diary." - http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/oct04.html The document continues: "The morphology, ecology and physiology of Austronesian fauna were so different that Darwin's colleague Wallace described the region as a distinct ecological region. Despite a few similarities of outward form, such as between the marsupial "wolf", the thylacine, and the placental wolf, they were clearly very different in construction and design." Dolphins and sharks look a lot alike, although they are much further apart than placental wolves and thylacines. But so what? Talk Origins has the definition: "Convergence is an amorphous evolutionary term that is used in somewhat different senses by different authors (or even by the same people at different times). It generally refers to similarities between organisms that evolved independently, i.e. similarities not directly inherited from a common ancestor. Convergent similarities can involve structure, form, and function. Strict convergence of both function and structure is very rare, except in trivial cases. Convergence of form and function is common, and is a direct prediction of the theory of natural selection." - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/glossary.htmlPaulBurnett_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

Paul Burnett (& "Hedge"),
How about if you watched movies of these two very different species giving birth, with particular attention to relative birth size and activities of the two different species’ newborns? Do you think you might notice any differences? Or have a detailed DNA/RNA analysis shown to you - do you think you might notice any differences? Or if you participated in a detailed dissection (with particular attention to the female reproductive organs), would you expect any differences?
Well, thylacines and wolves do look quite similar at least superficiallly. There's a nice picture of thylacines here. How do the evos account for this remarkable degree of convergence?herb_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

dbthomas: "Cornelius: What? No further comments on the Australian fossil record or Futuyama’s alleged evidential mendacity?" I too am interested in what Dr. Hunter thinks about the Australian fossil record. If he does not accept the standard biogeographical explanations, what alternative hypotheses would he offer? Does ID theory shed any light on the matter? If the answer is 'nothing' or 'no' - what needs to be done to get to a place where a hypothesis could be formed?JTaylor_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

OK, I give up. Now the broken link is working again.dbthomas_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
12:47 AM
12
12
47
AM
PDT}

What is with the link mangling in Wordpress? Works fine in the preview, but is then broken in the post. Here's the article: Clay's matchmaking could have sparked lifedbthomas_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT}

Just a note: Yes, I know the paper Khan cited wasn't specifically about Cairns-Smith's original clay theory, but it's clearly derived from the general idea as it proposes a certain kind of clay catalyst for RNA. If you think that's not good enough, though, that's cool. That particular idea's gotten a bit of testing well (well before the paper Khan linked was written, actually):
Two of the crucial components for the origin of life - genetic material and cell membranes - could have been introduced to one another by a lump of clay, new experiments have shown. The study of montmorillonite clay, by Martin Hanczyc, Shelly Fujikawa and Jack Szostak at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, revealed it can sharply accelerate the formation of membranous fluid-filled sacs. These vesicles also grow and undergo a simple form of division, giving them the properties of primitive cells. Previous work has shown that the same simple mineral can help assemble the genetic material RNA from simpler chemicals. "Interestingly, the clay also gets internalised in the vesicles," says Leslie Orgel, an origin of life expert at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences in San Diego, California. "So this work is quite nice in that it finds a connection between the mechanism that creates RNA and encloses it in a membrane."
Ferris cites all that prior research, in fact. So you see, parts of the idea are not only testable, but have already been tested.dbthomas_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT}

Frakking Wordpress. Here's the link it screwed up: Crystals As Genes?dbthomas_{July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT}

Jehu: OK, great, but how do you test that? I don't see a lot of suggestions for that part. This "Cosmic Ancestry" idea also doesn't actually seem to require either intelligence or design, but instead posits horizontal gene transfer (and strangely, he talks about 'Darwinism' rejecting horizontal gene tranfer even though he cites papers from all sorts of biologists describing the phenomenon) from viruses or bacterial spores deposited by inbound comets (which, BTW, we haven't had a whole lot of lately. By which I mean: hardly any for the last few billion years or so). Also, this guy hedges his idea by saying "Oh, new genetic programs could just be dormant and waiting for some trigger." Oh, OK. How do we tell the difference? And how come these dormant programs didn't get hopelessly ruined by random mutation over the ages? The genes weren't being selected, so there'd be nothing to fend off deterioration. Well, except additional mechanisms of preservation for which no evidence has been found. Just skimming through the site as a whole, there are all sorts of other errors and misconceptions, but there is also one very huge problem which this guy brings up himself at the end of the little essay you linked:
A consequence of this reasoning is that life on Earth can have descended only from life elsewhere that was at least as highly evolved as it is here.
OK, so did this elsewhere require another highly-evolved elsewhere before it could launch its own panspermia program? If so, is yet another elsewhere then required? How far does the chain go? How in the hell do you know this when all the 'alien' genes look more or less just like all the ones already here and supposedly get incorporated into 'native' genomes without a hitch? In any case, short of landing on random comets and discovering an alien virus or bacteria by sheer luck (and which couldn't have arrived as a result of contamination from the probe), I'm not yet convinced this qualifies as testable. And, um, how is it exactly that you've determined that the Graham-Cairns clay hypothesis isn't testable, period? I mean I have no trouble imagining that chemists could quite test that basic idea in the lab by experimenting with...oh, what do ya know? They have:
One aspect of the multifaceted proposal by A. G. Cairns-Smith, that imperfect crystals have the capacity to act as primitive genes by transferring the disposition of their imperfections from one crystal to another, is investigated. Rather than examining clay minerals, the most likely crystalline genes in the theories of Cairns-Smith, an experiment was designed in a model crystalline system unrelated to the composition of the prebiotic earth but suited to a well-defined test.
Well, that settles that: clay theory is testable and people do take it seriously to boot. Google is amazing! Now, yes, the tested crystals were too prone to imperfections to work well as genetic templates, but they weren't representative of prebiotic materials or intended to be and also, as one of the researchers noted in an article about the work,:
'We wanted to try to bring one aspect of the multifaceted proposal of Cairns-Smith to the realm of repeatable experimental science.' 'I would hope that our experiment would encourage scientists to subject other aspects of the broad crystal-as-genes hypothesis to the scrutiny of experiment,' added Kahr.
But you were saying about that not-necessarily-intelligently-designed panspermia thing you linked to?dbthomas_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT}

Kahn,
jehu, you asked for a testable hypothesis and I gave you one. you may not like it, but you can’t deny that is a testable hypothesis. now, please return the favor and give me a testable hypothesis for abiogenesis from ID.
You gave me a turd of a hypothesis that nobody takes seriously. Usually Darwinists demur on the issue of abiogenesis and say it is not part of Darwinism. So I give you points for at least stepping up to the plate and taking one on the chin. As for an ID testable hypothesis on abiogenesis, go here.Jehu_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT}

Cornelius Hunter:
It doesn’t “look like common descent” without evolution’s religious premises.
Sober did not use religious premises in that thread you link to. In that thread, I asked you to provide evidence that he did. In that thread, none came forth. Perhaps in this thread, things will be different?Hoki_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT}

Cornelius: What? No further comments on the Australian fossil record or Futuyama's alleged evidential mendacity?dbthomas_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT}

Cornelius, I'm not sold on buying your book yet. why don't you present me with some other targets. as soon as ID makes some predictions that COyne can target, let me know.Khan_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

Khan (60):
COyne et al are mostly arguing against the explicit empirical predictions of YECs. I’m sure he’d like to argue against those of ID except that thee aren’t any.
No, YEC is only one target (and not even the main one at that). For starters you may want to look at Science's Blind Spot.Cornelius Hunter_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT}

Cornelius
Evolutionists such as Coyne can freely proclaim what is and is not likely if God created the species, and then say they are all about empiricism
COyne et al are mostly arguing against the explicit empirical predictions of YECs. I'm sure he'd like to argue against those of ID except that thee aren't any.Khan_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

Mark Frank (1):
With carefully chosen religious assumptions you can make the likelihood of ~~any observed outcome~~ [what we observe] as ~~high~~ [low] as you wish.
See my edit above.
You can assume that God made it look like common descent ...
It doesn't "look like common descent" without evolution's religious premises. idnet (2):
I must admit that the location of apparent fossil ancestors in the location of today’s creatures especially in the Australian context seems to me to be compelling evidence that there is a genetic relationship between the fossils and today’s animals.
Why is it "compelling"? Anthony09 (3):
What’s religious about this? There are no religious assumptions on Coyne’s part, at least not in the passage you quoted
And I'm sure that Darwin / Collins / Coyne, etc. thought the same thing. This is why evolution is so interesting and dangerous. Evolutionists use religious arguments and then claim they make no religious claims. Evolutionists such as Coyne can freely proclaim what is and is not likely if God created the species, and then say they are all about empiricism. The posts here by evolutionists are typical. They are good examples of this dangerous denialism in action.Cornelius Hunter_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

jehu, you asked for a testable hypothesis and I gave you one. you may not like it, but you can't deny that is a testable hypothesis. now, please return the favor and give me a testable hypothesis for abiogenesis from ID.Khan_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

Alright, Wordpress is doing strange things to links. One more time: Earliest known Australian Tertiary mammal faunadbthomas_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

Sorry about the broken link. It's in my earlier post, but here it is again anyway: Earliest known Australian Tertiary mammal faunadbthomas_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply