Update: Turns out we aren’t 99% similar after all. It is more like 70%.
That wasn’t the subtitle of the August 17, 2006 Houston Chronicle article on the similarity of human and chimpanzee DNA, but it could have been. There are 3 billion letters in the human DNA genome, and they are 98.5% similar with chimps. DNA is fantastically complex, and the math yields 45 million differences. But of course the Chronicle article stated, “DNA of humans, chimps is 98% the same.”
Most of the “science” in the article was based on the unproven assumption that chimps and humans have a common ancestor. It would have been nice if they had explained how the DNA could have tens of millions of changes in only a few million years (according to their theory), as well as how it kept changing at the same pace throughout the human population without us veering off into multiple species. Or if it changed at a rapid pace, why did it do so for some and not others? And how did the males and females just happen to evolve similarly and simultaneously?
And where are those missing fossils? Shouldn’t the archeological finds be teeming with transitional fossils? Instead, we find explosions of fossils.
All life on earth, from bacteria to human beings, have at last 25% of DNA in common. The DNA of a nematode worm is 75% similar to that of humans. They could have mentioned that our DNA is 30% similar to bananas. But it is the differences that matter.
Nearly all cars have 4 wheels. That doesn’t mean they were genetically related, just that the designers have a model that works well so they replicate it. Perhaps next time the Chronicle will have headlines stating that “chimpanzees and humans are both carbon based life forms” or “Houston is hot in the summer.”
This is just another example of how our biases influence reporting.
P.S. Here’s a good link in general and especially for those of you in Texas: Texans for Better Science Education.
Note: Comments welcomed, provided that you stay on topic and actually have something to say. I have heard more than enough poor materialistic reasoning to last a lifetime, so save your keystrokes if you are just here to say, “ID is dumb,” or something equally eloquent.
Filed under: Favorites, Intelligent Design | Tagged: God, ID, Intelligent Design, religion, science
See these are the points where I think the ID argument goes off the rails. In my opinion, the argument between scientists and ID-ers is misconstructed and both camps fall into the same trap: arguing the significance of particular findings. That kind of argument is only useful if everyone is using the same standards and defnitions. Otherwise it’s just a proxy for what is the real argument: the philosophy behind the analysis of the findings.
I agree with your part about the stats being a proxy for the philosophy. That was my main idea, that it is easy to take something like “98%” as a proof point when looking at the inverse could have changed the tone of the article 180 degrees.
I deliberately left out any reference to ID. I don’t mind debating ID, but didn’t want to muddy the water. I was also aiming at the flaws of the Darwinian position. I would like to see the merits of ID debated in schools, but would settle for critiques of the Darwinian position for starters.
Well, that’s the second problem I have with ID — I see a lot of critique about what’s wrong with evolution, but very little work being done by the ID-ers to lay down the type of philosophical and scientific foundations that would get them accepted by the scientific community.
I’m not interested in debating ID or evolution either, BTW. Just offering my opinions on where ID/creation science gets it wrong, from a philosophical standpoint. Debating the specific science is a waste of time until the other stuff is taken care of.
I’m not sure I follow. Are you saying that just IDers have the obligation to lay out the scientific foundations of their views before critiquing Darwinian evolution, or that anyone has to have a better explanation before criticizing Darwinian evolution? I realize the two camps overlap quite a bit, Venn diagram-wise, but I don’t think someone has to come up with a complete model for an alternative view just to be able to say to Darwinists, “Pardon me, but I couldn’t help but notice that out of the millions of fossils that have been discovered, the only ones supporting your views have been mistakes, frauds or explainable as different species. In short, you’ve got no transitional forms and many of your experts acknowledge this as a rather sizable problem. Just sayin’.” That seems like a worthy item of debate in schools regardless of the state of an ID model.
Afternoon guys, (it’s afternoon up here in Ann Arbor, MI Neil-not sure about Texas :>)).
Curious – Do atheistic evolutionists & a theistic evolutionists basically view the process the same way? Other than the origin of course. I would think that a theistic evolutionist would be closer to the ID viewpoint since they both start with GOD.
Also, & correct me if I’m way off track (I know you will), from everything I’ve read, it seems that ID is much more influenced by philosophy, especially logic, than simply the pure scientific method. I’m not trying to say there is no science in ID because I believe there absolutely is. I’m saying that their basic premise, proof of ID or GOD, has been the holy grail of theology from the beginning of scientific inquiry.
I’m going to stop here because I think you can see what I’m getting at. Basically, I’m not sure that evolution & ID can be evaluated using exactly the same methods or criteria.
Yes, we have our own special time zone here in Texas! If you come visit we’ll share it with you.
Interesting question, Woz. A debate between atheistic and theistic evolutionists would be interesting. Maybe Edarrel is following along and knows of one – I think he is in the theistic evolution camp. I think young earth / old earth debates are interesting as well. I think they both fall under orthodox Christianity and that debate probably takes up too much time and energy overall, but if you get both sides making well reasoned arguments you can learn a lot.
I think either side probably has a fair amount of ammo to accuse the other of being a worldview in search of science to back it up. Not that I’m on the fence, just that with as much “dialogue” that occurs on this topic it is pretty easy to find good and bad reasoning put forth by both sides.
Wait, Woz is in A2 too? I had no idea. The Wolverines are invading your blog, Neil.
Neil, I’m not saying that ID-ers (ID-ists?) have to have everything figured out before they criticize scientists’ views of evolution. But, I think they need to do more than just criticize. And, if they’re going to criticize and/or bring up their own discoveries and analysis, they also need to engage in the imporant and tough work of laying out the paradigms that lay at the foundation of their work, since they are fundamentally different from those of science. The conflict, as I see it, is not that ID-ers interpret the same evidence using the same techniques and arrive at different conclusions. Science has no problem whatsoever with that kind of conflict, and in fact, generally grows because of it. Instead, the conflict is that ID-ists interpret the same evidence, supposedly using the same techniques, but those analyses are based on fundamentally different philosophical points of view.
Think of it this way… If an atheist literature professor set out to do a critical analysis of Biblical texts, you and I would likely both be interested in hearing what he or she had to say. But it is unlikely that anything he or she had to say would change our fundamental views because any conclusions he or she came to would be based on a completely different worldview than we have. Might we be informed about things we didn’t know or realize before? Sure…if through our discernment we believed that those ideas were of God. But a critique based on an atheistic worldview is only going to be just so useful for a Christian. It’s the foundation that’s the problem, even though he/she is using exactly the same writings we use.
Not a great analogy, I suppose, but it’s close to what I’m saying: critique is fine, but the hard work of building the philosophical foundation hasn’t been done. In science, this took hundreds of years and resulted in positivism … which has been mostly replaced by postpositivism (not postmodernism, as some contend.)
As for the theistic vs. atheistic evolution questions Woz brings up, I’m afraid I can’t offer any opinions, as I’ve been called everything from a creationist (meant as an insult, I’m sure) to an evolutionist (also, I’m sure, meant as an insult) by people I’ve talked to. lol But I can say that I am decidedly not an ID-ist. Heh….iDeist. Sounds like an Apple product.
Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.
P.S. iDeist . . . good one! You should copyright that. And weren’t some of our founding fathers iDeists?
No, I’ve been told in no uncertain terms that any belief that they were iDeists is completely wrong, heretical, and unpatriotic and that there is no historical evidence to make that claim. I guess they used PCs instead.
Wonder how long it will be before we see new denominations popping up to support all the different sides of this issue. I can see the “what we believe statement” now: We’re an old-age, theistic evolutionary, KJ only, pre-trib, non-female leading, communion quarterly, no musical instruments, must be completely dunked to be saved, loving community of Christians dedicated to spreading the unadulterated word of GOD to anyone the comes within our four walls……….. :>).
History is one of our family hobbies, especially the Revolution & Civil War periods. From all the books I’ve read I can positively state that a number of the Founding Fathers were definitely deists. Trying to state otherwise goes against what some of them wrote in their own personal papers.
This might be subject matter for another post Neil.
Alas, I’ve seen exactly those kinds of statements popping up all over lately.
Don’t bother us with your “history” and “facts” and “evidence” Woz, we like the truthiness of the idea that the Founding Fathers were Christians … preferably Baptists or some version of Pentacostal.
j/k
Now you sound like my brother-in-law. Doesn’t want to be confused with the facts :>).
Pentacostal?? Tongues or no tongues????
Have a great evening.
Woz, if you want to do a guest blog post on the founding fathers topic, I’d be game. I’ve heard a little of both sides but not enough to say anything interesting about it!
“Texans for Better Science Education” is a crank science organization, a science revisionist group. Such dialectical tactics are interesting, but in this case, their views are wildly inaccurate.
The difficulty any student of evolution has with ID is the lack of any hypothesis, and especially the lack of serious hypotheses that might lead to scientific prediction that would be testable. I think most Christians who understand science would say as I do that we simply cannot say exactly where and when God intervenes in reproduction — we have no evidence of such intervention. Christians hold as a matter of faith that God does, but there is no physical evidence.
IDists claim that there is evidence, but whatever they point to ultimately is of the Potter-Stewart-on-obscenity nature: “I can’t tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it.” In science we understand that such a standard is generally wrong, and in any case, it’s inadequate for testing.
Neil, is there any scientific presentation that would convince you that 45 million differences in 5 million years is not too many? I know quite a bit of science, but I know nothing about how to calculate expected rates of mutation. There are those who do, such as those who calculate that the size of the human race must have been down around a thousand people 70,000 years ago, judging from the variability in DNA we have now. I’ve tried to look up the original papers on that, but I’d have to go to the local biomedical library to see the details, which I haven’t done in a while.
Gee, this could be a fraud like Piltdown Man, right? I doubt it. I’ve seen timelines, independent from those from physical fossils, based on DNA similarities and differences for all species for over 30 years now. It’s a powerful technique. I just never learned the details. If I do and it’s all a fraud, you win. If it’s not, will you admit defeat?
That’s a problem when someone like Michael Behe proclaims that science doesn’t know this or that. It turns out he just didn’t do his homework. No one person knows enough to answer any question that might pop up, but if the question is asked loudly enough, the scientific community has answers for it, such as the contention that that there are no trasitional forms. Lots of evolutionists say there are transitional forms. You say there aren’t. One of you is wrong. Could it be you?
There is no substitute for anyone of us trying to understand as much as we can for ourselves, about God, about science, about anything. A lot of the details about human genetics will unfold later in this century, but there are plenty now. There is a website for the Howard Hughes Medical Institute that describes the 300 million year history of the mammalian Y chromosome (non-mammals handle gender differently) in a multimedia way. It’s a fascinating story of how a duplication of a gene for a different body segment became the sry gene that triggers many other genes that code for male gender in utero for mammals. The rest of the genome is the same for males and females, which is one reason there isn’t the separation between the two you asked about. (http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/gender/animations.html#y_evol) You can download the animation from that site with Quicktime or just go through the written description through the “learn more” link.
I don’t expect this is really about data, though. It’s about God. I find fatal flaws in almost every argument against evolution. The one that can’t be invalidated is the argument that metaphysics is such that the Bible is right and science is an illusion. No one argues that way, though. People would rather pretend that science is somehow different than it is. The current genetics revolution will wipe that away. How many will still insist that Genesis is true then? More importantly, what does God say? It depends how you hear Him.
It was an interesting comment earlier about what a debate between theistic and atheistic evolutuion would sound like. With an ordinary atheist, it would all be about whether God exists, but suppose you have two people who believe both in God and that evolution is a fact. I’d say Francis Collins is as close to a traditionalist as can be and believe that evolution is a fact. I myself have a strong faith in God, albeit liberal, and believe that evolution is a fact, but think it quite possible that the physical universe runs itself in every way. Even if God created the universe for fellowship, there was bound to be intelligent life eventually. Did it matter to Him that we have four limbs? I try to imagine what such a debate would sound like. I can do my side. I can’t do Francis Collins. I don’t know if he’d stick to his understanding of who and what God is that makes Dr. Collins believe that God has been fully in control of evolution. As scientists I have a feeling we both could say that God is whoever and whatever God is, as nature is whatever nature is. Not much of a debate, maybe that would be the point.
It’s not agnostic to say “God knows”, and I am His no matter what. It’s faith. I’m not sure what it is that many people are unwilling to say that, but would rely on shallow and obsolete arguments to try to say science has it all wrong. I notice people like that use pharmaceuticals instead of just prayer. In many ways people’s actions and their words don’t match up in this. I trust God, whoever and whatever God is, and whatever God thinks about both people and nature. That makes more sense to me than some grand conspiracy.
My primary point was that bias can lead one to draw totally differrent conclusions from the same data and that the media rarely address the tough objections against evolution. I have yet to see them even acknowledge the macro/micro distinction (whether they agree with it or not). I would prefer that the pros and cons of evolution be taught and reported on.
Re., “One of you is wrong. Could it be you?” – Aside from the poor reasoning behind this claim, there are plenty of evolutionists who acknowledge the fossil problem, such as Stephen J. Gould – “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”
No time to deal with the other straw men (Who said science was an illusion? Who said science has it “all wrong?” Not me.)
Gee Neil, either there are transitional forms or there aren’t. If so many evolutionists say there are transitional forms and you say there are none, somebody’s wrong. That doesn’t seem like poor reasoning to me. Of course, what does “transitional” mean? You didn’t qualify your use of it. You just said there are none. One quote from Stephen J. Gould saying fossils are not continuous does not back you up in that.
It seems to me that you’re only interested in one side, and like many you can’t even imagine that God is on the other side. Well He is. You could make time to find that out, but it’s a free country. You can see where your crowd takes you instead.
I still submit that the lack of fossil evidence is a huge problem for the contentions of Darwinian evolution and that many evolutionists acknowledge that. I could offer a series of quotes like Gould’s (sounds like a good topic for a future post) but I doubt that would sway you.
It makes for better dialogue if you don’t put words in other people’s mouths (”You can’t even imagine God is on the other side” and “You could take the time to find out.”) and make dogmatic statements (”Well He is.”). Implying that I am just blindly following a crowd doesn’t add much weight to your arguments, either.
What is missing in fossils isn’t nearly as big a problem for scientists, as what is known is problematic for creationists.
We have nearly a score of species between our shared ancestor with chimpanzees and modern humans. How many more do creationists claim should be known? We have enough whale fossils to detail their move to the ocean from the land. We have the fossils that show reptiles evolving into mammals. We have so many fossils showing transitions between the dinosaur-like critters that became birds, and birds, that creationists don’t know which one to complain about. Niles Eldredge has 2,000 different species of trilobite showing incredible detail over 300 million years — the rise of eyes in the things, for example.
Every process Darwin thought necessary for evolution has been found in fossil form, many times. The same processes have been observed in real time.
What problem is it scientists have, with such a wealth of evidence, with literally thousands of transitionals well detailed?
You might want to inform your Darwinist leaders. They apparently aren’t privy to all the “facts” that you are.
Hello Neil,
Hello Neil,
No, posting on dormant blogs isn’t useless. I found the way here.
Now, on to the issue at hand. I don’t believe there is any conflict at all between Christianity and evolution. Many years ago when I was in college, I knew a girl who was a journalism major. She said that for any story these questions must be asked: who?, what? when? where? how? and why? One is the subject of the story and the others explain it. Here the creation of the universe and the rise of life on Earth are the “what”. Now in regards to the other explanatory questions, it is clear that science can answer “when” and “how” and maybe “where”, while religion can answer “who” and “why”. Both run into trouble when they try to answer the wrong questions. Science thinks that just because they’ve explained how the house was built, they’ve dispensed with the need for a carpenter. Likewise, the Bible is not a science text book. It wasn’t written to explain how God created the universe, but why. For more info check out http://answersincreation.org which sets out the case for theistic evolution pretty well I think.
Hi Ivan – glad you found the way here! Thanks for the comment and link. I’ll check it out when I get a chance.
Hello Neil and DavidD,
Since we do not talk all that much about the ID movement here in Finland I’ve been doing some reading to understand what stands both sides take. By accident visited this blog as well.
What I would like to point out, is that DavidD has done his homework and clearly makes very valid questions and remarks.
Whereas, Neil, your blog here points out painfully that you do not understand evolutionary theory enough even to criticize it properly. Please take a book written by a true evolutionary scientist (his religious beliefs don’t matter) and read it. Then you will be able to make more founded critisism, if you still want to.
A little bit food for thought: If there is a common ancestor for chimps and humans, lets say, 5 million years ago and the difference in mutations is 45 million, it means that the human evolution needs to account for 2.5 million mutation and chimps the other 2.5 million, right? (It is not necessarily an even share, but let’s assume so).
Let’s then say that the generation took on the average 15 years (I’m not an expert, this is just an example, so don’t take the number seriously). So there would be 333 333 generations in 5 million years. That would yield to 7.5 mutations in one generation, that’s a bit more manageable, isn’t it?
After reading my comment, I noticed that I made an error. So quick correction:
Obviously 22.5 million mutations per species, which yields to 67.5 mutations per generation. Which is more, but is that a lot? Well, I don’t know, I need to go back to reading.
But what I do know is that human generation time in reality is longer than chimp generation time, which causes that we are genetically closer to our common origin than the chimps. Do you follow?
Jouni, thanks for visiting. I am well aware of evolutionary theory and have done my homework. It is best to stick to facts here. David’s arguments were mostly straw men, so I’m not sure what you meant by him having done his homework.
Assuming your math is correct, I think your example reinforces my point quite nicely. 67.5 mutations per generation of humans is a huge amount. Keep in mind that it would have to take place across the board and not just here and there. And these would just be the positive mutations that were “kept” and not the mutations that were discarded as not being useful. Any way you slice it, 45 million is a lot of differences.
And as I have noted separately, there is no fossil evidence to back up these 67.5 average positive and sustained mutations per generation. According to your premise we should be swimming in fossil evidence.
The number of mutations passing from generation to the next one is an interesting subject and I need to do more studying on the subject. Then I’ll get back to you, if I find something interesting. I’m just a layman in these things, because I’m an engineer and not biologist.
I would like to point out one question you made in your blog:
“And how did the males and females just happen to evolve similarly and simultaneously?”
That was a strange question, if you understand evolution, and that prompted me to talk about homework.
Well, obviously each individual would have their own mutations and the ones that are passed on from the farther and the ones passed on from the mother are mixed in their children. Because of this sharing, mixing and passing of genes from generation to generation, males and females do not evolve into different species.
And it does not matter to the human race if the mutations in males and females are different (they are bound to be), because the ones that get passed on are the important ones. And the children do have mutations from both sides.
I’ll try to clarify. I believe that your premise is that there was a somewhat steady rate of mutations over 5 million years once humans and chimps split off from a common ancestor (I’m not hung up on the precise number of years as there appears to be some agreement that the theory says it was some amount of millions).
(If you think the changes didn’t take place over time and that there was a rapid change of 45 million things then that would have a different set of problems and questions).
So the premise above would mean that at least two of the common ancestors broke off simultaneously and whatever they bred kept mutating roughly simultaneously to end up with the 6.5b humans we have today with the 45m DNA differences. Or if only one of the common ancestors mutated, then at that point he/she was still able to breed with the common ancestor to make humans which then mutated such that they could breed with each other but not the common ancestor or the chimps. So at some point the reproductive systems had to have mutated in a beneficial way and at the same time. Otherwise they couldn’t reproduce.
The more I describe what I think your premise is the more confusing it sounds, so I admit it is possible that I am misunderstanding it altogether! You acknowledge that these mutations do not necessarily evolve into different species, so we do agree on that.
Again, it seems like this slow, steady mutation process would yield a whole bunch of fossil and DNA evidence.
Well, obviously the steady rate of mutations is a coarse approximate, because it is possible that mutation rates varie over time. They are different for different species as well. But at least scientists use “molecular clock” to determine how long ago the two species have separated. Although that clock may be inaccurate, but it is based on mutation rates being relatively stable over time.
Why there aren’t enough fossil and DNA data for conclusive evidence? Well, firstly one would have to ask what is enough? There are quite a few different fossils from the ape-like beings to humans.
And why there aren’t more? If I was to dig out my great grandfather, I wouldn’t find much, would I? DNA material does not preserve very well over the centuries and fossilization needs very specific circumstances to happen. And if it happened, we would still need to find it. Most of the fossil deposits have been found by accident, while doing something else, for example while building a road.
But slowly there will be more and more evidence and the understanding of human evolution improves all the time. That’s how the science works.
Hi Jouni – I agree that IF those mutations happened that the rates could vary over time. I didn’t mean to imply that your theory had to have a steady state of change. But the averages imply a LOT of average changes per generation no matter how you slice it.
Even many evolutionists admit the problem of missing fossil evidence. They have typically come up wtih two excuses: 1) The transitional forms didn’t fossilize for some reason (D’oh!) or 2) The theory of punctuated equilibrium which alleges that Darwinian evolution occurs sporadically and more radically (which, of course, doesn’t fit the definition of Darwinian evolution at all).
Believers are sometimes accused of a “God of the gaps” theory, where anything we don’t understand must be God. Ironically, Darwinian evolutionists have such faith in their theory that they just know the fossil evidence will be found – i.e., a “science of the gaps.”
I didn’t know that the more radical periods in evolution do not fit into Darwinian evolution. I thought that it was widely accepted in evolutionary circles that they can occur due to something called evolutionary pressure.
An example of such a pressure would be for example a rapid decrease in ambient temperature. If a species had a variation in size and in bodily hair thickness among its population, it could happen that the smaller ones with less hair died of cold within a very short time period. Therefore, all the descendants from onwards would have genes of heavy built and more hair. And the exclusion of some genes would have happened very quickly.
But your comment about “science of gaps” is a valid one, but one should not necessarily hold it against science. Because in order to gain new knowledge we need to study something we don’t fully understand. Therefore there is indeed a gap in our knowledge that we need to fill. When and if that gap is filled that may create new gaps, which need filling. Therefore the knowledge is increased at all steps, but the science does not stop gaining knowledge after it has discovered something new, because there are always new gaps to be filled.
That is why, I really don’t comprehend what the ID people are trying to do. I think that the paleontologists, biologists and evolutionary scientists all know that there are gaps in their theories, which need to be studied further. And then there is the ID-movement saying: “Hold on – stop there, that gap is for God”. If a scientist stopped there and didn’t try to fill the gap, he or she would indeed be a very bad scientist. And if that gap is filled, then the iDeist (a good word) would have to retreat to the next unfilled gap and so on.
I think that what the ID-people are doing is bad for science and bad for religion. They insert God into a gap that is not big enough for God and also engage the scientists into a conversation that does not lead anywhere and does not improve their science.
I suppose it depends on how you define “radical.” The hairiness example is pure hypothesis and even if true wouldn’t qualify as radical in my book.
I suppose both sides can accuse the other of being a “_____ of the gaps,” which was my point. I am a big fan of science, so I reject any inference that criticizing the Darwinian position makes one anti-science. The point is that if you hold blindly to the materialistic theory and just “trust” that we’ll find a whole bunch o’ fossils later, that doesn’t sound like science to me.
I think you have mischaracterized the ID position (and this post wasn’t about ID anyway) if you say it is bad for science and bad for religion. My main point was that it is easy to skew statistics to serve one’s purpose and ignore a lack of evidence, which the Darwinian movement does in spades.
I don’t think opposing of any science makes anything anti-science and it is true that all the sciences, in order to improve and correct themselves, need critical view.
But the thing today is that critics of evolution theory exceed the number of people actually researching it overwhelmingly. Most of the critics do not understand the things they are criticizing well enough to add anything to the debate. They merely take time and room from well-founded criticism and hinder the development of the theory rather than improve it.
Therefore, I find the demand that the researchers engaged themselves deeper in the debate as it is at the moment a bit unfair.
Trusting that more fossils will be found in the future is not unreasonable, because the new ones are found all the time. Do they answer all the questions? Only time will tell.
But I take it you do not want to wait for further research and that you want to settle this now? That is not how science works, nothing is ever settled finally, all theories can and will be changed when new evidence or better theories are found.
I would like to ask you, what is it that you want from the evolution scientists? What would you like them to say or do?
I still wanted to make one comment…
Neil:
“My main point was that it is easy to skew statistics to serve one’s purpose and ignore a lack of evidence, which the Darwinian movement does in spades.”
I think that goes both ways. There are plenty of material to support evolution theory and still many disregard the whole data, because of some gaps. Why do you dismiss the transitional fossils that have been found and documented?
Jouni, I dismiss the alleged transitional fossils because they have been found lacking. Check out varioius ID sites for examples. Or maybe I’ll blog on this another time. The media typically fawns at the discovery while the facts tell a different story.
And sorry, but I find the whole “merely take time and room from well-founded criticism and hinder the development of the theory rather than improve it” argument to be bad on a couple levels. First, it seems like a cheap trick to cut off debate. Second, it ranks right up there with “Shut up and believe” or the “every dime spent fighting ID is a dime that could be spent on cancer” argument that another commenter presented. Can you see how either side of any argument could use this at any time?
For example, when I share the Gospel I anticipate objections and questions. Even though I believe with every fiber of my body that the evidence and logic point to Christianity being true, I would never say, “Just believe and don’t challenge Christianity because it hinders our ability to share the Gospel.” I hear people say a lot of very foolish things and ask dumb questions, but I try to respond every time with grace and thorough answers.
Thanks for asking about what it is that I want from evolution scientists. That is a good way to look at it. I think I’ll do a separate blog on that next week!
Well, maybe not every dime spent fighting ID would have gone to beat cancer. Some of those dimes would have gone to beat hunger.
Either way, I still find it morally reprehensible to advocate false and disproven science, like ID, when there is good disease-fighting and orphan-feeding science that could be done.
I’m still curious as to what gaps you think exist, Neil. Every part of evolution theory has been observed in action, in real time. Every part.
No scientist ever says “shut up and believe.” It gets more and more clear that ID opponents really have no evidence, and so resort to the creation of straw man arguments. My brief time in science was marked by professionals who insisted that skepticism be ever-present — danger for scientists is “shut up and believe.” No one ever says that; no textbook says that; science journals are structured to avoid such statements at almost all costs. Science is marked instead by incredible conservative bias in claims.
It’s interesting to see that you advocate for the guys who are all hyperbole and no test-tubes, but then you accuse the guys who really do have test-tubes of the hyperbole.
When I share science I anticipate objections and questions. I do not believe with any fiber of my body, however — it’s not at all like sharing the gospel. We say what is, and let the evidence do the talking. If you are not convinced, I cannot say “here’s another testimony.” The evidence is all. There is no leap of faith. All I can do is say, “don’t take my word for it — go check out the evidence.”
Most often, in my experience, creationists won’t check out the evidence.
Just so I can understand your worldview, Edarrell, are you saying that sticking a fork in a baby’s head and sucking out her brains (partial birth abortion) is a Constitutional right, but questioning Darwinian evolution is morally reprehensible?
You can keep saying we don’t check the evidence, but that is your real problem: We checked the evidence, and it was fraudulent. Darwinian evolution is an atheistic religion masquerading as science.
Since you are so passionate about Darwinian evolution and correcting errors about history, I can only assume that you have written extensively about how distorted the movie “Inherit the Wind” was relative to what really happened, and how evil it was to show it to high school students as if it represented the truth. Drop me a link if you have it online.
If I was to play tennis with Andre Agassi, it would not be beneficial to either of us. He wouldn’t break a sweat and I wouldn’t be able to score one single point.
And that is the way I see the debate around evolution at the moment. There are millions of my league players challenging a handfull of Agassis and we all expect them to play with us while they should be challenging the top. (Agassi has retired, I know, but you get the point)
I was at a circus a few days ago with my kids and there was a sealion performing. I was wondering, why it moved so awkwardly. When I got home I checked from the web what a sealion skeleton looked like. And there it was – its pelvis and hind legs looked like something that was made for walking, but was evolving into tail fins. It looked very much like some pictures of the transitional forms of evolving whales.
The Agassi piece is what we call an ad hominem attack (attacking the messenger, not the message), as in “I’m so much better than you that I shouldn’t waste time with your arguments.” I encourage you to avoid those arguments. You can do better.
The whale / seal story is just that – another story the evolutionists use to make their theory seem real. It is just as easily explained by ID – i.e., a designer uses common parts for different beings. I’ve noticed that a lot of cars have 4 wheels.
It seems to me that any evidence I can come up with (or anybody), you can always say: “God did it that way”. It is a valid argument from your point of view, but not from mine. I could recommend you to avoid those kinds of arguments and encourage you to do better, but this is your blog. I respect that and retire myself from this conversation.
I don’t think there is any evidence that could possibly convince you, is there?
I am not just saying, “God did it that way.” I was pointing out that finding similarities between species is hardly proof of Darwinian evolution.
I’ve changed positions on many issues, big and small, when compelling evidence or reasoning led me to do so. I just see lots more problems with Darwinian evolution than real answers, such as those noted at http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/Weaknesses/evol_quotes.htm
Sorry for being condescending in my last post – I re-read it and didn’t like how I came across.
Thanks for stopping by – hope you come back.
Neil, you’ve chastised me in the past for posts you find offensive. Your equating my defense of science with “sticking a fork in a baby’s head” is the most patently offensive line I’ve heard in a long time. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted immediately previously.
And while we’re at it, is it fair to ask you whether you really believe orphans should go hungry and that cancer victims should do without medicine? If you’re trying somehow to equate my defense of science with abortion, let’s get to a real connection — without that science, cancer cures are gone and starvation is certainty for millions. And is it fair to say that you advocate the rights of any fetus over the life of any woman? The procedure known as “partial birth abortion” was developed to save lives, the lives of women in odd cases where birth would threaten the life of the mother. That’s not to say it was always used that way, but it is to note that a ban does threaten some women’s lives (which is the basis on which laws against it have been struck down in the past — there was no due process procedure at all for the woman’s life). Or, alternatively, do you think society should pay to keep alive babies with no brains? It’s an infrequent occurence — but I have been involved in the care of a score of such kids, and I wonder whether natural death wouldn’t have been a more merciful thing for the child, the parents, and the taxpayer. But I digress.
What evidence do you claim was “fraudulent?” Darwin and Wallace were both Christian. Little they wrote has been found to be in error, and nothing in their theories of natural selection has been found much amiss. They are held in high esteem in science today because of the incredible foresight they had, and the high value of their scientific contributions. Evolution theory, as I have noted, is the basis for much of our current fight against cancer. Evolution theory is the root of our hope for a cure for cystic fibrosis. Applied evolution theory keeps diabetics alive.
A charitable person should regard such fruits of Darwin’s theory carefully, and, in my opinion, praise them for their value. In my faith, I regard those fruits as gifts from God, and I cannot for the life of me fathom how anyone could call such work “atheist,” or not praise it.
Have you read the evidence? I’m unconvinced. When I suggested you should read some of the top lay explanations for evolution, you poked some fun at them. I wager you’ve not read the work of Rosemary and Peter Grant, nor the brilliant explanation of their work by the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Jonathan Weiner.
In any case, what is it that you claim is not correct? Darwinian theory has been tested in hundreds of thousands of studies, in all parts of the world, under many different conditions — and it still stands. There simply is no other theory which has withstood such robust testing in biology — there are few theories in science, period, which have been tested so much and so hard as evolution, without at least bending. Evolution isn’t held in high esteem because people like Darwin or agree with his (admittedly Christian) politics, but because it works in the real world, and on the lab bench. So, where is the error that has convinced you Darwin erred?
No, I’ve not written extensively about “Inherit the Wind.” Jerome Lawrence’s and Robert E. Lee’s play did borrow some of the lines nearly verbatim from the transcript of the Scopes trial, but it was about mindless and sometimes-stupid fear of communism making us fear our own citizens. It’s rather ironic that its pro-civil liberties intent has been so often eclipsed by its use of the Scopes trial as a setting. I’ve read extensively about the Scopes trial, however, and I wonder what your bugaboo about it is. It is a case prompted by irrational creationist lawmaking — laws that banned the teaching of science in school. It represents the only occasion that anyone has ever done jail time for teaching in the area, and it was a good man who did jail time for teaching evolution. (Scopes led an exemplary life both before and after the trial, and while I don’t think he was ever a particularly religious man, if the worst evolution does is give us good fathers like John Scopes and Charles Darwin, it’s the kind of thing Christians should praise and seek.) Creationists have often tried to suppress science, and violate the Bill of Rights in their pursuit of an anti-science agenda; so far all such attempts have been ultimately frustrated by operation of legislature or law, and our civil liberties are stronger for the defense.
Evil to show it to students? It addresses the same material as Arthur Miller’s play, “The Crucible.” Personally, I think it does it better. Moreover, it’s correct legally and scientifically as far as it goes with evolution. Legal dramas such as “Law and Order” also condense and combine material — but we don’t dismiss the dramatic value or teaching value for those reasons. I think every high school kid should be familiar with the play. It’s great drama. It’s solid history, especially when we convert the names back to Scopes, Bryan and Darrow. And it demonstrates the folly of using religion as a cudgel against the Constitution, while making a human out of the Bryan character, “Matthew Harrison Brady.” What is your objection to it?
I don’t see evolution as “atheism” in any regard. But I would caution Christians this way: Creationism is the snake in the garden, masquerading as faith. It has poisoned many to the point that they no longer hear the voice of reason. It seems to me it has poisoned some that they no longer hear the words of God, nor the Word of God. We should be always on guard against any claim that is not essential in scripture or faith, and which leads many to commit acts that are otherwise not square with what a Christian should do, as creationism does.
I’m always curious when otherwise wise and intelligent people tell me they are creationist. Obviously they don’t see it as such a snake. But generally I find they also cannot defend their dislike of science. If you can, it would be a first.
Straw man city. Nobody light a match.
Edarrel, you repeatedly claim that questioning Darwinian evolution is morally reprehensible and akin to keeping people from curing cancer and starving children. Aside from the logical weaknesses in those arguments, I thought it was interesting to juxtapose this alleged moral failing with your contention that partial birth abortion was a moral good and part of our Constitutional rights.
Partial birth abortion hasn’t saved the life of a single woman. The baby is 90% out of the woman. Are you saying that stopping the delivery to pierce the skull and remove the brain saves the woman’s life? Why not just let the baby be delivered? Oh yeah, because then it would be alive.
If you study Darwin carefully I think you’ll find a lot of evidence that he was not a Christian. But I don’t care if he was Christian or not – his theory is false. The fraudulent evidence I referenced had nothing to do with Darwin himself. He didn’t have access to the information we have today. I was referring to Piltdown Man, Haeckel’s embryos, etc., plus the problem of the lack of fossil evidence. Yeah, I know you have examples of alleged transitional forms, but I’ve read the de-bunking of those.
Your contention that without Darwinian evolution we wouldn’t have cured these diseases is a straw man. Those look like micro-evolution to me.
Re. “Inherit the Wind” – If you really think that “It’s solid history, especially when we convert the names back to Scopes, Bryan and Darrow” then you obviously aren’t familiar with what really happened vs. what appears in the movie. Among other things, Scopes wasn’t even a full-time biology teacher, and any jail time he did was part of the publicity stunt.
For a guy trying to silence anti-Darwinian evolutionists with ad hominem and legal attacks, it is odd to hear you bring up free speech!
Another straw man is that you say I dislike science just because I disagree with Darwinian evolution. Science is great. It is interesting and in many cases it helps improve the human condition.
Abortions have saved women’s lives. I think no one is unaware of the fact that pregnancy can endanger the life of a woman — that is, after all, what the Caesarian section procedure is about, saving both lives. There are any number of other conditions. In any case, the procedure you worry about was rarely practiced and is now much out of favor. I’m not sure why you rail against things of little or no import.
I have studied Darwin carefully, and I find many indications he was a good, Christian man. He was an outstanding and doting father, a faithful and true husband. He tithed to his death. He was active in parish affairs. What evidence have you to say he was not Christain?
Were Darwin’s theory false, it would not have survived the thousands of tests its been put through. It is by now among the most-tested theories in science — and it’s the basis of much work in agriculture and medicine.
Piltdown man was an interesting hoax. Scientists didn’t accept it, and ultimately it was a scientist who discovered the hoax — not a creationist. Scientists didn’t accept it, ironically, because it ran counter to Darwin’s projections that such fossils would be found in Africa or East Asia. Darwin’s accurate prediction raised doubts that led to the discovery of the hoax. Haeckel was a problem — admonished by Darwin for overstating the case and being a general not-nice guy, by the way. Ironic that you take Darwin’s position on Haeckel, but blame Darwin. Haeckel’s drawings were fudged. The fudging was discovered by scientists looking to replicate the stuff. The larger point that his drawings went to illustrate is accurate, however — in biology textbooks today, the drawings have been replaced by actual photographs.
Lack of fossil evidence? There are more than 10,000 species of dinosaur described. There are thousands of mammalian species described. We have amazingly complete series of transitionals showing the evolution of whales, from sea-edge dwelling carnivores to ocean-going swimmers. We have a score of species showing the clearly the transition to modern humans from ancestors more than five million years ago.
Debunking of fossil evidence? I challenge you as a man of honor to present honest, scientific papers, by people who have studied the fossils, saying they are incorrect. You do strive for accuracy as a Christian, I trust. If you hold your sources to high standards, and they are correct, please present them. But do not yourself be misled by the many cranks in creationism who claim to have discovered problems with fossils they have never examined, or in fields in which these cranks have no experience and no useful knowledge. The debunkings of fossil evidence you’ve read are themselves hoaxes.
I don’t know how “microevolution” could exist between cows and humans. The treatments of diabetes, relying on bovine insulin, are not the result of microevolution — but assume it were: What is the difference between “micro” and “macro” evolution? Time only, and a retrospective realization that a new species developed.
Well, you tell us what really happened at the Scopes trial that was portrayed in accurately in the play. Scopes was convicted, as the play shows. Bryan died a few weeks after the trial, not almost immediately as the play indicates. Nothing in the play is inaccurate so far as the science of evolution goes. But you clearly disagree — be specific. Especially in its use of the trial transcripts, it’s solid history. It’s billed as a work of fiction — I’m not sure how much more reality one should ask from fictional material.
Does the play claim Scopes was full-time? So what? The full-time guy taught evolution, too — but didn’t want to be the test case, for fear he’d spend more than a night or two in jail. He had a couple of kids and a wife. So Scopes got the time. Sure, it was a form of publicity stunt — like the sit-down protesters at the segregated lunch counters. They knew they were going to be arrested. Does that make their cause for justice somehow tainted? How does Scopes’ challenge of a silly law, publicly, affect either the law, or the science of evolution? There is no effect.
In Tennessee in 1925, the legislature passed and Gov. Austin Peay signed a law that prohibited teaching human evolution. The ACLU asked for a test case, and a few people in Dayton, Tennessee, took them up on the offer. John Scopes was the person who broke the law in order to create the case. The judge refused to allow experts on science, or anything else, to testify. Clarence Darrow essentially pled Scopes guilty, and the case was overturned on appeal. The overturning was on a technical matter of sentencing, however, and the law sadly remained on the books until it was repealed (in 1968, as I recall). The trial was carried on live radio. H. L. Mencken wrote acerbic columns from Dayton, for his newspaper The Baltimore Sun. Clarence Darrow volunteered to defend Scopes when William Jennings Bryan volunteered to aid the prosecution. Darrow tried to get Bryan named an expert in the Bible, and did get to examine Bryaon on the witness stand in voir dire, one of the great such cases of all time. In the end, though, the judge ruled against ANY expert testimony, leading to the plea of guilty. Bryan, three-time nominee for president, former Secretary of State, former senator from Nebraska, the Prairie Populist, died shortly after the trial, perhaps speeded in death by the strains of the trial.
What inaccuracy does the play present that is salient to evolution in any way?
Free speech? It’s the most important of our freedoms, in my mind. It’s the freedom that we use every Sunday when we gather to worship, and for that reason it’s quite important to me personally. It should be more important to more people, I think.
And I guess you missed it — I’m not trying to silence anyone. I’m trying to hold to the fire the feet of those who perpetrate hoaxes on people in the name of religion, against science, and against history. I’ve challenged you several times in the last couple of posts to be specific about objections to evolution, but you’ve largely demurred. I don’t have much hope of convincing you — there are lurkers who are more open, and I think an accurate record will lead them to the truth. Truth wins in a fair fight, Ben Franklin said, and I think it’s important to answer bad information about evolution, science, and Darwin, with accurate stuff.
Free speech is what we use to keep the fight fair. Don’t be surprised that I hope for a fair fight.
Much of modern science methods grew out of Darwin’s practice. He was among the first to carefully observe things and write unopinionated descriptions of what goes on in the natural world. I’ve always found it amusing to think that Darwin’s work shows how the ivy twines, for example — not why, but how. (Why was answered later, by others.) It doesn’t change the sweetness of the song, but it was a yeoman work of careful, painstaking and for Darwin, literally painful observation. His work on the origins of coral atolls remains the foundation of that study. His work on insectivorous plants pioneered methods of botany that are still standard procedure today. Darwin’s work on evolution and other larger topics pioneered the concept of careful scientific citation of the work of others, with standards considerably stronger and more formalized these days, but not much better. Darwin’s work on worm moulds — his last published paper, as I recall — might be said to be the foundation of the modern organic gardening and farming movement.
So, to reject as you appear to do the work of Darwin is a rejection of the vast majority of modern science, it seems to me. I don’t know what part of science one could love, while rejecting Darwin. Is my claim a straw man argument? I’ve urged you to check the journals, to not take my word for it. I’ve asked you to document some of the claims you’ve made against Darwin. Science arguments are carried out in the real world, on the lab bench (as Feynman famously noted), in observation in the wild, and in careful cross-checking and corroboration with other scientists and their work.
Science indeed improves the human condition. And then you claim that the guy who devised the methods to improve the condition was atheist and wrong. Where do you support science? I don’t see it. It may be a straw man, but only because you’ve not revealed anything contrary.
This is getting off track and repetitive. I’ll summarize a few of the errors you have put forth then I’m done until my post on “What I want from Darwinists.”
1. No one is against abortions that save women’s lives.
2. Partial birth abortion does not save women’s lives.
3. Lots of partial birth abortions are performed. The abortion industry was caught in a lie that there were only 1,500 per year (still 1,500 too many) then it was discovered that individual clinics performed that many. The abortion industry fights desparately to keep them legal.
You say I’m railing against something of little or no import, yet you defend the ACLU for fighting tooth and nail against the procedure and you claim it is a Constitutional right.
4. I don’t have a beef against Darwin personally and don’t care much about his religious beliefs. I just pointed out that if you view his writings it doesn’t sound like he was a Christian. Your “doting father” comments don’t mean much. When I say “Christian” I don’t mean “nice guy,” I mean someone who has faith in Christ. Maybe he did. That’s between him and God. But what I have read about his personal religious philosophy didn’t sound like a Christian worldview. Among other things, the Christian Research Journal has a great article on his writings, but you don’t like them so spare me the reminder.
5. Criticizing Darwinian theory does not make one anti-science.
6. The bovine insulin example has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. it just shows common designs.
7. Criticizing Darwinian evolution does not mean Darwin didn’t get anything right. He was a very bright person and came up with a lot of good ideas. So what? That doesn’t mean every one of his theories are backed by evidence.
8. Criticizing Darwinian evolution does not mean we are slowing down cures for cancer or starving poor children. Those are some of the worst arguments I’ve seen.
9. Many Darwinian leaders acknowledge the huge fossil problem. You should share your conclusive proof with them, because they don’t seem to be aware of it.
10. The Piltdown hoax lasted for decades. It is a lie to say scientists didn’t believe it.
11. It is a little disingenuous to just say that Haeckel’s drawings are out of textbooks now. They were there for almost 100 years though they were known frauds.
12. There have been many other hoaxes, so it is more than fair to be skeptical of the latest “finds.”
13. “Inherit the Wind” does not agree with the historical records in many important respects but is presented as if it does. Seems like a guy so passionate about historical records would be up in arms over that. It has been used as propaganda in high school to demonize Christians and shut down debate. That is reprehensible. Ann Coulter did a nice chapter in her latest book chock full of footnotes if you want a starter. To say it is presented as a work of fiction is disingenuous. They MIGHT have thrown the “fiction” label in there somewhere but you defend it as factually accurate then say it was called fiction.
All the things I’ve mentioned as criticisms of fossil evidence and such are readily available for you to search on, but you quickly dismiss them. That is your prerogative. But I’m not going to waste time referencing them here given the type of responses you have put forth above. Feel free to research more yourself.
Neil said,
“5. Criticizing Darwinian theory does not make one anti-science.”
It depends. Denying the fact of evolution does indeed make one anti-science.
Neil said: As always, you lump all types of evolution together. I’m tired of pointing out the micro/macro distinction to you. Whether you agree with the distinction or not is besides the point. But by ignoring the fact that many do make that distinction you set up a straw-man argument that we deny all evolution. I realize that is very convenient for you, but it is illogical of you. If you are interested in commenting here then don’t do that again on my blog.
The Theory of Evolution tries to explain, how evolution works. So far it cannot explain evrything, but it can explain a lot. As a scientific theory it is naturalistic and so will have to do without supernatural explanations. Up to now this has not been necessary. IDers were wrong about the flagellum, they were wrong about the blood clotting system and they are wrong about everything else. ID is not science, if someone adheres to ID they are anti-science.
Neil said: IDers are not wrong on the flagellum. You’ve been reading too much Wikipedia. The alleged disproofs of it fail on various levels. Example: Just because some flagelleum have more parts than others doesn’t mean they are each irreducibly complex. It means they had different DESIGNS. A car designed to run on 3 wheels will run just fine with 3 wheels. But a car designed to run on 4 wheels is irreducibly complex – it can’t run on 3 wheels. The naturalists just assume that it added parts – they can’t prove it.
BTW, even IDers accept the FACT of evolution, they are only critical of some of the theory of evolution’s ways of explaining things. It can be safely said that they also accept more than 90% of the THEORY of evolution, because they only concentrate on a few phenomena where they state that these cannot be explained naturally, so they assume the interference of a designer.
Creationism is completely non-sensical, no more to be said about that.
Neil said: Please stop repeating your false assertions then! It is childish and unproductive.
The Earth is definitely not flat!
Neil said: This is why I tire of you and your kind. I am so sick of silly straw-man arguments. They are insulting and waste time.
“6. The bovine insulin example has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution. it just shows common designs.”
It has everything to do with evolution. The more recent a common ancestor of two species, the more similar are their corresponding proteins (enzymes). There is absolutely no reason why a designer should have installed gradual differences in ALL the enzymes alike, that is, ALL the enzymes of a chimp are much more similar to ours than those of a mouse. This is as much of a proof of common descent as there can be.
Neil said: That proves nothing other than common design elements.
“7. Criticizing Darwinian evolution does not mean Darwin didn’t get anything right. He was a very bright person and came up with a lot of good ideas. So what? That doesn’t mean every one of his theories are backed by evidence.”
I am afraid, like most people with no proper scientific training you are unsure about the meaning of theory. A scientific theory is much more than an idea. It is a complex system of ideas with explanatory value, based on facts (evidence) and thoroughly tested. In the realm of scince there is no such thing as a “theory that is not backed by evidence”.
Most people outside science confuse “theory” with “assumption”. The nearest scientific equivalent to that would be hypothesis. A hypothesis is a working proposition that has still to be put to the test. A scientist will normally try to refute it. If it is resists all attempts of refutation, it may – together with a number of other “proven” hypotheses – become the foundation of a new theory. Darwin’s and Wallace’s first ideas about the mechanisms of evolution may be called hypotheses, but when they started to collect evidence (actually a lot of that evidence became father to the ideas), so better said, when they collected still more evidence, a scientific theory began to take shape.
It is an interesting fact that Darwin himself never used the word “evolution” so to talk about “Darwinian evolution” is a bit of a misnomer.
Neil said: That was quite a bit of condescending rambling to point out something that had absolutely nothing to do with the comment.
“8. Criticizing Darwinian evolution does not mean we are slowing down cures for cancer or starving poor children. Those are some of the worst arguments I’ve seen.”
It is a valid argument in several ways. First of all, the scientifically ignorant people who kept criticizing the theory of evolution slowed down the process as a whole, because they forced scientist to answer to them, thus diverting time they could otherwise have spent on research. But -as history shows – these people are not at all interested in the answers science can provide. They are not even interested in any facts, because these could – no, would! – prove them wrong.
On the other hand, politicians who are stupid enough to listen to the anti-evolutionists (everybody knows who I mean, but he is not the only one), actually cut down on research funds and so again slow down progress.
Calling these arguments bad, won’t make your statement true.
Neil said: That is ridiculous. Using your logic, anyone who ever challenges any status quo is impeding the progress of science and “hurting the children.” That has got to be the most pathetic deflector shield argument I’ve ever heard.
“9. Many Darwinian leaders acknowledge the huge fossil problem. You should share your conclusive proof with them, because they don’t seem to be aware of it.”
There is no such thing as a “huge fossil problem”. The theory of evolution would be very much the same in the light of modern knowledge (genetics, biochemical evidence, geobiology and many other fields) even if there was not a single fossil to be found. ALL the fossil evindence supports evolution, although it might be said that if there were only the fossil record, there would be many questions that could not be answered. On the other hand, a single fossil find that did not fit in with our understanding of evolution, like highly diversified species in very old layers – the famous rabbit in the pre-Cambrian – would shatter the whole theory. But no such thing has ever happened!
The anti-evolutionists normally draw their preposterous claims from quote-mining, not from real, unaltered statements by fossil experts.
Neil said: Ah, the fossils of the gaps. We just know we’ll find them someday! I can’t believe you mentioned the Cambrian explosion. That is one of the biggest knocks against your view. All these species appear at the same time – almost as if they were created!
“10. The Piltdown hoax lasted for decades. It is a lie to say scientists didn’t believe it.”
and
“12. There have been many other hoaxes, so it is more than fair to be skeptical of the latest “finds.””
Piltdown was betrayed as a hoax half a century ago. Today such a hoax would not last more than a few days.
Neil said: You missed the point. Hoaxes are possible, and people have incentives to perpetrate them and cover them up. The fact that the Piltdown hoax would now be discovered quickly means nothing.
When you know of “many” others, why do you then rely on such an old one as Piltdown? Can you name any other recent ones? I doubt it.
“11. It is a little disingenuous to just say that Haeckel’s drawings are out of textbooks now. They were there for almost 100 years though they were known frauds.”
You may have a point there, although Haeckel was partially right after all. Some features that embryos display, do hint to a common descent.
Neil said: I “may” have a point there? How charitable of you! The scientific community deliberately perpetuated a fraud for nearly 100 years and you say I may have a point?
Talking of frauds, what do you think of Jonathan Wells from the Discovery Institute, who is notorious for his fraudulent writings? (cf: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/fraud.cfm)
Neil said: I’m not familiar with him, though I have seen some bogus data at that site.
[...] Blog – Eternity Matters A 4Simpsons Blog guest posed a couple good questions on the DNA of humans, chimps have 45,000,000 differences post: I would like to ask you, what is it that you want from the evolution scientists? [...]
[...] March 6, 2008 by dawkinswatch here is the link [...]
Wow Neil, you hit a cord here. This issue that you are discussing is one of the reasons i homeschool. I wonder if any of you saw the movie Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed? It’s main premise is not that ID is the real deal but that it should be allowed to be in the game. i teach creation in my homeschool, but I do not hide the fact that evolution is ourt there. An example: my son was in 2nd grade this past yr. He picked out a book on volcanoes at the store. (we will be studying Pompeii in 4th grade so I got it for our library). Anyway, he was reading the into and it started by explaining how the world was formed. I knew what it was saying, but I just let him read. When he was finished, he told me that the book said a bunch of masses were floating in space, they collided and the largest pieces became the earth and moon. He asked me why the book had no mention of God. We then had a talk about evolution and its basis premise that it all happened by chance with no help from a creator. It was hard for him to believe that some people believe God had no part in the process or that they do not believe in God at all.
Anyway, at the end of this conversation, he said he had a question for the people who don;t believe God had a hand in our creation. It was:
Where did all the masses floating in space that crashed into each other come from?
This type of conclusion question is still the monkey in the room for evolutionist. Where, how did life begin? How does order come out of disorder? How does nothing come from something.
Dawkins, in the movie Expelled, actually concluded that we could have been seeded by a super intelligent alien race,
Now that is a topic worth discussion!
kw
Wow, and you imported the old comments too. Great work Neil.
Kris – great points. Scientism plays a little game with all that, claiming that Darwinism doesn’t explain origins, yet nearly always drawing conclusions that God must not exist if Darwinism is true. It is a cute but fallacious way to pretend God doesn’t exist while pretending to seek the truth.
We are keen on science as well, but being more open minded we know that natural and supernatural explanations are possible. We can follow the evidence and logic and aren’t constrained by only considering things provable by science. And of course, one can’t use the scientific method to prove that only things provable by the scientific method are true.
TotalT – when you re-date posts the comments come along with them.
I see that “similarity” does not equal “origin”, that just because there are similarities in the DNA of one species to another that they must have common origins. It could just as easily point to a common manufacturer, eh?
Stan,
That’s always the way in which I viewed the idea. Whatever God used for Creation, he used througout Creation and it shouldn’t be surprising to see the same “stuff” show up everywhere.
Stating that we and chimps share an ancestor is the simplest explanation. Occam’s razor is used here – ‘Do not multiply entities unnecesarily’
Neil said: Hi Havok – glad to know you are keeping up with things here. Hope you and your family are doing well.
Re. the comment, surely you jest. The logical consequences of your stated worldview are that something like the universe came from nothing, life came from non-life and all life evolved from that life. That is hardly an example of Occam’s razor. And you missed the point of the post. They are not as similar as they appear. Water with 1% poison is a lot different than 100% water.
Nope, but you probably guessed that
My worldview doesn’t state that the universe came from nothing. As I’ve stated many times, “I don’t know”, and neither do you, by the way.
It’s your world view which asserts creation from nothing (by Yahweh) not mine
What is your definition of life and non-life?
Which is supported by and explains the evidence, but you already knew that, you simply choose to ignore it
You’re asserting that an eternal, infinitely complex and powerful mind, which dwells outside of space and time, and yet is able to interact within space an time, though without any sort of postulated mechanism is simpler than natural mindless processes?
I was responding to a comment, not the original post
If our DNA and chimp DNA are so similar, why do we not see any human-chimp hybrids? I mean, if we are so similar, then we shoudl be able to mate with them, right?
(OK, I know, it’s an unpleasant thought. But I wonder if the Darwinists can answer it.)
I found some pointers that some infertility between human couples may be due to genetic incompatibility, so the infertility between humans and chimps is likely to be a much larger obstacle. Given that humans and chimps have a different number of chromosomes, at the very least the offspring would be sterile (like a mule). That humans and chimps do not find the other sexually attractive seems to cut down on any possibility of any “natural” hybridisation.
I wasn’t able to track down anything definitive regarding the compatibility of gametes, and whether a zygote, should fertilisation be possible, would be viable or not. As far as I can tell, human and chimp mating is still something of an open question.
“That humans and chimps do not find the other sexually attractive seems to cut down on any possibility of any “natural” hybridisation.”
I think you give the human race way too much credit
.
The GLBTQC lobby would like to have a word with you about your hate speech (the C is for chimps). Your chimpophobic remarks cannot be tolerated in a “civilized” society.
Havok, do you have any sources for your claim of human gene incompatibility as a reason for infertility? I am doing a little research on the topic myself, but am finding it hard to weed through the mess of content that is unrelated when I do searches on the web. Thanks.
Neil:
This was great! I like how you point out humans have 75% dna of the worm you mentioned, do you mind if I reproduce your article on my blog, with a link back here of course and proper writing credits to you.
Hi DJBA,
Yes, feel free to link and comment on anything here (whether you agree or disagree with it). Thanks for asking.
Neil