Speculation Presented As Fact (or, Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit)

_{Gil Dodgen

November 13, 2007

Science}

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

I don’t watch a lot of television, but I must admit that I enjoy the History Channel. The other night I was watching a program on the origin of the universe and life. At one point the narrator commented (I paraphrase), “And then, unknown chemical reactions caused life to form.”

This is obviously pure speculation presented as fact, and my Carl-Sagan-inspired baloney detection kit went into immediate overdrive. I said to myself: “Self, how do they know that unknown chemical reactions caused life to form? No evidence is presented for this claim. And how did all that complex information-processing machinery come about through chemical reactions?”

Baloney detection is a two-edged sword.

Comments

ellazimm, As I have said on a few other occasions (crusades, Gregory Paul) you tend to be susceptible to misinformation. You tend to believe what people have said without going behind the claims and the politics involved. You say you have a degree in mathematics. So do I and many of the arguments in this debate are mathematical but essentially probabilistic argument and not that hard to understand if you dig a little. But you have to understand the basic issues and be able to follow the logic of what must happen for change to occur. Patrick listed the three main issues in the debate. In each one there is no scientific or empirical evidence for a naturalistic solution. We continually ask anyone here who claims contrary views to present evidence. No one of any stripe in this debate has ever been able to meet the challenge. If you doubt us, then seek someone who you trust and ask them to come here and see what happens. The abiogenesis problem is incredibly complex and that is an understatement. The best they are doing after all these years is playing with little small molecules when what they have to generate are molecules that sometimes are thousands in length and not just one but hundreds. You will have to read some things to start to get an appreciation for the problem. As I said Immensely complex molecules must exist to make even the simplest cell to work. Not just one but hundreds. How did these come about? There is no way chance could have led to these molecules so they hope a series of sub steps must have arisen each also very complex building on something that came before. However, this is all speculation since there is no reason why these intermediate steps would exist except as a way to the final goal. And that implies design or knowing the end product before you start. Just last week a leading evolutionary biologist admitted on this blog that there was no evidence for macro evolution. There are lots of models but no empirical data. The nonsense of millions of small changes adding up sounds appealing but not one case has ever been demonstrated that isn't trivial. If such a process was at work there would be numerous examples of these progression taking place in our world today but there are none. If it existed in the past, there would be countless examples in the fossil record but there are none. We have been through it before several times and new people come here seeking answers and assume the conventional wisdom that the evolutionist have the answers but they never do when pressed. I suggest you read both of Behe's books and then go to his blog on Amazon to see how disingenuous the Darwinist are. They are often beyond the pale. It may require you to read some biology about how DNA works because without that basic understanding, it can get a little hard to follow some of the arguments.jerry_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

Bugsy, are you sure you understand the math well enough to say that? I'll be the first to say that much of the math is beyond me. I've been trying to educate myself by reading the writings on Dr. Dembski's site and the evolutionary informatics lab. The papers there are very interesting. Speaking of which, does anybody know what happened to the paper with Dr. Marks called "Unacknowledged Information Costs in Evolutionary Computing: A Case Study on the Evolution of Nucleotide Binding Sites"? It used to be listed as "under review" at the evo-info lab but it's not there any more. Does that mean it's coming out in a journal? Where can I get a copy?getawitness_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

Patrick: Why do you think the mechanism for evolution past the species boundary is any different than that within a species? Why can’t the accumulation of lots of little changes add up to a big change? It takes a long time however, much longer than anyone has being trying to observe it.
That's the common formulation of Darwinism told to everyone and I'd definitely agree if that was the case it'd make Darwinism much easier to swallow. In fact, I used to believe in Darwinism based upon that formulation but now I know that is not the case. I'll let a Darwinist, MacNeill, summarize the state of the debate:
One of the central tenets of the "modern synthesis of evolutionary biology" as celebrated in 1959 was the idea that macroevolution and microevolution were essentially the same process. That is, macroevolution was simply microevolution extrapolated over deep evolutionary time, using the same mechanisms and with essentially the same effects. A half century of research into macroevolution has shown that this is probably not the case. ... As John Endler, Will Provine, and myself have repeatedly pointed out, natural selection can't "bring about" anything. Natural selection isn't a mechanism, it's an outcome. The mechanisms that bring about natural selection are variation, inheritance, fecundity, and differential survival and reproduction. ... In other words, the rearrangement of the genetic program of a particular organism is not the result of natural selection, it is the result of one of the "engines of variation" ... [random mutation] is a pale shadow of these "engines," about which we know surprisingly little, but about which we are learning an immense amount at present. ... What is now happening, in other words, is that a new "evolutionary synthesis" is being formulated, based on a flood of new information from genetics, developmental biology, paleontology, and historical geology/planetology. This new synthesis takes into account new information that has been obtained since the heyday of the "modern synthesis" and provides a much more powerful and comprehensive explanation of Darwin's "descent with modification." No, it doesn't rely completely on Darwin's proposed "mechanism" of natural selection, at least not as formulated by Fisher/Haldane/Wright/Dobzhansky/Mayr, but yes it does conform to the overall outlines of Darwin's original theory. So, as I said before, "the modern synthesis is dead; long live evolutionary biology!
He also stated more recently on UD that "we do not currently have a comprehensive theoretical understanding of how macroevolution has occurred". As a replacement he suggests researching the limitations of these "engines of variation". Obviously as an ID proponent I highly doubt any of these proposed "engines of variation" will be capable of the task but the search will continue. But the main point remains: at this time Darwinism does not have a mechanism observed to function as advertised. This is admitted by Darwinists themselves. Should we continue research on these proposed engines of variation? Definitely. When Edge of Evolution was released I believe I said that would make a good followup (considering each proposed mechanism one by one).
What do multiverses have to do with evolution of species?
Click the hyperlink. Darwinists are the ones proposing them as a "solution".Patrick_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

Gould was a hardcore Darwinian, the Cambrian explosion (besides lasting millions of years) is based on quirks in fossilization, not any trouble with evolution, and the math behind irreducible complexity is bad.Bugsy_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

"Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators." - Richard Dawkins Non-random survival is "direction", but not in the sense of purposeful action if by "purposeful" you mean someone did it or it has a meaning assigned to it. However, it's supposed to be about science, not meaning. Insofar as it is directed, it's directed by ethically and spiritually neutral forces; whether you survive and whether you reproduce. It's directed not in the sense of meaning, but in the sense of being able to add information. Consider the sun. In normal conditions, it kills albinos. Sunburn from hell, skin cancer, very nasty. Therefore, the population has been directed towards having enough skin pigment to avoid burning to death, for the most part. Random mutation sometimes produces albinos anyway, because it's .. random, and the genes for albinism doesn't kill too reliably, but the sun tends to register its disagreement with that state of affairs (ouch). If there were no sun to cook us, the whole population could be albino. Species that live away from the sun for long enough end up like this. Instead, even those adapted to the least sunny regions of the world have at least minimum skin pigment. Go out from the ability to survive sunlight to include finding food and water, avoiding getting killed, and having kids. Whatever the starting point, you'll soon have a whole species of non-albinos who are good at keeping fed and reproducing. The ones that can't avoid dying are going to die, and the ones that don't have kids ... are going to be gone in one generation. And that's why "survival of the fittest" is so good at selecting the fittest. Good enough it's similar to design. Still doesn't say anything about meaning, it's true.Bugsy_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

ellazimm: "If the brain is like a television then it should be possible to find the receiving and transmitting mechanism." Please see Hammeroff's and Penrose's ideas about this: See http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/mike1962_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

ellazimm, You keep talking about lots of very tiny steps of change. Indeed, Darwin stated that his theory would completely break down if any organism (or was it organ?) were shown to be incapable of being assembled in a step-by-step fashion. That, coupled with the "punctuated equilibrium" of Stephen Gould, the irreducible complexity of Michael Behe, and the Cambrian explosion and you have serious challenges to the traditional evolution theory.Collin_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Archaean Atmosphere The molecules of life require reducing conditions, and yet we have an oxidizing atmosphere. Consequently, evolutionists have hypothesized a reducing early atmosphere with intense lightning etc. See the Miller-Urey experiment. However, without oxygen, there would be no protective ozone layer, letting the atmosphere transmit intense ultra violet. The ultraviolet (with lightning) would turn whatever primaeval soup into a thick blanket of hydrocarbon or tar floating on the ocean.. However, there is no evidence of this tar layer. To avoid destruction by ozone, the prebiotic soup would need to be protected from the ozone. E.g., under the tar or underground. Furthermore, the prebiotic conditions do not provide a large concentration or number of the simple amino acids needed. Now there is the challenge of getting high enough population numbers to get rationally high probabilities for the simplest early life, let along the more complicated molecules and interrelationships of functioning cells, photosynthesis and ATP. Any abiogenesis theory has to include these and many other issues. (Sorry, don't have the numerous references handy.) Appreciate readers adding links to these issues here and to relevant pages at ResearchID.org. E.g., to
Archaean Atmosphere

Mathematics of Evolution

Origin of Life

Abiogenesis
Apologies to GilDogen, but lets leverage all this enthusiasm over abiogenesis and origin of life.DLH_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

ellazimm, I do appreciate your style of debate; it is non-confrontational/personal and I appreciate that. I disagree about evolution being undirected. It is caused (if it is true) by natural selection and the like, but when I think of "directed" I think of purposeful action. It is as random as random can be. If it is not random, please point me to something that is more random. Dawkins says that mutations are random. I'll provide the source if you ask.Collin_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

To get back to the origin of Life and establishing a positive cas for ID (Instead of just saying GODDIDIT!) I think positive proof may be able to be established though such research as this; The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul, by Mario Beauregard , Denyse O'Leary http://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Brain-Neuroscientists-Case-Existence/dp/0060858834 The direct positive evidence we need, is direct confirmation of intelligence actually manipulating matter. First and foremost detailed brain/behavior studies can solidly establish this! I think "The Spiritual Brain" makes a very important first step in establishing this crucial piece of evidence for the ID theory but does not go deep enough as far as establishing it to the molecular level! Does anyone else see the importance of this research to ID?bornagain77_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

Did anyone else pick up on the irony of Bugsy complaining about this blog's anti-materialist propaganda efforts, when his comment at [3] demonstrates that he is a victim of that very propaganda?BarryA_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

ellazmim you stated, Quantum effects take lots of energy to control and I don’t think I eat enough food in a day to provide the energy to be continually uploading and downloading information. This kind of stuff isn’t free, it takes power. But you’ve read lots more about it than I have. Yet even in this "materialistic book": The Quantum Brain: http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Brain-Search-Freedom-Generation/dp/0471333263 The researchers freely talk about quantum events happening in the brain continually.bornagain77_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Gil, I've read many of the responses to this post. It seems that some are more interested in complaining about the topic than actually addressing it. Here's a piece of advice, if you don't like the topic, don't participate. Regarding your comment "... my post was not so much about abiogenesis as it was about mass media participation in the presentation of speculation about origins as fact." I don't think that this is anything new. Public Television in particular has had a Darwinist agenda for years. It has also been sympathetic to left wing propaganda for years as well. What are we to do however? Well regarding the comment in my previous paragraph, don't watch. However, the problem is deeper. Because if we simply ignore the problem, then tomorrow I will wake up and find that the thought police have arrested me because of a stray, non-Darwinian, thought.DrDan_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Ellazim, Here is a more realistic look at the fossil record than all the fables you have been fed since you were in grade school: Exactly how did all these different forms of life get here? There appear to be only three options for how this amazing variety of life got here; life either originates on this earth by blind chance alone; it is deliberately introduced by a Creator alone; or, it is a combination of blind chance and a Creator. This is where naturalism is thought to have its best evidence for blind chance. The blind chance that naturalism relies on here is dressed up in a “suit and tie” and called evolution through natural selection of a mutation to DNA. But, before we get into the lack of integrity of any mutations to the DNA, let’s look at the evidence found in the fossil record. Most people presume the evidence in the fossil record overwhelmingly confirms gradual evolution from a single common ancestor. Yet this is not the case at all. The fossil record itself is one of the most crushing things for naturalists. What is termed the “Cambrian explosion” is a total departure from the naturalistic theory of evolution. It is in the Cambrian explosion, some 540 million years ago, that we find the sudden appearance of the many diverse and complex forms of life. These complex life-forms appear with no evidence of transition from the bacteria and few other “simple” life-forms that immediately preceded them in the fossil record. This following quote clearly illustrates this point. “Yet, here is the real puzzle of the Cambrian Explosion for the theory of evolution. All the known phyla (large categories of biological classification), except one, first appear in the Cambrian period. There are no ancestors. There are no intermediates. Fossil experts used to think that the Cambrian lasted 75 million years.... Eventually the Cambrian was shortened to only 30 million years. If that wasn't bad enough, the time frame of the real work of bringing all these different creatures into existence was shortened to the first five to ten million years of the Cambrian. This is extraordinarily fast! Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould stated, "Fast is now a lot faster than we thought, and that is extraordinarily interesting." What an understatement! "Extraordinarily impossible" might be a better phrase! .... The differences between the creatures that suddenly appear in the Cambrian are enormous. In fact these differences are so large many of these animals are one of a kind. Nothing like them existed before and nothing like them has ever appeared again.” Evolution's Big Bang; Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, University of Illinois (B.S., zoology), North Texas State University (M.S., population genetics), University of Texas at Dallas (M.S., Ph.D., molecular biology). The “real work” of the beginning of the Cambrian explosion may in actuality be as short as a two to three million year time frame (Ross: Creation as Science 2006). If this blatant, out of nowhere, appearance of all the different phyla was not bad enough for naturalists, the fossil record shows that there was actually more variety of phyla at the end of the Cambrian explosion than there is today due to extinction. “A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during the Cambrian explosion (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. (Actually the number 50 was first quoted as over 100 for a while, but then the consensus became 50-plus.) That means there are more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils, than exist now.” “Also, the animal explosion caught people's attention when the Chinese confirmed they found a genus now called Yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning of the Cambrian explosion. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum Chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the very beginning, and they did not go through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate.” Dr. Paul Chien PhD., chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco, Dr. Chien also possesses the largest collection of Chinese Cambrian fossils in North America. http://members.cox.net/wwcw/q-evol4.html The evolutionary theory would have us believe we should have more phyla today due to ongoing evolutionary processes. The hard facts of science betray the naturalists once again. The naturalist stamps his feet and says the evidence for the fossils transmutation into radically new forms is out there somewhere; we just have not found it yet. To justify this belief, naturalists will often say that soft bodied fossils were not preserved in the Cambrian fossil record, so transitional fossils were just not recorded in the fossil record in the first place. Yet, the Chinese Cambrian fossil record is excellent in its preservation of delicate - ied fossils that clearly show much of the detail of the body structures of these first creatures. So the problem for naturalists has not been alleviated. In fact the problem has become much worse. As Dr. Ray Bohlin stated, some of these recently discovered fossils are extremely unique and defy any sort of transitional scenario to any other fossils found during the Cambrian explosion. As well as the fossil record itself, recent DNA analysis rules out any transitional scenarion between phyla in the Cambrian Explosion: "The new molecular based phylogeny has several important implications. Foremost among them is the disappearance of "intermediate" taxa between sponges, cnidarians, ctenophores, and the last common ancestor of bilaterians or "Urbilateria."...A corollary is that we have a major gap in the stem leading to the Urbilataria. We have lost the hope, so common in older evolutionary reasoning, of reconstructing the morphology of the "coelomate ancestor" through a scenario involving successive grades of increasing complexity based on the anatomy of extant "primitive" lineages." From an article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, in 2000 In spite of this crushing evidence found in the Cambrian explosion and DNA analysis of different phyla, our naturalistic friend continues to imagine that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor and continues to imagine missing links with every new fossil discovery that makes newspaper headlines. Yet, the true story of life since the Cambrian explosion, that is actually told by the fossil record itself, tells a very different story than the imaginative tales found in naturalistic newspaper accounts. Where the story of life, since the Cambrian explosion, is extremely clear to read is in the sea creatures who fossilize quickly in ocean sediments. We find fossils in the fossil record that appear suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, fully-formed. They have no apparent immediate evolutionary predecessor. They, just, appear suddenly in the fossil record unique and fully-formed. This is exactly what one would expect from an infinitely powerful and transcendent Creator continually introducing new life-forms on earth. Even more problematic for the naturalists is the fact once a fossil suddenly appears in the fossil record it remains surprisingly stable in its basic structure for as long as it is found in the fossil record. The fossil record can offer not even one clear example of transition from one fossil form to another fossil form out of millions of collected fossils. Some sea creatures, such as certain sharks which are still alive today, have unchanging fossil records going back hundreds of millions of years to when they first suddenly appeared in the fossil record without a predecessor. "Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record." Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9 "The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be .... We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated". Evolutionist David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History "... Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360. "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." - Niles Eldredge , "Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," 1996, p.95 "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University and the leading spokesman for evolutionary theory in America prior to his recent . "As Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould pointed out almost three decades ago, the general pattern for the evolution of diversity (as shown by the fossil record) follows precisely this pattern: a burst of rapid diversity following a major ecological change, and then a gradual decline in diversity over relatively long periods of time." Allen MacNeill PhD.; Teaches introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY. The following article is unique in that is shows the principle of Genetic Entropy being obeyed in the Trilobites, over the 250 million year fossil history of their life on earth (Note: the Trilobites appeared suddenly at the very begining of the Cambrian explosion with no evidence of transmutation from the "simple" creatures that preceded them). http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_Cambrian_Many_Forms_999.html As you can see, the fossil record is overwhelmingly characterized by suddenness and stability, as well as conforming precisely to the principle of Genetic Entropy (loss of information) when closely scrutinized for loss of diversity over long periods of time. For creatures who have lived in the ocean this fact is extremely clear, because their bones are fossilized in the ocean sediments very quickly. Unfortunately for land creatures, the fossil record is much harder to properly discern due to the rapid disintegration of animals who die on land. The large variety of hominid (man or ape-like) fossils that we do have piece-meal records of are characterized by overlapping histories of “distinctively different and stable” hominid species during the entire time, and the entire geography, each hominid species is found in the fossil record. There is never a transition between ANY of the different hominid species no matter where, or in what era, the hominid fossils are found. "If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on." David Pilbeam, Harvard University paleoanthropologist: from Richard E. Leakey's book, The Making of Mankind, Sphere Books Limited, Barcelona, 1982, p. 43. "If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional species to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving". Richard Leakey, world's foremost paleo-anthropologist, in a PBS documentary, 1990. Note: The hominid fossil record has now become even more confused, of any imaginary transitional scenario, since Dr. Leakey made this frank, but honest, admission. Israeli Researchers: 'Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans Apr 16, 2007 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1176152801536 New Fossil Ape May Shake Human Family Tree August 22, 2007 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070822-fossil-ape.html http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man.html As Richard Leakey, the leading hominid fossil expert in the world admitted, if he were pressed, he would have to admit the hard evidence suggests the abrupt arrival of man in the fossil record. Yet if you were to ask an average person if we have evolved from apes he will tell you of course we have and wonder why you would ask such a stupid question, since “everyone knows” this is proven in the fossil record. One hard fact in the fossil record that is not disputed by most naturalists is the fact that man is the youngest distinct species of all species to suddenly appear in the fossil record. I find the fact that man has the scientifically accepted youngest history of any fossil in the fossil record to be extremely interesting and compelling to the position held by the anthropic hypothesis. Though a naturalist may try to inconclusively argue fruit flies or some other small types of animals have evolved into distinct new species since that time, he cannot produce evidence for a genetically and morphologically unique animal with a fossil record younger than mans. This one point of evidence is crucial for both sides and is an extremely important point of contention, for this fact is the primary proposal of the whole anthropic hypothesis in the first place; God created the universe with man in mind as His final goal. Man being the last distinct and separate species to suddenly appear in the fossil record is totally expected by the anthropic hypothesis and is completely contrary to what the naturalistic evolutionary hypothesis would expect. Naturalists do not seem to notice that their theory of evolution expects and even demands there should be clear evidence for a genetically and morphologically unique species on earth somewhere since man first suddenly appeared on earth. Indeed there should be many such unambiguous examples that they could produce. "Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some 2 to 10 million species on earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between 3 and 5 million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations (new species) ... every decade." Keith Stewart Thomson, Professor of Biology and Dean of the Graduate School, Yale University (Nov. -Dec. American Scientist, 1997 pg. 516) For balance to that fact, The current rate of extinction is from 100 to 10,000 species a year. This is between 100 and 1000 times faster than our best estimate of historical rates. http://www.saczoo.com/3_kids/11_earth/_rates.htmbornagain77_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

ellazmim,
That’s my problem, lots of people much smarter than me are saying contradictory things.
It helps if you actually understand the scientific issues being debated. Behe is correct, his opponents are wrong and have been reduced to madly flailing mob hurling any accusation they can get thier hands on. Behe's arguments are based on observeable scientific evidence not "unknowns." The claims that Behe has not kept up with the research are nonsense, such claims have been raised repeatedly only to be exposed later as literature bluffs.Jehu_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Funny how ellazimm and others completely dodged Kairosfocus' excellent summation of the problem of unguided abiogenesis. (post 26) The problems are real, and mere (sometimes rampant) speculation does not overcome the difficulties involved. It is disheartening when people cannot grasp probabilities and RELEVANT factors, even when you point them out to them. They just ignore them. Oh well. I guess I should be used to it by now.Atom_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Why can't the accumulation of lots of little changes add up to a big change? It takes a long time however, much longer than anyone has being trying to observe it. Read Behe's Edge and you'll find out why it can't. Long periods of time are irrelevant; the number of reproductive events and number of generations are what matter. In any event, my post was not so much about abiogenesis as it was about mass media participation in the presentation of speculation about origins as fact. Am I the only one who has noticed this? Most commenters seem to have missed the point.GilDodgen_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

ellazim, I hate to burst your bubble but the best scientific evidence is that abiogenesis is, for all practical purposes, impossible becaue the probabilities are too low. The web site TalkOrigins is a propoganda organ without credibility. That site claims that human babies born with monkey tails are evidence of common descent! What kind of tabloid crap is that? You listen to those guys?Jehu_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

ellazimm -- Unknown means unknown but you try and find out don’t you? Yes, but there comes a point where you should stop banging your head and recognize there are more important questions as to how life formed, the answers of whic ought to be considered axiomatic. Why are we here? How should we live? What is important? But with regard to science, if the History Channel is sayig life came from an "unknown chemical reation" why assume it was a chemical reaction? Because biology entities consist of chemical compounds? But do those chemical compounds compose life? The DNA is the same the second after death as it was before, but there is no life.tribune7_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

| | Bugsy | | X _____________________ (Hint: It's a left field.)Eric Anderson_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

BA77 says, in reference to TMS studies: "One notable exception to this “becoming impaired rule” is a person’s memory. When the elusive “memory” portion of the brain is inhibited, a person will have a vivid flashback of a past part of their life. This very odd “amplification” of a memory indicates this fact; memories are stored in the “spiritual” consciousness independent of the brain. " This is utter nonsense. There is no evidence from TMS studies that memory is not instantiated in brain processes. I do not use TMS in my own work, but we do have a modern TMS facility in my institute, and I am familiar with the technology. There is new evidence from TMS studies that visual experience can be induced by auditory stimulation while the visual cortex is not active. From this, scientists inferred that there are probably pathways linking the visual cortex with the auditory cortex. They did some experiments to test this hypothesis, and the data point to previously unknown networks in the brain. Suppose, though, that we held a solid conviction that no such pathways in the brain were present, or even possible, and that vision could never interact with audition. Confronted with evidence of such an interaction, our conviction would apparently force us to conclude that there is some immaterial force at work. We can't imagine any other way for such an interaction to occur, therefore we posit the intercession of a force that we cannot test. Sorry, brain science is in its infancy, but you are twisting it to support some interesting but unsupported ideas about "truth" and "materialism" that the science simply does not address.MacT_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

In further support for my position (the fact that information is a spiritual entity stored on a spiritual basis) I present: Neuro-physiological (brain/body) research is now being performed, using a new scientific tool, trans-cranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). This tool allows scientists to study the brain non-invasively. TMS can excite or inhibit normal electrical activity in specific parts of the brain, depending on the amount of energy administered by TMS. This tool allows scientists to pinpoint what is happening in different regions of the brain (functional mapping of the brain). TMS is wide-ranging in its usefulness; allowing the study of brain/muscle connections, the five senses, language, the patho-physiology of brain disorders, as well as mood disorders, such as depression. TMS may even prove to be useful for therapy for such brain disorders. TMS also allows the study of how memories are stored. The ability of TMS for inhibiting (turning off) specific portions of the brain is the very ability which reveals things that are very illuminating to the topic we are investigating. Consciousness and the brain are actually separate entities. When the electromagnetic activity of a specific portion of the brain is inhibited by the higher energies of TMS, it impairs the functioning of the particular portion of the body associated with the particular portion of the brain being inhibited. For example; when the visual cortex (a portion of the brain) is inhibited by higher energies of TMS, the person undergoing the procedure will temporarily become blind while it is inhibited. One notable exception to this "becoming impaired rule" is a person's memory. When the elusive "memory" portion of the brain is inhibited, a person will have a vivid flashback of a past part of their life. This very odd "amplification" of a memory indicates this fact; memories are stored in the “spiritual” consciousness independent of the brain. All of the bodies other physical functions which have physical connections in the brain are impaired when their corresponding portion of the brain loses its ability for normal electromagnetic activity. One would very well expect memories to be irretrievable from the brain if they were physically stored. Yet memories are vividly brought forth into consciousness when their corresponding locations in the brain are temporarily inhibited. This indicates that memories are somehow stored on a non-physical basis, separate from the brain in the "spiritual" consciousness. Memory happens to be a crucially integrated part of any thinking consciousness. This is true, whether or not consciousness is physically or spiritually-based. Where memory is actually located is a sure sign of where the consciousness is actually located. It provides a compelling clue as to whether consciousness is physically or spiritually-based. Vivid memory recall, upon inhibition of a portion of brain where memory is being communicated from consciousness, is exactly what one would expect to find if consciousness is ultimately self-sufficient of brain function and spiritually-based. The opposite result, a ening of memories, is what one would expect to find if consciousness is ultimately physically-based. According to this insight, a large portion, if not all, of the one quadrillion synapses that have developed in the brain as we became s, are primarily developed as pathways for information to be transmitted to, and memories to be transmitted from, our consciousness. The synapses of the brain are not, in and of themselves, our primary source for memories. Indeed, decades of extensive research by brilliant, Nobel prize-winning, minds have failed to reveal where memory is stored in the brain. Though Alzheimer’s and other disorders affect the brain’s overall ability to recover memories, this is only an indication that the overall ability of the brain to recover memory from the consciousness has been affected, and does not in any way conclusively establish that memory is actually stored in the brain. In other developments, Dr. Olaf Blanke recently described in the peer-reviewed science journal "Nature" a patient who had "out of body experiences (OBEs)”, when the electrical activity of the gyrus-angularis portion of the brain was inhibited by higher energy TMS. Though some materialists try to twist this into some type of natural explanation for spiritual experiences, by saying the portion of the brain is being stimulated, it is actually a prime example clearly indicating consciousness is independent of the brain; for the portion of the brain is in fact, being inhibited, instead of stimulated ! This patient, Dr. Olaf Blanke described, should be grateful that consciousness is independent of the brain. If consciousness were truly dependent on the brain for its survival, as materialist insist, then the patient would have most likely died; at least while that particular portion of the brain was being inhibited. Obviously, that portion of the brain which was inhibited in the patient, is the very seat of the brain's consciousness.bornagain77_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

MacT, Thus I present this: However, Pam Reynolds underwent an extreme surgical procedure known as 'hypothermic cardiac arrest', to remove a very large basilar artery aneurysm. During the operation the was drained from her head, she had no pressure, breathing, heartbeat or brainwaves[3] and she was arguably as close to clinical as possible. After surgery the patient recounted her NDE in which she described seeing and hearing the bone saw that Dr Spetzler used to open up her skull, and recalled a specific comment by the female cardiologist, who later verified its accuracy. In support of many other anecdotal testimonies that have been corroborated by third persons, generally emergency medical staff, can we accept this as 'empirical' evidence of mind-body separation? as well i present: Pim Von Lomel: http://www.nderf.org/vonlommel_skeptic_response.htm Could our brain be compared with the TV set that electromagnetic waves (photons) receives and transforms into image and sound, as well as with the TV camera that image and sound transforms into electromagnetic waves (photons)? This electromagnetic radiation holds the essence of all information, but is only conceivable to our senses by suited instruments like camera and TV set. The informational fields of our consciousness and of our memories, both evaluating by our experiences and by the informational imput from our sense organs during our lifetime, are present around us as electrical and/or magnetic fields [possible virtual photons? (18)], and these fields only become available to our waking consciousness through our functioning brain and other cells of our body. Thus with utmost respect to your research: Why did the researchers of the John Hopkins study say such things as: “We are awed by the apparent retention of the child’s memory after removal of half of the brain, either half; and by the retention of the child’s personality and sense of humor.” and “Despite removal of one hemisphere, the intellect of all but one of the children seems either unchanged or improved. Intellect was only affected in the one child who had remained in a coma, vigil-like state, attributable to peri-operative complications.” I also not this is a specialized study, and I am trying to establish a detailed point...Namely is memory "information" stored separately from the brain,,,As such I feel you may be looking at the broader picture and failing to pick up the subtle evidence that is needed to differentiate what is a physical impairment and what is actually happening on the "immaterial soul" level after hemispherectomies. Note: brain damage and a in ability to recover memories is negative argumentation since the brain should properly be looked at as a transmitter and reciever of information! Thus the type of brain damage study used to gather evidence must be carefully weighed in order to establish positive argumentation for the truth.bornagain77_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

Here's the scoreboard: 1. Unknown cause for the universe, but an infinite multiverse is preferred since that would presumably help Darwinism. 2. Unknown cause for OOL, although the primary problem are related to hypotheses explaining the chemistry involved...never mind the minimum complex genome. 3. Unknown Darwinian mechanism for macroevolution, although there are various mechanisms being posited none have been observed being involved in macroevolution. The swan is still sparkling white.Patrick_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

ellazimm, The answers provided at talksorigins is rather useless. The number of 4.29x10^40 refers to a pure amino acid solution with only one stereomer. Other reactive molecules, no doubt present at the early earth, being absent. So, the likelihood of some 'desired' combination would drop off extremely. Secondly, it completely ignores the poor stability of macromolecules. In chemistry, things don't add up. The longer a polymer, the more likely it falls apart spontaneously. It is an aspect easily forgotten. Also, the smaller a protein, the less efficient it is in doing anything at all. So a 32 amino acid peptide is not going to be helpful in many cases. So, as stated above, the statistical numbers, taking into account all relevant factors, make it extremely improbably that any functional protein arose from a dilute organic soup. Scientist with a chemistry background normally admit this, scientists with a biology background tend to ignore this. How come?Dutch-cousin_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT}

Carl Sagan? You mean the guy who went on national television and announced that oil well fires in Kuwait would produce a nuclear winter and "a year without summer."? That Carl Sagan. Ever notice that science popularizers can't resist attempting to influence the political agenda by representing psuedoscientific speculation as state-of-the-art scientific knowledge.Jehu_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

Planets spinning in an immense universe, lightening strikes superimposed on a dark and misty landscape... Cue the Wizard of Oz-like voice: “And then, unknown chemical reactions caused life to form…” Definite. Unambigous. Unassailable. Only an idiot would question it. But then, pull back the curtain read the stuff that the scholars put out (thank you ellazimm). For example: • #6: “It is difficult if not impossible to synthesize long polymers of amino acids…; • #8: “The isolation of an RNA enzyme with RNA replicase activity, at present only a hypothetical molecule...” My emphasis in both cases. And even if we buy the theory, polymers and enzymes—while necessary—are nowhere near sufficient for actual abiogenesis to occur. So, why the gap between the popular spin and the actual state of facts on the ground? I didn’t see the show in question, but I’ve seen 100 others like it; Discovery, National Geographic and History are full of the stuff. I guess I believe that most of us can handle a frank representation of the actual facts—why is it that the media outlets in general seem unwilling to give us anything more substantial than science fiction? Further, why do the experts--whose concern is facts and science--allow the misinformation to continue unabated?SteveB_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

BA77 said: "This is stunning proof of consciousness being independent of brain function. The only child not to have normal or improved intellect is the child who remained in a coma due to complications during surgery. It is also heartening to find that many of the patients regain full use, or almost full use, of their bodies after a varying period of recuperation in which the brain is “rewired” to the consciousness." The study on childhood hemispherectomy you cite is now 10 years old. Since then, researchers in cognitive neuroscience (I'm one too, and I'm more than a little familiar with cases like those reported in the Hopkins study) have found that while the prognosis for recovery from focal brain damage is generally better when the damage occurs earlier, the long-term results for these children are NOT as you describe. Brain damage is not good for you, no matter how old you are. On a wide range of measures, children who recover from hemispherectomy do not perform at normal levels. There are deficits in cognition, language, spatial processing, attention, memory and sensory processing. Perhaps most relevant to your points, there are also socialization problems, particularly issues with accurately recognizing social and emotional cues expressed in facial gestures in others, and making appropriate risk judgments. BA77, I don't know whether there is an immaterial soul. I do know that the data from childhood brain damage do not tell the story you want to tell.MacT_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

"If concern over what I’m seeing and desire to correct it means I’m not welcome, I’ll leave. I’m not demanding anyone cater to me." But what criteria do you use to base your "concern" on? I don't like PT because I see too many personal attacks. There's not really a desire there to discuss problems with NDE, just the desire to crush opposition and belittle anyone who disagrees, but I would never go there out of "concern" and try to point it out to them based upon my conception of what "their" blog should be...that's all I'm saying.shaner74_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

The History Channel show I mentioned was The Universe: Beyond the Big Bang, and it featured Neil deGrasse Tyson (militant atheist and one of the Beyond Belief seminar participants), who waxes eloquent at the end about how we are made of star stuff and how inspiring this is. You can listen to one of his anti-ID rants here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgSaTYLYRGI But I digress. I did not misrepresent the content of the quote. The reason I paraphrased it is that it may have been, "Life arose through unknown chemical reactions," "Unknown chemical reactions caused life to form," or some variant. The main point of my post is that the mass media pass on speculation about chemical abiogenesis and Darwinian mechanisms as the source of all life as though this is all established fact. It is ubiquitous on science and nature shows. It is indicative of how effective materialist indoctrination has been among media elites.GilDodgen_{November 14, 2007
November
11
Nov
14
14
2007
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply