Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars (pictured above, courtesy of Wikipedia), nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

On Professor Tour’s Website, there’s a very revealing article on evolution and creation, in which Tour bluntly states that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (all bold emphases below are mine – VJT):

Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?

…I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.

In a more recent talk, entitled, Nanotech and Jesus Christ, given on 1 November 2012 at Georgia Tech, Professor Tour went further, and declared that no scientist that he has spoken to understands macroevolution – and that includes Nobel Prize winners! Here’s what he said when a student in the audience asked him about evolution:

I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.

I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you. Is that OK, for me to say, “I don’t understand this”? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.

Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “Yes,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.

I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”

If you understand evolution, I am fine with that. I’m not going to try to change you – not at all. In fact, I wish I had the understanding that you have.

But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can’t wave by and say, “This enzyme does that.” You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me. Nobody has come forward.

The Atheist Society contacted me. They said that they will buy the lunch, and they challenged the Atheist Society, “Go down to Houston and have lunch with this guy, and talk to him.” Nobody has come! Now remember, because I’m just going to ask, when I stop understanding what you’re talking about, I will ask. So I sincerely want to know. I would like to believe it. But I just can’t.

Now, I understand microevolution, I really do. We do this all the time in the lab. I understand this. But when you have speciation changes, when you have organs changing, when you have to have concerted lines of evolution, all happening in the same place and time – not just one line – concerted lines, all at the same place, all in the same environment … this is very hard to fathom.

I was in Israel not too long ago, talking with a bio-engineer, and [he was] describing to me the ear, and he was studying the different changes in the modulus of the ear, and I said, “How does this come about?” And he says, “Oh, Jim, you know, we all believe in evolution, but we have no idea how it happened.” Now there’s a good Jewish professor for you. I mean, that’s what it is. So that’s where I am. Have I answered the question? (52:00 to 56:44)

Professor Tour’s online talk is absolutely fascinating as well as being deeply moving on a personal level, and I would strongly urge readers to listen to his talk in its entirety – including the questions after the talk. You won’t regret it, I promise you. One interesting little gem of information which I’ll reveal is that it was Professor Tour who was largely instrumental in getting Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley, winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, to reject Darwinian evolution and accept Old Earth creationism, shortly before he died in 2005. It was Tour who persuaded Smalley to delve into the question of origins. After reading the books “Origins of Life” and “Who Was Adam?”, written by Dr. Hugh Ross (an astrophysicist) and Dr. Fazale Rana (a biochemist).. Dr. Smalley explained his change of heart as follows:

Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading “Origins of Life”, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, “Who Was Adam?”, is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death.

Strong words indeed, for a Nobel scientist. Readers can find out more about Professor Richard Smalley’s change of views here.

Why should we believe macroevolution, if nobody understands it?

Now that Professor Tour has informed the world that even Nobel Prize-winning scientists privately admit that they don’t understand macroevolution, a layperson is surely entitled to ask: “Well, if even they don’t understand it, then why should we believe it? How can we possibly be obliged to believe in a theory which nobody understands?”

That’s a good question. And it’s no use for Darwinists to trot out the standard “party line” that “even if we don’t yet understand how it happened, we still have enough evidence to infer that it happened.” At the very most, all that the current scientific evidence could establish is the common descent of living organisms. But that’s not macroevolution. Macroevolution requires more than a common ancestry for living organisms: it requires a natural mechanism which can generate the diversity of life-forms we see on Earth today from a common stock, without the need for any direction by an Intelligent Agent. But the mechanism is precisely what we don’t have evidence for. So the question remains: why should we believe in macroevolution?

The decline of academic freedom

Given the massive uncertainty about the “how” of macroevolution among scientists working in the field, you might think that a wide variety of views would be tolerated in the scientific arena – including the view that there is no such process as macroevolution. However, you would be sadly mistaken. As Professor Tour notes in his online article on evolution and creation, an alarming academic trend has emerged in recent years: a growing intolerance of dissent from Darwinism. This trend is so pronounced that Professor Tour now advises his students not to voice their doubts about Darwinism in public, if they want a successful career:

In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys…

But my recent advice to my graduate students has been direct and revealing: If you disagree with Darwinian Theory, keep it to yourselves if you value your careers, unless, of course, you’re one of those champions for proclamation; I know that that fire exists in some, so be ready for lead-ridden limbs. But if the scientific community has taken these shots at senior faculty, it will not be comfortable for the young non-conformist. When the power-holders permit no contrary discussion, can a vibrant academy be maintained? Is there a University (unity in diversity)? For the United States, I pray that the scientific community and the National Academy in particular will investigate the disenfranchisement that is manifest upon some of their own, and thereby address the inequity.

It remains to be seen if other countries will allow their young scientists to think freely about the origin of life, and of the various species of organisms that we find on Earth today. What I will say, though, is that countries which restrict academic freedom will eventually be overtaken by countries which allow it to prosper. There is still time for America and Europe to throw off the dead hand of Darwinism in academic circles, and let their young people breathe the unaccustomed air of free speech once again.

(UPDATE: Here’s a link to my follow-up post, Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details. It amply refutes the simplistic charge, made by some skeptics, that Professor Tour was conflating macroevolution with the question of the origin of life.)

UD Editors:  This post has received a great deal of attention lately, so we are moving it back to the front page.

Comments
Mung Did Nick admit he is dishonest then? Seems that he does not even believe himself!Andre
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT
Nick How can you expect us to take Talk Origins serious as a credible evolutionary resource that is purely scientific and has no biased agenda if it has articles like the following? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating-creationists.html Science should concern itself with cause and effect stuff only because that is what science is, to see what causes what....Andre
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT
Nice article VJT - looking forward to watching the video of Tour's lecture. Gotta find time though...Optimus
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT
A post detailing the crucial distinction between the question of did it happen, and the question of how did it happen (it referring to macroevolution/common descent): Confusing Evidence for Common Ancestry with Evidence for Random Mutation and Natural Selection From my own experience, conflating the above two questions, and the evidence in support of each, is one of the Darwinists most often-used tactics when it comes to tricking the public. It's good to see that Nick Matzke is keeping that sleazy tradition alive. Way to go, Nick! Anyway, here's a few more relevant articles from EN&V: Douglas Theobald Tests Universal Common Ancestry by Refuting a Preposterous Null Hypothesis But Isn't There a Consilience of Data That Corroborates Common Descent? (a follow-up to the preceding entry) Also, EN&V recently deconstructed Talk Origins' entry on speciation, which crosses over into the question of large-scale macro-evolutionary change. The first of the six-part series can be found here, and the full article (in PDF format) can be downloaded here. It's well worth a read. Once you see just how weak Talk Origins' actual case is, you'll understand why they resort to dishonesty and intentional confusion.Jammer
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT
Nick M.
Theobald is right and wikipedia is wrong.
Now that's just hilarious Nick. The very first entry in the References section in the Wikipedia article on Macroevolution is to something co-authored by someone named "Matzke, Nicholas J." Maybe you should ask them to remove you as a reference.Mung
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT
Nick:
Theobald is right and wikipedia is wrong.
Considering that fully 50% of their external links are to Theobold's article or to what he links to in his article (talkorigins) they must be complete morons.Mung
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT
Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale — what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction. - Macroevolution
lol No wonder there's no Theory of Macroevolution.Mung
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT
I'll sponsor the first 500 bucks towards Nick's "free lunch."Mung
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
By the way,
He shows no evidence of that, either directly or in terms of showing a sign of having a clue about the field of evolutionary biology.
The fact that this comes from someone who praises and boosts Richard Carrier and his "Jesus never existed!" speculations against eminent historians is priceless. Apparently, it's entirely okay to be a maverick outside of the academy - but only if your views support Matzke's social and political agendas. If not, well, suddenly being a "synthetic organic chemist" with a specialization in nanotechnology doesn't mean you have any relevant knowledge with regards to evolutionary theory. ;) Look, Nick. I accept theistic evolution and have since I studied all this in high school. I even accept the general idea of macroevolution. I'm not interested in denying either one here. But I have to say - guys like you? You do harm to science. You actually make it more difficult for people like me to argue the case for common descent or certain kinds of evolutionary speculation, because when they see you - some ex-NCSE guy - BSing wildly, strawmanning your opposition, and generally trying to make it sound as the state of the science is far more certain than it really is... honest to God, they take one look at you and think, 'how much faith can we put in science and scientists when someone like this tries to pull off what he does in the conversation?' Please, Nick. For the sake of science - stop it. Exercise the principle of charity when interpreting what critics say. Be honest about the tentative nature of science, and the real uncertainties that are present in evolutionary science - and science generally. We do not have to pretend that there are no major questions or no legitimate reasons to question the conventional wisdom. We had enough of this kind of crap with Lysenkoism. People are tired of it.nullasalus
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT
But if you really think he’s ignorant of the facts, why don’t you take up his offer of a free lunch?
THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH!Mung
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT
*Correction... speciationAndre
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
If you accept common descent between species, you accept macroevolution, because macroevolution is just evolution above the level of species/gene pools.
+
This highlights another thing creationists and other ill-informed antievolutionists just don’t get: just because different writers are talking about the word “macroevolution”, doesn’t mean that they are talking about the same thing. And the discussions aren’t even the same over the decades that those quotes are mined from.
It's apparently not limited to creationists and antievolutionists, Nick. Are you admitting what I was getting at with VJT - namely that you provided a link to '29+ evidences for macroevolution' when really it was 29+ evidences for common descent - and manifestly not the sort of 'macroevolution' VJT was talking about? ;)nullasalus
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
Why do evolutionist always chuck in the bit that other theists or Christians also accept macro-evolution? Is this to convince us or is it to convince you Nick? I'll be be bold enough to say that speculation does occur but its caused by deleterious mutations not by gains. Check the literature and there is no new novel functions, no new body plans but loss of information that creates the barrier. The science backs my statement.Andre
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
"Nick, he’s one of the world’s top ten chemists! I would think that he knows more than a few eminent biologists." He shows no evidence of that, either directly or in terms of showing a sign of having a clue about the field of evolutionary biology. The science world is a huge place, one can be very prominent and yet not know many people outside your field, especially if you have a habit of going around crapping on other fields without knowing what you are talking about. "But if you really think he’s ignorant of the facts, why don’t you take up his offer of a free lunch? I'd love to, if someone pays my airfare, and if it will be recorded. "It allows me to explain why I accept common descent but not macroevolution." If you accept common descent between species, you accept macroevolution, because macroevolution is just evolution above the level of species/gene pools. What you are trying to argue, in a very confused way, is that you have some kind of problem with the statement that macroevolution is "just" microevolution over large amounts of time. Well, lots of people have a problem with this claim, including me -- it's rather like saying microeconomics can be simply scaled up to produce macroeconomics. Or that the ecology of a single field experiment can be scaled up to explain the macroecology of the Amazonian rainforest. Or pretty much any field that deals with phenomena over several orders of magnitude of scale in time or space. Sometimes, for some phenomena, the simple multiplicative extrapolation is a decent model in all these fields, but sometimes it's not. In economics, we had the housing bubble burst, with a macro factor crashing down to effect the microeconomics of many homeowners. In macroevolution, we have e.g. mass extinctions, where massive external events knock out many lineages at once, and simple extrapolation from population genetics is a poor explainer of that phenomenon. These scaling issues are well-known to experts in any such multiscale field, but with evolution, creationists have been abusing the term for upwards of 50 years now, because in their heads they have the bizarrely undefined concepts of "kind" and "fundamental change", which are goalposts that they always keep on wheels and roll safely away from evidence. "Wikipedia is even clearer than Theobald in its definition of macroevolution" Theobald is right and wikipedia is wrong. "Oddly enough, not all scientists agree with the proposal that examples of microevolution offer support for macroevolution. See here: Do Examples of “Microevolution” Provide Support for Macroevolution? (I assume the quotes are legit.)" This highlights another thing creationists and other ill-informed antievolutionists just don't get: just because different writers are talking about the word "macroevolution", doesn't mean that they are talking about the same thing. And the discussions aren't even the same over the decades that those quotes are mined from. E.g., within macroevolution, scientists study: speciation (splitting of gene pools, reproductive isolation mechanisms) lineage dynamics (rates of speciation and extinction; mass extinctions; patterns in phylogenetic trees) rates of change across species in the fossil record -- punctuated equilibrium, contrary to virtually all infuriating, blindly-repeated silliness from antievolutionists, was just about how speciation -- the SMALLEST sort of macroevolutionary change -- appears in the fossil record. It is about small jumps in morphology between closely-related sister species. evolution of development, including both "novel" structures and "exaptation" (the latter being far more common than true novelty, whatever "true novelty" means) the statistical estimation of the history of character change (or biogeographic change, etc.) on phylogenetic trees, and inference of the best statistical models that describe this process origin of "higher taxa" -- this is common in older literature, but Linnaean ranked taxonomy is being gradually abandoned in biology, since we can just use phylogenies without needing any artificial ranks, which were never well-defined anyway Scientists can be talking about any of the above, or other topics, under the topic of "macroevolution". And for any of the above, a debate can be had about to what extent an extrapolationist model works as an explanation. You can't just splice together some random quotes about macroevolution and expect to convince anyone who has taken a graduate course or two in the subject. Heck, even Young-Earth Creationists accept quite a bit of the macroevolution in terms of the topics I listed above. "Regarding macroevolution, Theobald makes some absolutely ridiculous statements about evolutionary change:" Are you even trying to understand what he is saying? We have (1) observed rates of change in some populations right now, and (2) rates of change in fossil record. His point is that, in almost every case, (2) is much, much smaller than (1). In other words, observed evolutionary rates have **plenty** of capability to explain the changes seen in the fossil record. The puzzle, if anything, is why the observed change in the fossil -- even the things you cite -- is so incredibly SLOW.NickMatzke_UD
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
VJTorley, I'm curious. Just how much of Nick's list is even applicable to the objection both yourself and Tour are raising? It seems like the "29+ evidence" page is largely aimed at supporting common descent - which, as you've pointed out, is a separate question from whether macroevolution is understood.nullasalus
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
Hi Nick, Thank you for your post. You refer to Professor James Tour as "a guy whose field is not biology, and who shows absolutely no evidence of having seriously engaged with actual evolutionary biologists or their literature, and who appears to not have the first clue about how biologists would define 'macroevolution'..." Nick, he's one of the world's top ten chemists! I would think that he knows more than a few eminent biologists. But if you really think he's ignorant of the facts, why don't you take up his offer of a free lunch? Re macroevolution, here's what your source, Douglas Theobald, has to say about it:
In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).
I'm quite happy with that definition. It allows me to explain why I accept common descent but not macroevolution. Even Theobald admits that evidence for common descent is independent of mechanism. My quarrel with Darwinism concerns the processes whereby new taxa arise. Wikipedia is even clearer than Theobald in its definition of macroevolution:
Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.
The last sentence encapsulates, I think, one of the key stumbling blocks for Darwin skeptics like myself. Oddly enough, not all scientists agree with the proposal that examples of microevolution offer support for macroevolution. See here: Do Examples of "Microevolution" Provide Support for Macroevolution? (I assume the quotes are legit.) See also this paper by D. H. Erwin: here . Are you seriously telling me that you believe the origin of animal phyla can be explained by a process of microevolution occurring over millions of years? Just curious. Regarding macroevolution, Theobald makes some absolutely ridiculous statements about evolutionary change:
A more recent paper evaluating the evolutionary rate in guppies in the wild found rates ranging from 4000 to 45,000 darwins (Reznick 1997). Note that a sustained rate of "only" 400 darwins is sufficient to transform a mouse into an elephant in a mere 10,000 years (Gingerich 1983). One of the most extreme examples of rapid evolution was when the hominid cerebellum doubled in size within ~100,000 years during the Pleistocene (Rightmire 1985). This "unique and staggering" acceleration in evolutionary rate was only 7 darwins (Williams 1992, p. 132). This rate converts to a minuscule 0.02% increase per generation, at most. For comparison, the fastest rate observed in the fossil record in the Gingerich study was 37 darwins over one thousand years, and this corresponds to, at most, a 0.06% change per generation.
Mice to elephants in just 10,000 years? This is ridiculous, Nick! You'd be the first one to criticize young earth creationists for asserting that the various members of the dog family could have diverged within the last 4,000 years, and yet what Theobald is claiming here is much more absurd. Regarding human evolution, Theobald assumes that all our brains did was grow bigger. In fact, there have been at least four qualitative changes in the human brain over the past 3.5 million years: (i) a reduction in the relative volume of primary visual striate cortex (PVC, area 17 of Brodmann), which occurred early in australopithecine taxa, perhaps as early as 3.5 million years ago; (ii) a configuration of Broca's region (Brodmann areas 44, 45, and 47) that appears human-like rather than apelike by about 1.8 million years ago, starting with Homo rudolfensis; (iii) changes in the prefrontal cortex that took place about 700,000 years ago, with the emergence of Homo heidelbergensis (Heidelberg man), which allowed for long-term planning and inhibitory control, making self-sacrifice for the good of the group and life-long monogamy possible; and (iv) changes in the temporoparietal cortex, with the emergence of modern Homo sapiens, about 200,000 years ago, making possible the emergence of art, symbolism and religious rituals. You can read more about these changes (and accompanying scientific articles) here . These are non-trivial changes. To blithely assert that the passage of time can account for all these changes without doing the supporting calculations is a form of intellectual laziness. And to tell an unsuspecting public, as Theobald does, that these changes are purely quantitative is to show one's ignorance.vjtorley
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT
re Nick at 16: Anybody who has debated Darwinists on the internet has probably been 'bombed' by a TalkOrigins FAQ. This podcast reveals the bankruptcy of the actual evidence behind these FAQs and reveals that they are nothing more than literature bluffs; Talk Origins Full of Claims but Short on Real Evidence - Casey Luskin - podcast - February 2012 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-02-13T15_38_59-08_00 Here is part 2 of the podcast Talk Origins Speciation FAQ, pt. 2: Lack of Evidence for Big Claims - Casey Luskin - February 2012 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-02-15T14_09_41-08_00 More detailed refutation here: A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s - “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp Here is a video that recently came out which refutes the lizard cecal valve as proof of macroevolution: Phenotypic Plasticity - Lizard cecal valve (cyclical variation)- video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEtgOApmnTA "When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble." Phillip Johnson comment in the Wall Street Journal Here is a recent podcast dealing with the Darwinian claim (Dawkins) that Dogs are proof of macroevolution: podcast - On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin talks with geneticist Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig about his recent article on the evolution of dogs. Casey and Dr. Lönnig evaluate the claim that dogs somehow demonstrate macroevolution. http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-01T17_41_14-08_00 Part 2: Dog Breeds: Proof of Macroevolution? http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-04T16_57_07-08_00 Further notes: Creation Wiki responses to Talk Origins website: http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims Of note: Darwinists have a notorious history of literature bluffing: "A Masterful Feat of Courtroom Deception": Immunologist Donald Ewert on Dover Trial - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-20T15_01_03-08_00 Now that I've addressed your site Nick, I'm still waiting on you, or ANY Darwinists, to produce evidence that purely material neo-Darwian processes can produce JUST ONE Novel functional protein: Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681bornagain77
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
Wikipedia:
An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs. Abrupt transformations from one biologic system to another, for example the passing of life from water into land or the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates, are rare. Few major biological types have emerged during the evolutionary history of life and most of them survive till today. When lifeforms take such giant leaps, they meet little to no competition and are able to exploit a plethora of available niches, following a pattern of adaptive radiation.
Someone is confused or lying. Or both.Mung
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT
“Isn't it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?” Interesting is not the right word. Scandalous or shameful come to mind.Mapou
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT
I sort of feel like this poor professor in the OP. If Nick could just get someone from the NCSE, or maybe even Joe Felsenstein from over at TSZ to drop by and explain it all to us poor dimwits. I'll even buy him (or her) lunch.Mung
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" ... Well, there you have it! Anyone else not understand the theory? "In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small"" So Macroevolution means BIG evolution! Great. What's the theory of Big Evolution and how is it distinguished from the theory of small evolution. Oh my, where's Gregory when we really need him.Mung
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT
To my ears, the cacophony of the mass cognitive dissonance that's being caused by the ongoing collapse of this quaint little 19th-century edifice is becoming deafening.jstanley01
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT
Guess what is on the very first line of the page Nick links to:
Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.
So, Nick. If you would be so kind to help focus our attention on the relevant material on that page, perhaps beginning with the Theory of Macroevolution.Mung
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
Thank you for this great article mr. Vjtorley!Box
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
Nick displays the typical evolutionary confusion, evasion, and equivocation. The Theory of Common Descent is not the Theory of Macroevolution.Mung
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
Gee Nick, do we get more than one post? Is there a time limit? Is there extra credit for the observation that that is the silliest comment that I have ever read on UD, bar none?jstanley01
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
Wow, your blogpost is a particularly silly comment on a particularly silly article. A guy whose field is not biology, and who shows absolutely no evidence of having seriously engaged with actual evolutionary biologists or their literature, and who appears to not have the first clue about how biologists would define "macroevolution", spouts off on a webpage, and this is supposed to be a serious argument? Everyone should start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Refute it if you can. Until you do, you've got nada.NickMatzke_UD
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT
I don't get Tour's objections to ID. Truly I do not. From Tour's blog where linked above:
...I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion...
Proof of what? (Emphasis added):
This is very noteworthy.’” As Kreeft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kreeft) points out in his commentary on Pascal’s Pensees, “If the Scripture does not use nature to prove God, it can’t be the best strategy. Notice that Pascal does not say that there are no good proofs of God or that none of them begin with data from nature. Elsewhere, he specifies merely that such proofs are psychologically weak, but he does not say they are logically weak. More important, they are salvifically weak, [meaning that] they will not save us. If nature proved God clearly, we would not have to search for him with all our hearts.” Pascal further writes in his Pensees 429 , “This is what I see that troubles me: Nature has nothing to offer me that does not give rise to doubt and anxiety; if there is a God supporting nature, she should unequivocally proclaim him, and that, if the signs in nature are deceptive, they should be completely erased; that nature should say all or nothing so that I could see what course I ought to follow.” Though 350 years since Pascal penned his dilemma, as a modern-day scientist, I do not know how to prove ID using my most sophisticated of analytical tools.
ID has nothing to do with proving God or salvation knowledge scientifically. ID has to do with design detection in nature, period. A man such as Tour ought to know better. I would suggest he lay aside Pascal and C.S. Lewis for a few months, and take a serious look at Dembski, Behe and Johnson. Truly.jstanley01
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
If macro-evolution were a fact, would we have these arguments today? Let's face it; nobody argues that the Earth revolves around the Sun, because that's a fact... Why do some put macro-evolution in the same category? Just because they believe it should be there...No problem but believe does not make it any more scientific than it already isn't..John Witton
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
What is the Theory of Macroevolution?
The theory of macroevolution suggests that the fitness landscape is so jam-packed with functional configurations, that any random walk through protein sequence space will necessarily arrive at numerous complex functions that are advantageous to an organism for any given environmental niche.Chance Ratcliff
February 18, 2013
February
02
Feb
18
18
2013
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
1 14 15 16 17

Leave a Reply