Evolutionary establishment tactics (page 15)

rem

Hooberus,

The Theory of Evolution (all caps) is just a theory of mechanisms. Evolution as a concept does come with more connotations, but even then it doesn't include origins other than the fact the evolution of life had a start.

>> And as I have explained Evolution can include the origin of life, as George Gaylord Simpson wrote: "The origin of life was necessarily the beginning of organic evolution and it is among the greatest of all evolutionary problems." - opening sentence chapter 2 "The Meaning of Evolution" 1949)

I don't care what Dr. Simpson's personal views were. We are talking about mainstream views... not unrepresentative views from a half century ago. Seeing that the quote is so old, he was probably referring to what we now call abiogenesis... he just used some confusing language since the concept or discipline as branch of science didn't exist yet.

rem

Pistoff

For the record, if it has not yet been pointed out:

Skell does not hold a degree in BIOchemistry; it is chemistry, which the Discovery Institute has cleverly tweaked.
And he is a scientist who specializes, not in evolution, but carbenes. Chemicals.

While that makes him pretty smart for ID types, he is not the authority on evolution that ID wants to make him out to be.

Dishonest use of credentials does NOT help your case, booberus.

Taken from this quote:

"Over at IDTheFuture and at the DI, supporters of intelligent design (including one-time English professor, Jonathan Witt) are trumpeting an open-letter from Philip Skell to the Kansas State Board of Education. Prominent is that Skell is a National Academy of Sciences member. Apparently, being a NAS member doesn’t preclude making some fairly dumb statements.

I’ll leave others to take this on, but will just say one thing. Philip S. Skell is the Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry at Penn State University. He has worked on *carbenes* since the 1950’s. **He was one of the original 100 who were “skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.” He has approved of Unlocking The Mystery of Life and endorsed No Free Lunch. He supports the “argument from increddulity”.**

I don’t care what he has to say about biological evolution. I’m sure he wouldn’t care about what I have to say about carbenes. And that’s how it should be. Only in the fevered mind of the DI are all scientists equally conversant with biology. Only to the DI does it matter that Skell is a NAS member. NAS members have been wrong before within their field (all scientists have been!), why should we listen when they talk outside their field?"

hooberus

For the record, if it has not yet been pointed out:

Skell does not hold a degree in BIOchemistry; it is chemistry, which the Discovery Institute has cleverly tweaked.

And he is a scientist who specializes, not in evolution, but carbenes. Chemicals.

While that makes him pretty smart for ID types, he is not the authority on evolution that ID wants to make him out to be.

Dishonest use of credentials does NOT help your case, booberus.

And "for the record", the qualifications in the letter that I posted from Skell (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/97209/1665677/post.ashx#1665677) did not state that he held a degree in biochemistry.

hooberus

Hooberus,

all caps) is just a theory of mechanisms.

Though evolutionists frequently refer to "Evolution" as distict from ". . . theories of the mechanism of evolution", I don't think that I have ever seen any evolutionist specifically differentiate between "The Theory of Evolution (all caps)" and "the theory of evolution" (small caps), as one referring exclusively to theories of mechanisms, and the other being used potentially more broadly (as F.J.A. did in the afore mentioned encyclopedia).* *The closest thing I have seen to this is one site (below links) that did define the "Theory of Evolution" (all caps) as "a change in allele frequency overtime" (the "alle-frequency definition"), and on another related arcticle also attempted to make the "Theory of Evolution" (all caps) distinct from common descent (with the TOE referring specifically to the "process" that supposedly caused the descent). http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Theory_of_Evolution
http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Evolution I suspect that other evolutionists probably have defined the TOE (all capitals) as including more than mechanisms. However, even if the TOE (all capitals) refers specifically only to theories "of mechanisms", the fact also remains that "Evolution"; "the theory of evolution"; and "The General Theory of Evolution" have been described as including much more than mechanisms. And thus my point, that neither evolution (nor the frequently synomous "theory of evolution" see F.J.A.), is limited to theories of mechanisms, and therfore the potential non-inclusion of the origin of life from meachanism theories, is not a valid reason for claiming that it must not be a part of Evolution.

hooberus

Evolution as a concept does come with more connotations, but even then it doesn't include origins other than the fact the evolution of life had a start.

Evolution can be defined in numerous ways and can include origins (evolutionists themselves have done so).

>> And as I have explained Evolution can include the origin of life, as George Gaylord Simpson wrote: "The origin of life was necessarily the beginning of organic evolution and it is among the greatest of all evolutionary problems." - opening sentence chapter 2 "The Meaning of Evolution" 1949)

I don't care what Dr. Simpson's personal views were.

Simpson was one of the most prominent evolutionists of all time.

While of course the "mainstream" evolutionist view today does seek to exclude the origin of life from evolution, the fact remains that historically even some evolutionists (ie: Kerkut; Simpson; etc.) themselves have included it, therefore there is no requirement that it necessarily be excluded.

Seeing that the quote is so old, he was probably referring to what we now call abiogenesis... he just used some confusing language since the concept or discipline as branch of science didn't exist yet.

"The origin of life was necessarily the beginning of organic evolution and it is among the greatest of all evolutionary problems."

OldSoul

IMO, trying to prove the existence of God through the rules of scientific discovery is like Galileo trying to prove the earth revolved around the sun through the theology of the Catholic Church.

IMO, trying to prove the existence of God is an utterly fruitless exercise.

Midget-Sasquatch

Finally, those that do reject evolution do not just merely point to problems with the origin of life (and based on this alone) choose to ignore evolution, but also use many other valid arguments as well.

I've seen some of them, like using the fairly old theoretical model of evolutionary load and saying how it shows evolution to be too costly to occur. But then they fail to even address the follow-up papers showing solutions to that model. There were several plausible and easily occurable scenarios that did so and its not like they're recent solutions either, but have been around for several decades. I've found its been the same thing time and again with all of those "valid arguments" put forward by ID proponents. Counterpoints are readily found.

In reality it is the Evolutionists who have seen the need to insist on the decoupling of origins from evolution, in order to protect (firewall) evolution from some potentailly very powerful points.

I'm curious. What are some of these powerful points being avoided?

Secondly, the severe problems with abiogenesis are not merely because of a "paucity of data", but instead are based on a considerable amount of known data and chemistry.

Chemical pathways have been tested out in the lab and they have been able to generate many of the different amino acids, fatty acids, as well as some of the nucleotides and the sugars. But I've read how several of the pathways are mutually exclusive and how many of them have very low yields. Now from that, I too would doubt the probability of those building blocks being naturally available in the quantities needed for the startup and continuation of life. But then maybe I think that way because I lack vision?

You see, some of those building blocks have even being detected in material from space. We can't deny their natural presence. Not so improbable then. The chemical hurdles have evidently been overcome for some of the building blocks of life.The question is how did they form there? With more data, we may eventually see how all of them could have been formed, either on Terra or a better suited setting elsewhere. So IMHO, the small amount of data currently available doesn't make this an open and shut case for either side.

P.S. Yeah, the idea of having life be infinitely old is easily refuted. Nicely done there bud. Now what if there were some way for life to traverse between universes in an infinitly old multiverse?

hooberus

I've seen some of them, like using the fairly old theoretical model of evolutionary load and saying how it shows evolution to be too costly to occur.

I believe that the assumptions behind the basic Haldane model are still in use.

But then they fail to even address the follow-up papers showing solutions to that model. There were several plausible and easily occurable scenarios that did so and its not like they're recent solutions either, but have been around for several decades. I've found its been the same thing time and again with all of those "valid arguments" put forward by ID proponents. Counterpoints are readily found.

If you will provide links to the follow up papers claiming to show solutions to that model. I will attempt to provide you with counterpoints.

Midget-Sasquatch

The assumptions of the model are applicable for a deteriorating environment scenario. But you know that reality isn't just one particular scenario all of the time. Anyway, here's a website for the general public that takes a look at the Haldane Dilemma:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/haldane.html

And as you asked, here's one primary source, a paper that I've read on it, from the PNAS:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=434284

~~Hear~~ Read from you later

hooberus

The assumptions of the model are applicable for a deteriorating environment scenario. But you know that reality isn't just one particular scenario all of the time. Anyway, here's a website for the general public that takes a look at the Haldane Dilemma:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/haldane.html

Robert Williams' original arcticle was responded to here: (If the below link does not directly work it may be necessary to go to http://www1.minn.net/~science/ click on Haldane's Dilemma and go from there).

____________________________________________________________________________

Responding to evolutionist critiques:

Professor Massimo Pigliucci
Robert Williams
Talk.origins website
A tale of peer review
Dr. Crow's comments on my paper
If you know of evolutionist responses that deal with my material fairly, let me know. I intend to address them.

___________________________________________________________________________

Robert Williams' updated arcticle was responded to (by creationist Fred Williams) here:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/haldane_rebuttal.htm

And as you asked, here's one primary source, a paper that I've read on it, from the PNAS:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=434284

I haven't yet examined this paper, however perhaps its points have been covered in the Biotic Message book, website, or other other creationist sources. A recent (April 2005) peer-reviewed TJ arcticle may also be helpful (I plan on ordering this issue):

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v19/i1/index.asp

____________________________________________________________________________

20–21

Haldane’s dilemma has not been solved

Perspective by Don Batten

____________________________________________________________________________

See also the below related (online arcticle) from ReMine in the same (April 2005) TJ issue: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v19/i1/CostTheory.pdf

(footnote: 28 is a reference for the PNAS paper)

Evolutionary establishment tactics

Share this