by Abaddon 69 Replies latest jw friends
The data call for some revision of the estimated genetic similarity between
us and our closest relatives. Previously, human and chimp genetic sequences
were quoted as being nearly 99% identical, with a difference of only a few
DNA's letters. In fact, the similarity may be as low as 94-95%.
Seems clear to me. Over 150 million estimated bp differences
Simon - What causes these posts that are paragraphs and paragraphs long with nothing in between. This is a gross waste of space, on top of being fairly irritating.
What is?
francois
Oh Jerry Jerry Jerry…
I never said that it disproves it
No, but your phrasing was just what I have come to expect from you; sloppy and inclined to give a false impression even if it was not intended. I can provide example of this so this is not name calling but a description. Read this thread from the top, you ended up agreeing with me about a similar issue I raised over one of your papers!
This difference is a whopping 150 million base pairs, a huge difference by any standard and creates a gap that is very difficult to bridge.!
And what does that mean? Eh? It sounds great if you don’t know that much about the subject; millions! Golly! But it doesn’t do anything to disprove the common ancestry, does it?
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=129726
It was "common knowledge" in the literature and rarely stated in the qualifying terms that you used above. I will look for some articles today at the medical school.
Lovely. I do prefer dealing with you on a tight focus, as in assertion - rebuttal, assertion - rebuttal. Maybe you will have sometime to rebut some of the assertions I have been waiting for your response on too?
Not really. Most of the biology teachers around here that I have talked to about the issue tell me that they are creationists, and all of the full time biology professors at my college are in this camp, as are many other faculty there. In the world, it is estimated that about 100,000 professional biologists are creationists of some type. I personally know several hundred, all with Ph.Ds in the sciences, and many more working on their Ph.D. This, in spite of the fact that in this country at least it is unlikely that an out of the closet creationist will get tenure (I know of only one that has). Many are denied degrees and awards (see my book The Criterion ).
Jerry, for a start let us not lump YECs in with people who believe god is the creator, but that modern science explains how he did it. I can quite happily disprove YEC to my satisfaction. If people want to believe the other types of creationism, fine, as they are generally non-falsifibale.
Regarding percentages...
According to a Gallup poll , 47% of Americans believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so, another 40% believe that God guided the development of human beings from less advanced forms of life over millions of years, and 9% believe that God played no part in the development of human beings. A recent poll by People for the American Way [1] used a different formulation of the question and showed lower support for creationism; another poll by Zogby conducted for the intelligent design think tank Discovery Institute found higher support for creationism. Despite the significant number of people subscribing to creationist views in the USA , such views are generally much less common in other Western countries. In Catholic-majority countries, papal acceptance of evolution has essentially ended debate on the matter for most people. The United States fundamentalist Christian community has no real parallels (in terms of numbers, prominence, and political influence) elsewhere in the Western world, and because most vocal creationists are from the United States, it is generally assumed that creationist views are not as common elsewhere. There is a Turkish creationist organization BAV, whose pseudonymous spokesman Harun Yahya puts an Islamic spin on familiar American creationism. There apparently are a number of Hindu creationists as well. In 1987 , Newsweek said: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation science...". Among scientists who work in the field, therefore, only about 0.14% hold the creationist view. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
From this point of view it looks like your anecdotal accounts of colleagues are not representative. Please in future ensure you interpret me saying Creationism as YEC, as it allows the waters to be muddied if you suddenly include 40% of people who don't actually believe anything like you believe. I could say with equal honesty that 49% of people believed in evolution of some form or another.
Please remember my being offended by the bad science that YEC can often display, and that partial statistical quote of yours is just a further example of this.
Hey, maybe.... this is just an idea, but, perhaps it is the BAD SCIENCE exemplified by many Creationists that leads to them being denied tenure. Wrong is wrong. Hell, I can cite a website run by some chap who believes the Sun orbits the Earth, and all the photos we see are “VR fakes”. He needs tenure somewhere, surely?! Or maybe not, as he is wrong… seems fair to me.
As regarding semantics, please see my original response in the thread I’m waiting for you to respond to in some tangible fashion. There I chiefly accuse Creationists of a justified bad reputation because of bad science, although there are examples of lies. And yes, evolutionists have lied outright (just as Creationists have), and Evolutionary theories are revised to take into account new data which make old papers “false or misleading”. However, I can give examples of Creationist websites that are still trying to force coexistence of dinosaurs and humans down peoples' throats, amongst other things that are demonstrably untrue now.
I strongly disagree. I have read much of this material and it has only strengthened my conclusions (and in fact is a major source of the reasons for my conclusions) . Aside from the endless name calling, their case breaks down when examined carefully. A true believer will not be convinced no matter what the evidence . You love to use sic when one makes a mistake don't you. You used it, something like 3 time in your response. I should do the same when you make a mistake but I do not respond in that way.
Can I use this quote whenever I like Jerry?;
"A true believer will not be convinced no matter what the evidence ."
… it cracks me up you don’t get the irony of making a statement like that. You believe in a literalistic interpretation of a creation myth, even though you have to fight to get it to conform in anyway to the reality around us, and you tell me you won’t be convinced no matter what the evidence... oh no, I think you mean me! But Jerry, I DID believe in Creationism, and now I don’t, for the reasons I’ve explained. Seems your aphorism doesn't fit me for size. Do you want to try it on???
Deal with the issues, at the moment you’re just saying stuff. Come on, you’ve got the Ph.D, you know the way to do it. Vague generalised statements a dissertation or defence do not make.
Sorry if using standard practise for quoting passages with errors in them bothers you, I thought you would be familiar with it. If I type into the browser I often make mistakes, if I type into Word I don’t, but I have to highlight the errors made by people I quote as otherwise I’d spell-check them by mistake, and I don’t approve of changing the contents of quotations I make, even for spelling. The fact it annoys you is just a bonus (joke).
It sure would be nice if this was true but it is, in fact, very far from true as any history of science text brings out. Ideology is critical even in science (and often especially in science).Why doesn't talk origins publish anything on the other side? Nothing!
Regarding ideology, again your double standard applies; show me a Creationist web-site that does what you ask of Talk Origins… oh, hang-on, Talk Origins HAS unedited rebuttals of Evolutionary articles on it. Many articles there assert errors in some Creationists argument, and the Creationists rebuttal is linked to as appropriate.
My, you REALLY have read that website if you don’t know that….
*edited 'cause it swallowed two parts of the original post, bastard server*
Of Interest:
Letter from Dr. Lechner
| The terms "scientific" and "fact" need careful definition. Both are red
| herrings because these words have been abused so badly in the long
| history of creation-evolution debates. Those, on both sides, who have
| been burned in the past will be wary of them.
|
| For example, is a young-earth belief "scientific" ? Some courts have
| tried to rule that it is not, because it is religiously motivated and/or
| because its proponents hold this belief despite strong scientific
| evidence to the contrary.
|
| Some evangelicals have tried to maintain, in legal cases, that
| "evolution" was not "scientific" because it was in fact an (atheistic)
| religious belief.
|
| Likewise, both opponents of evolution and opponents of creationism have
| tried to argue that the other's beliefs aren't factual. After all, none
| of us were around in the beginning to see Who created the universe, or
| what methods He used. "Punctuated equilibrium" is merely Steven Gould's
| opinion, some would say; so why should we [choose one: "have to" / "be
| allowed to" ] teach it in the high school classroom?
|
| Having been involved in science education for over thirty years, I
| certainly realize that science is far more than "fact". Beliefs,
| theories, and arguments in favor of / in opposition to them are just as
| important as "the facts".
| As a teacher, I would be wary of any proposal that, by stating that
| "facts may be taught", implies that theories and opinions may not be
| taught. That would not be an acceptable shackle to place upon the wrists
| of educators, regardless of what personal position the teacher / student
| / parent may happen to hold with respect to origins.
|
| Are we then to permit certain teachers to discuss "the facts" of
| origins, while others are forbidden to do so? How do you justify a rule
| that says a science teacher may mention origins, while a literature or
| history or art or music teacher may not? "The Origin of Species" is a
| great piece of literature. "Inherit the Wind" is a famous motion
| picture about the Scopes trial. May English teachers discuss these?
| What schools teach about origins has been a matter of public debate for
| at least 130 years. This debate has largely been an American phenomenon
| and it reflects upon our political system as well as our popular
| culture. May history teachers discuss it? Creation and evolution have
| inspired music, paintings, sculpture, drama, and poetry. Are art or
| music teachers allowed to discuss these? My view is that all the
| disciplines of learning are interrelated. They must not be
| compartmentalized.
|
| Still worse, "the scientific facts may be discussed in appropriate
| science classes" leaves the implication that they MAY NOT be discussed
| in inappropriate science classes. Which classes aren't appropriate? I
| think the theory of biological evolution is pertinent to astronomy,
| chemistry, geology and physics. To the extent that it can be simulated
| quantitatively, it is pertinent to mathematics and computer science
| classes. Must a non-biology teacher seek special dispensation to broach
| this subject? And if so, whose job is it to determine whether the
| science class is an appropriate one? Why would you want to shackle
| teachers so that they may only teach what someone else has determined to
| be "appropriate" for their class?
|
| Thank you,
|
|
| Joseph H. Lechner, Ph.D.
| Professor of Chemistry
| Mount Vernon Nazarene University
| 800 Martinsburg Road
| Mount Vernon, OH 43050-9500
| [740] 392-6868 extension 3211
|
Jerry, for a start let us not lump YECs in with people who believe god is the creator, but that modern science explains how he did it. I can quite happily disprove YEC to my satisfaction.
I am not a physicist so I would not say this but, true, the case for YEC sure looks difficult to defend (but I know some bright physicist Ph.D's who accept this view). I have dealt with this issue in what I feel is the most logical way (but I prefer to publish in the life sciences).
If people want to believe the other types of creationism, fine.
WOW. Do you really believe this?? Than let us work together on a few projects (I have several in mind already).
You believe in a literalistic interpretation of a creation myth...
I have never said this. You do not know what I believe in this area. I am not a Biblical literalist but accept an historical interpretation. As you know, Witnesses are NOT YEC and most other creationists are also not YEC and I, as a Witness, was not in any way a classical YEC (and would have been disfellowshipped if I was, and others knew it). I have an article that will be out this month about this in a Blackwell published journal. Also, I have never written where I stand on this topic, but will in the future. Do not assume what you do not know. You are attacking somebody that does not exist.
Dr. Ulano, Thank you very much for writing. I think this is the first e-mail I've gotten from Israel. It is amazing to me that so many in the scientific community seem to be unwilling to consider the possibility of some divine intervention in the development of life as we see it -- even among the many scientists who believe God created life. (They seem to think that after creating the first living cell, he decided not to do anything else.) I appreciate your perspective. thanks again. Ron Barnett
Dear Mr. Barnett, I read your article in the Greeville News about the "intelligent design" movement as just being "creationism" in disguise. The problem is that this is a world wherein the complexity, intricacies, and harmony on the micro as well as the macro (what we actually see) level is startling for anyone who begins to examine it. This could be on the level of a layman reading a popular book on the life style of honey bees, ants, etc., or of an advanced graduate student studying immunology and the manner in which the body detects and counteracts foreign, invasive agents. This wonder does not end with further familiarization. It only increases with knowledge. Creationism takes as a basis the idea based on Biblical accounts that God created the world. Intelligent Design theory, on the other hand, is not spurred by this. One, at least some of the molecular machines that build the structures we actually see, i.e. bones, hearts, brains, are similar to other machines that we know, ie, removing a single part nullifies the machine. Therefore, it is unlikely to have developed piecemeal. Two, using statistics with the various molecular systems that are multifaceted, such as coagulation of blood, one comes to a conclusion that reduces the probability of nature's cellular machinery to have developed by random chance to as close to zero as one can get. Now, here comes the catch. If one comes to science from the viewpoint that there is no God (eg. evolutionist Richard Dawkins self-admission of atheism by age 16 prior to his scientific career), then the probability of near zero is good enough, because it can be no other way. If on the other hand, one has had exposure to the spiritual side of real life, and is willing to believe in a Creator who was and is active in this world, then the probability of close to zero can be readily accepted as zero. The issues are real. Much of how one sees things depends on his starting point. Yaakov Ulano
Talk Origins HAS unedited rebuttals of Evolutionary articles on it. Many articles there assert errors in some Creationists argument, and the Creationists rebuttal is linked to as appropriate.
This is not what I was referring to. I am talking about articles on the web site and not those select articles put there just to make fun of.
A common definition of a creationist (quoted below) comes from the person that many regard as the leading evolutionist in the world now, Professor Richard Dawkins of Oxford University and best selling author (wasn't he a missionary kid?)
In a dialogue I had with Richard Dawkins, it became quite clear in the
course of our discussion that, in his view, a creationist is anyone who
believes that something more than merely natural processes was at work in
the origin and diversity of organic life. This includes both Old and Recent
Creationists and everyone who believes ID was involved in even the most
minute way. It really seemed that there are only two categories in Dawkins'
mind: you either believe that the universe and organic life are completely
explained through the natural processes, or you are a creationist
to create a false or misleading impression
Tell me, is there anyone in the world that has not in hisor her life at times created a false or misleading impression? We do it every day when women put on makeup or men apply tack on a date.
Jerry;
Tell me, is there anyone in the world that has not in hisor her life at times created a false or misleading impression? We do it every day when women put on makeup or men apply tack on a date.
That's funny... but both creationists and evolutionists (no CAP to denote entire spectrums which may indeed have a communality in some people's views) do have a tendency to not only ignore the weaknesses in their arguement, but to actively conceal them by artifice of word.
Or maybe I'm just naturally suspicious... I'm tried of asking you the same questions.
I think that there is a large spectrum of belief in creation from the strictly literal to a very defuse belief not connected with any book, and that most of these forms of creationism have large elements of evolution and cosmology in them. Dismissing YEC as errant nonsense, there are, for example;
The last few aren't even creationists really, come to think of it...
Now, I think anyone trying to apply the Bible in even the most liberal form to the cosmological development of the Universe and human evolution is simply on a losing wicket. If god had been able to inspire a man to write down something, just as Revelation sounds whacked out, so could god have a man write a creation account that would have sounded whacked out until people understood it.
Before there was any thing there was no thing to be cold, but even so the coldness was infinate. And God cast a bowl to enclose all that we see in the skies, and formed it as a potter forms a bowl. And in the bowl from a seed there exploded a radiance, a shining, and where there was once nothing was thrown all that we see in the skies, filling the bowl with light, whirlpools of stars. Round some stars were worlds just like ours, and this is the book of when he looked towards our world, and saw our ancestors raise their eyes to the sky and wonder about all they saw there. Man named the animals because he was able to, just as he made fire because he was able to, just as he made tools because he was able to. It was doing this that made man seperate himself from the animals, even though his ancestors were animals.
There we go. Easy. Is god stupid, or what? Obviously not. 'Cause I can tell you, if there were a creation myth like THAT, I would be far more inclined to believe it, as it is so non-falsifiable it streaches ones crudlity to think such a succinct and accurate description of the Universe as we can determine it to be was accidental.
But no. We get a story rather better than your cutting a god in half job, but that still shows every indication of being a story.
Now, people can go for the soft and wooly end of creationism and that's fine. They're not trying to shoehorn a goat-herd's tale into modern science.
The thing that makes some creationists dig their heels in, is that every concession you make in the direction of a non-inspired and/or non-literal vesion of the Bible or whatever, is a step closer to realising much of the Bible may be similarly non-literal. Bingo congnitive dissonance. Surely you have to accept that someone who might have to concede aspects of the Gospels may be non-literal IF they concede that Genesis is not totally literal has more to lose than me!
Now, some hard-line atheists might have a similar ideological stance. But, please believe me when I say that the majority want to believe what there is most evidence for. Some might be athiests who would love to be proved wrong or would be fascinated if they were proved wrong in a way that didn't involve naked flames (joke). Some might be agnostics. But they have less to lose as they do not have the specificity of belief that requires them to attack every bit of Science that disagrees with Genesis in some person's interpretation. It's wrong? So what, there may be a god anyway, but, then again, maybe not.
I don't know if there is a god or not, but can speculate on the evidence if there is it is very unlikely it is anything like the Christian concept of god.
I hope I have explained why people who cling to literalism bug me. There's no point if you want to believe in god how it may be, only if you're determined to believe in it how you want to.
Oh, yeah, you know what I think is funny? I've never had a creationist come up with any really decent attacks on the real weak areas of evolution with regard to man. They get bogged down in bones, which are a pretty good sign we're out of Africa rather than Eden. Forget that, too literalistic, but for those that believe that god made man's mind as an act of special creation there are loads of arguments, that unlike most of the fossils and rocks arguments, actually are important points rather than things that don't really affect the standard model.
