You’re just pushing the same goofy interpretation of the debate over PE that creationists can’t seem to get over, even though most of the core claims are wrong, and the scientists you quote have specifically pointed out how you’ve misrepresented what they’ve said.

Science is a debate, and yes it’s by humans with failings, not by saints (note that I brought up this point in _defense_ of science as a process long before you brought it up as if it were some attack: more evidence that you haven’t even _read_ what I wrote). But the debate can’t be premised on willful misinformation.

“This the distilled sum total of Deane’s presentation. Deane makes no effort at all to actually explain things, preferring snide comments and condescension.”

Actually, I did plenty of explaining, all of which you have dodged, avoided, and now simply denied. Saying those words are the “distilled sum” of my posts is about as honest as me claiming that your post consists of “if, are, stupid, and mind.”

I’m not making accusations of being misinformed lightly, or simply assuming them. I have pointed out precisely several times what statements belie misinformation, confusion, and outright falsehoods. What else am I supposed to do when you make such statements? NOT call you on them? Are we supposed to have a debate premised on mistakes and ignorance of what we are talking about?

Because THAT is the ethic you are advocating.

“If you don’t have an advanced degree in biology, by golly, you are not qualified to even venture an opinion on the matter.”

Not at all. However, if you haven’t actually studied the issue at least a little, you should be much more _cautious_ in making grand conclusions and pronouncements about the subject, because chances are there are lots of facts and caveats and subtleties that you are missing. This isn’t advice specific to science either. It’s good advice in general.

However, you don’t seem to care whether or not you understand biology or evolution or physics or any field. You already have an opinion on these matters, and what the ACTUAL specific claims and ideas in these fields are don’t matter to you. That is, I suspect, why you have so little concern for representing them accurately. Any old straw man is good enough.

“Science has become a religion. Doubters are castigated and marginalized. Scientists are the high priests of Truth. The rank and file are like sheep who have to be led to the faith because they are not schooled enough to think for themselves.”

I’m sure it’s very comforting and gratifying to believe this. It relieves you of any responsibility to be accurate or informed about what you are criticizing, or from ever having to deal with substantive issues. You can just scream “religion”! and then not have to actually deal with any of the actual evidence or arguments.

You’ve simply dodged this debate at every turn. Now you’ve found another weak, unconvincing accusation to justify doing so.

This the distilled sum total of Deane’s presentation. Deane makes no effort at all to actually explain things, preferring snide comments and condescension.

And why is this? Well, the primary problem in Deane’s mind is simply that there are people out there who actually question the evolution dogma. They are too stupid to realize how stupid they are. They are uniformly uninformed, preferring to believe fairy tales while real science stands courageously, beating back ignorance and myth.

Another poster wrote, “If evolution is going to be disproven it will be scientists that disprove it.” In other words, just shut up. If you don’t have an advanced degree in biology, by golly, you are not qualified to even venture an opinion on the matter.

Science has become a religion. Doubters are castigated and marginalized. Scientists are the high priests of Truth. The rank and file are like sheep who have to be led to the faith because they are not schooled enough to think for themselves.

Dawkins is a case in point: an obscure zoologist, whose laboratory contribution to science could best be described as minimal, turns in his lab coat to preach how evolution theory confirms atheism. Like Cinderella, Dawkins goes on to fame and fortune; book royalties, talk shows, fee paid speaking engagements. Some scientists are embarrassed by Dawkins, others envious, but the scientific community circles the wagons around him and confers additional honors to prove a point to the general public, namely scientists are not to be judged by their intellectual inferiors.

Like Cassandra issuing unheeded warnings, men and women of science have occasionally reminded their colleagues that overconfidence and loyalty to a theory can lead to loss of objectivity. Nobel Prize recipient Richard Feynman said the first person the scientist must not fool is himself, but, also like Cassandra, this warning is often ignored. And the interpretation of the fossil record in evolution research is a perfect example of the problem.

Since evolution theory addresses historic biological development, the fossil record is the only tangible evidence of the historic subject matter. It both confirms the theory and demonstrates its primary aspects. There are other proofs of evolution, comparative anatomy, homology, etc., but the fossil record has the greatest public relations impact: Generations of children have stared at reconstructed dinosaurs and intuitively realized that animals that once roamed the earth have disappeared and evolution must explain why.

Charles Darwin, in 1859, knew the fossil record didn’t confirm his theory of gradual change, but he blamed the imperfection of the record, not the theory. Over the last 150 years, millions of fossils have been unearthed and word has slowly leaked out of the scientific community that the fossil record actually disputes Darwin and those evolutionists of the gradualist school.

Dr. Henry Gee, a senior editor of Science magazine, saw fossils as “an infinitesimal dot, lost in a fathomless sea of time, whose relationships with other fossils and organisms living in the present day is obscure/” (Gee would later state this quote, though public, must not be used without permission and the words, though accurate, don’t represent his true thinking on evolution.)

Niles Eldredge, a highly respected research paleontologist, blatantly let the cat out of the bag. His motivation may have been the defense of a new theory of evolutionary change (punctuated equilibrium) he co-developed with the late Stephen Jay Gould.

I apologize for the length of the following quote, but a quote fragment for the sake of brevity always brings the charge that skeptics quoted out of context, or don’t understand how science works, or didn’t really understand what the scientist actually meant. In an earlier monograph regarding fossils, Eldredge said:

“Standard evolutionary theory focuses on anatomical change through time by picturing natural selection as the agent that preserves the best of the designs available for coping with the environment. This generation by generation process, working on small amounts of variation, is thought to change, slowly but inexorably, the genetic and anatomical makeup of a population.

If this theory were correct, then I should have found evidence of this smooth progression in the vast numbers of Bolivian fossil trilobites I studied. I should have found species gradually changing through time, with smoothly intermediate forms connecting descendent species to their ancestors.

Instead I found most of the various kinds, including some unique and advanced ones, present in the earliest known fossil beds. Species persisted for long periods of time without change. When they were replaced by similar, related (presumably descendent) species, I saw no gradual change in the older species that would have allowed me to predict the anatomical features of its younger relative.

The story of anatomical changes through time that I read in the Devonian trilobites of Gondwana is similar to the picture emerging elsewhere in the fossil record: long periods of little or no change, followed by the appearance of anatomically modified descendents, usually with no smoothly intergradational forms in evidence.

If the evidence conflicts with theoretical predictions, something must be wrong with the theory. But for years the apparent lack of progressive change within fossils has been ignored or else the evidence – not the theory – has been attacked. Attempts to salvage evolutionary theory have been made by claiming that the pattern of stepwise change usually seen in fossils reflects a poor, spotty record. Were the record sufficiently complete, goes the claim, we would see the expected pattern of gradational change. But there are too many examples of this pattern of stepwise change to ignore it any longer. It is time to reexamine evolutionary theory itself.

There is probably little wrong with the notion of natural selection as a means of modifying the genetics of a species through time, although it is difficult to put it to the test. But the predicted gradual accumulation of change is seldom (if ever) encountered in our practical experience with the fossil record.”

The foregoing quote reveals interesting psychological aspects of scientists, or at least evolutionists. Scientists fall in love with a theory and will deny evidence that disputes the theory for decades rather than question the theory itself. Rationalizations take over and “ a poor, spotty record” is offered as an excuse not to challenge what is obvious to any honest person.

Even Eldredge is unable to deny natural selection (his last paragraph) despite his own admission that it can’t be tested and the fossil evidence doesn’t support it.

Subsequently, Eldredge recanted some of his heresy; he probably wanted to keep his job. And almost 20 years later, in 1998, the National Academy of Sciences was still peddling the same old rationalizations to the public when they published a booklet defending the “tree of life”. The tree of life is a sacred icon in evolution’s liturgy and, in simple terms, means that life started eons ago with a single cell and through the ages progressed upward with new species constantly branching off the main trunk. If the fossil record doesn’t support the “tree of life”, well then there’s something wrong with the fossil record (what part of Eldredge didn’t they understand?).

Despite critic’s complaints (a minor dissident sect called “cladists”) that the tree is more like a non-hierarchical node diagram or “periodic table of elements” based on shared characteristics (homologies), the mystical “tree of life” concept persists. Other scientists have introduced the notion of “saltation” to explain the fossil record which is the startling concept of abrupt evolutionary changes, like the first mammal hatching from a reptile egg. Since saltation smacks of the miraculous, it has been loudly and persistently denied as having any validity.

So what are we to make of this “fact” of evolution? Eldredge denies the fossil evidence supports it and claims natural selection can’t be tested. Yet, he still believes. Obviously, evolution theory itself is also evolving with constant tweaking required from “punctuated equilibrium” to Lynn Margulis’ “symbiogenetics”, to Motoo Kimura’s “neutral theory” to horizontal gene transfer (hgt). Science claims this constant revision is a healthy process, but a psychologist might claim it’s a self-delusional fixation and an understandable reluctance to give up a cherished theory.

And maybe it is – evolutionists are obstinately claiming to have described and explained the historical development of 3.5 billion years of life with all its incredible diversity, contradictions and delightful mysteries. So, are we to believe this “fact” of evolution as it was in Darwin’s day, as it was 50 years ago or as it is today – which “fact” of evolution is the fact?

Nonsense. Crystal seeding is one of many legitimate abiogenetic scenarios being examined by actual scientists. Is it speculative? Sure. Dawkins, in fact, says so. But is it unsupported speculation? No: it’s based off actual work done on crystal formation, chemical catalysis, and so forth, all aimed at figuring out a plausible scenario for further testing, and matching it up with what we know of the earliest life. If it turns out to be wrong, and it very well may, it will be based on solid evidence either discounting it as a possibility or showing that something else happened instead. Brewton didn’t “catch” Dawkins in anything: he just doesn’t know what he’s talking about, same as with his lie about what Darwin said about God.

I only barely recognize the actual history of evolutionary theory in your long ramble: anyone interested in what the actual matters of debate and dicussion are would be better served reading the real stuff instead of your mangled summary. But most directly damning of all, you seem to think that the central thing worth mentioning about DNA for evolution is that all living things have it (or RNA), as you demonstrated with your silly “water” argument. That’s not even close. What is stunning about DNA, from the perspective of common descent, is the particular _pattern_ in which DNA sequences are both similar AND disimilar from each other. You completely ignored my questions, which were probing in this direction, and it really seems like you don’t know the first thing about what this pattern is or why its so important, or even what it is.

“And, proving common descent was very important since it validated the claim that micro-evolution was merely a subset of macro-evolution.”

Again, this is fantasy history that you’ve concocted within your mind. Amongst biologists at least, there is no meaningful distinction or barrier between the plausibility of the two in the first place in the sense you mean it, so no need to find a special “validation” of it. Species that develop in different directions over time cease to be able to interbreed. While there are many different specific ways for this to occur morphologically or genetically or both, there’s no special mystery to this in the general case.

“we can assume with certainty multiple codes, if found, would have simply been incorporated within the theory, changing it not one bit.”

No, it would have changed things considerably in regards to the overall tree of life (just as symbiotes an viruses have already changed it). We might not be talking about a single tree of common descent, as we certainly won’t be if we ever discover a separate tree of life. Your implication, again, goes nowhere.

“But, one universal coding convention was simply too much an emotional affirmation of common descent to be considered a contradiction of evolution.”

You still haven’t explained how it would be, in any sense. Your description of Crick and Orgel’s surprise is yet another mangled presentation of a debate over various possibilities that I don’t think you even know the context of. Again, the fact that some things float and others sink doesn’t contradict fluid dynamics, nor does it mean that fluid dynamics is vague and consistent with anything. If you didn’t know anything about fluid dynamics, you could certainly make it SOUND loony, but that doesn’t make it an informed or accurate critique.

“Scientific American magazine, who assured its readers they would never repudiate evolution (so much for scientific detachment), was eventually forced to admit that the one gene, one protein, one function argument was nonsense. But, so what they said, science was wrong about that, but the biochemical basis for evolution was still true, it only needed more research (with help from the taxpayers).”

Again, this is just a silly misrepresention. The fact that the specifics of development and gene expression are far more complex than we thought when we barely knew anything about DNA is not even directly related to evolution. Variation is variation regardless of how circuitous the process is that expresses it. The actual specifics of embryonic development are even more complicated still, but you don’t see biologists stymied by this: you see them eagerly diving in and figuring it out. And surprise surprise, again and again they find more and more confirmation of common descent, down to the tiniest detail, none of which you or any other skeptic have ever been able to explain (most of the time, you just ignore it, just as you’ve ignored virtually everything on the talk.origins page that has been repeatedly pointed out to you).

“But, what if, instead, the random error was required to occur simultaneously in several genes, plus various ancillary processes (such as the polypeptide chains and within the molecular chaperones) for the new protein to emerge? Still conceivable, assuming anything is conceivable, but much less likely.”

Well sure, and we’d thus be far less likely to see such multi-facted changes. And, in fact, we DO see less of them. So what?

“However, in 1979, B.G. Barrell reported in Nature magazine that cells found in certain vertebrate mitochondria were using a different amino acid coding structure from all other known cells, so maybe we should be giving genes more credit for self-awareness.”

Wow, 1979, really up on the latest research, aren’t you? This has nothing to do with “self-awareness” regardless.

“The evolutionists argue in a circular fashion. Evolution is a fact and adaptive changes occurred. The biochemical changes at the cellular level are the initial starting point for evolution, therefore the biochemical processes leading to adaptive changes must have occurred. Intuitively it makes sense and has a good beat you can dance to.”

You’re grossly misinformed. Anyone can open a biology journal and see that this is not the case: that it is in fact these processes of development and mutational change that are directly studied and sussed out: they aren’t simply inferred or assumed to be there.

“For skeptics, the number and intricacy of simultaneous undirected changes required in this process certainly do appear “miraculous”.”

Except that simply asserting that this or that change requires or couldn’t get to where it is without simultaneous changes isn’t an argument. You have to get down to brass tacks and prove this to be true. And so far, every time a creationist or ID theorist even bothers to try, they fail, generally miserably.

“Conceptually, imagine a third eye forms directly in the back of your skull. Might be a cool function for natural selection to accept or reject, but it glosses over what is needed in your brand new eye. Simultaneously with your new peeper, an undirected change set of muscles would also be needed to focus it. And, an undirected change optic nerve must also simultaneously appear so electro chemical signals could be transmitted to your brain.”

Wait, this is supposed to be an argument AGAINST evolution? Evolution via common descent argues for descent via modification of pre-existing structures. Nowhere does it suggest, or does any transition in the taxonomic system require, the sort of radical change you are describing. That’s the whole point. Modern eyes do not simply appear fully formed. That’s not the evolutionary position in the least.

The taxonomic tree of descent is, in fact, extremely conservative.

“While waiting around for the eye to form, would your brand new optic nerve be lost as natural selection tries to figure out what to do with it and then figuratively shrugs its shoulders?”

Yes, that’s almost certainly exactly what would happen (which is one reason why designs “hidden” in DNA for expression later, as some ID theorists have suggested, wouldn’t work). What you are describing: complex new functions emerging all at once, is an aspect of design, not evolution. And the fact that we DON’T see such things happening in nature is a point FOR evolution, not against it.

“The number of simultaneous undirected changes needed is indeed daunting, even when evolutionists invoke the standard rhetorical trump card of “eons of time.”

Again, simply asserting that some feature requires one huge leap to get to is not the same thing as proving it. If you could prove that some structure were really Irreducibly Complex, that would be one thing. But you can’t. And so your skepticism has nothing to grab onto other than empty rhetoric.

Of course, under evolutionary logic, water could also be considered evidence of common descent since all plant and animal cells contain water, but such a claim would have revealed how specious the “DNA confirms common descent” argument was.

Francis Crick, a co-discoverer of the helical structure of DNA, and Leslie Orgel, a British research chemist, were initially surprised that DNA contained one universal amino acid coding convention. Why not two, three or many separate conventions, why only one was their objection. Crick called DNA a “frozen accident” relative to evolution (and he was a true believer). Given the theoretically blind process of evolution, multiple codes made much more sense to him and Orgel, and we can assume with certainty multiple codes, if found, would have simply been incorporated within the theory, changing it not one bit. But, one universal coding convention was simply too much an emotional affirmation of common descent to be considered a contradiction of evolution.

Within a few decades however, DNA and its related biochemistry proved to be the stumbling block that convinced skeptics more than ever that evolution theory, as presently constructed, doesn’t explain biological origins and new species development.

The way this came about was through research revealing how incredibly complex the process of DNA formation of protein macro-molecules is. Initially, scientists over-simplified the “DNA proves evolution” argument. The one gene equals one protein equals one function concept made it easy to understand how new species were generated. A random coding error within one gene during copying or recombination would ultimately generate a new function, perhaps a flap of skin that acted as an airfoil which was a precursor to wings and true flight.

Scientific American magazine, who assured its readers they would never repudiate evolution (so much for scientific detachment), was eventually forced to admit that the one gene, one protein, one function argument was nonsense. But, so what they said, science was wrong about that, but the biochemical basis for evolution was still true, it only needed more research (with help from the taxpayers).

However, what bothered the skeptics wasn’t the claim that DNA proved common descent as much as the “randomly generated” changes required in light of the ever expanding knowledge of how DNA passed through transcription and translation to polypeptide chains and then eventually to protein macro-molecules. It’s conceivable that a random coding error could generate a new protein and new function if the random error is confined to only one gene. But, what if, instead, the random error was required to occur simultaneously in several genes, plus various ancillary processes (such as the polypeptide chains and within the molecular chaperones) for the new protein to emerge? Still conceivable, assuming anything is conceivable, but much less likely.

Biologists prefer the word “undirected” to random change, but that’s primarily semantics. In means, in short, a gene has no knowledge of itself and can’t initiate a change deliberately – if it could that would be miraculous (a word never used by evolutionary biologists for obvious reasons). So, from a gene’s point of view (assuming it has one), change is “undirected”. However, in 1979, B.G. Barrell reported in Nature magazine that cells found in certain vertebrate mitochondria were using a different amino acid coding structure from all other known cells, so maybe we should be giving genes more credit for self-awareness.

The biochemistry is highly complex and can’t be described here, but the crux of the debate is over how a rigidly engineered process like the formation of protein macro-molecules can produce adaptive changes in physiology. That genetic mutations occur isn’t doubted, it’s what comes after that isn’t clear.

The evolutionists argue in a circular fashion. Evolution is a fact and adaptive changes occurred. The biochemical changes at the cellular level are the initial starting point for evolution, therefore the biochemical processes leading to adaptive changes must have occurred. Intuitively it makes sense and has a good beat you can dance to.

For skeptics, the number and intricacy of simultaneous undirected changes required in this process certainly do appear “miraculous”. Conceptually, imagine a third eye forms directly in the back of your skull. Might be a cool function for natural selection to accept or reject, but it glosses over what is needed in your brand new eye. Simultaneously with your new peeper, an undirected change set of muscles would also be needed to focus it. And, an undirected change optic nerve must also simultaneously appear so electro chemical signals could be transmitted to your brain.

And what about your poor brain when suddenly a picture of where you’ve been superimposes on where you’re going? Pretty confusing, so your brain would also have to undergo a simultaneous undirected change. Of course, an optic nerve could form first with no eye attached, but how would natural selection preserve that – and why would it want to? While waiting around for the eye to form, would your brand new optic nerve be lost as natural selection tries to figure out what to do with it and then figuratively shrugs its shoulders?.

The number of simultaneous undirected changes needed is indeed daunting, even when evolutionists invoke the standard rhetorical trump card of “eons of time.”

Well that’s a nice policy: I’m sure it works very well for insulating yourself from any contact with science of evidence. The reason science needs defenders is that there are always so many people out there to misrepresent it, as the original article did.

“You indicated there is no such thing as de-evolution or reverse evolutionary change. Are you sure?”

Yes. Evolution is not directional to begin with: talking about devolution presumes that it was going somewhere to begin with. To speak of it that way is to fundamentally misunderstand what evolution is all about, which is adaptation, regardless of what sorts of changes bring that about. The question of whether evolution does have a trend towards complexity overall or not is, actually, a fairly open question. But regardless, it makes no sense to speak of things devolving in the sense that they are all “supposed” to become more complex, or retain features, or develop in a certain way, and so “devolve.”

” If you are, you may wish to inform Niles Eldredge at the American Museum of Natural History he’s the curator of invertebrates and one of America’s leading research paleontologists and expert on invertebrate fossils. Although he’s published 20 books and over 200 research articles, I’m sure he’d appreciate your insights into where he’s mistaken.”

There’s no need: you are misrepresenting what he’s talking about.

“His publication of “An Extravagance of Species” (American Natural History Museum) in 1980 describes his research into trilobites. What caught my attention was his report finding both unique and advanced trilobite fossils in the earliest fossil beds, while noting that younger species members in the later fossil beds were less advanced. “Advanced” means physiological features in the earlier fossils not present in the younger fossils, sort of like finding human fossils 5 million years ago and then first finding ape fossils only 2 million years ago.”

Ok…. so what?

“Be very careful when reading Eldredge; his findings and conclusions border on heresy regarding the orthodox “gradualistic” model of evolution.”

Not really, and of course, unlike what most creationists think, science is not done via disjointed quotations of random scientists. It’s done by laying out convincing and robust evidence and seeing it stand up for a long time against lots of powerful criticism.

“His conclusions weren’t just related to reverse change or de-evolution, he went even further and claimed not to find transitional intermediate links in the entire fossil series.”

Series of what? Trilobytes? If you are suggesting that Eldredge doesn’t think that there is any evidence of transition or evolution in fossil series, then I think you are probably believing a creationist caricature of what he wrote. Let’s be honest: you were not paging through journals and came across his article, were you? It wasn’t something you just happened to read that you found “interesting.”

“Transitional evolutionary links forming a smooth series between older and younger species members were not present. His research was from examination of the Bolivian trilobite fossil beds and the Devonian fossils from the Gondwana beds.”

A problem that’s apparent and probably needs to be pointed out at this point is that I don’t think you know what a transitional fossil is. As to whether a series is “smooth” or not, in the context of Gould and Eldredge, that’s a matter of degree, not period.

“As an aside, Eldredge co-authored with Stephen Jay Gould the heretical “punctuated equilibrium” theory that attacked the orthodox gradualistic model and proposed a new model that fit the fossil evidence (a novelty in evolution, a theory that fits the evidence emerging after 120 years).”

Again, this is a controversy that has been grossly misrepresented by creationists, as both Gould and Eldredge argued many many times. There are MANY heated, angry, sometimes even violent debates amongst scientists: that’s part of the process. However, no side of this controversy argued that a) there was no evidence of evolutionary change in the fossil record or b) that evolution does not occur via gradual changes. The debate was over the pace. And contrary to your understanding, what Gould and Eldredge attacked was not gradualism, but phyletic gradualism. And one of the major points of controversy, actually, was not whether that was the “orthodoxy” but rather whether it was something of a straw man to begin with. Not even Darwin believed the caricatured idea that all phyletic change happens at a steady pace: and he said so in Origin.

“Also a warning, Eldredge claims status as a true believer in evolution doctrine, just in a different denomination – he won’t appreciate you calling him a creationist because he criticized evolution theory.”

Did I? Eldredge also thinks people that try to misuse his work in the way you have are dishonest.

“Your comment “Evolution has, as I said, a remarkable potential for convergent evidence behind it ….” was very eloquent, but would get a strong argument from Dr. Lynn Margulis. Margulis is a strange bird for a so-called creationist, she criticizes evolution only with scientific facts and was so persuasive she was granted membership in the prestigious and exclusive National Academy of Sciences (probably to shut her up as much as recognition of her scientific brilliance).”

Margulis isn’t a creationist. I also don’t think she would argue with common descent. Her main criticism is that there is too much emphasis on natural selection as the sole mechanism for adaptation. She was partly right in some respects, but like PE, her rhetoric was a little overblown in that respect. There had to have been some adaptive advantage for symbosis to work at all, for instance.

“If you bop over to Wikipedia and look her up, you’ll get a somewhat factual account of her theory, although Wikipedia’s comment that her theory doesn’t conflict with orthodox evolution theory is an absurd rationalization. What Margulis found in her cell research was evidence that mitochondria (a cellular organelle that provides the cell with energy) was probably the result of a symbiotic relationship between two completely separate species.”

Yep. And in fact this is some pretty damning evidence against the idea that science doesn’t entertain contentious new ideas. Margulis formulated (or, rather, borrowed and then defended) an idea that seemed crazy to some, but she won out on the evidence. Of course, she also makes a lot of claims (her Gaia theory) that haven’t held up to the evidence very well. But no one is perfect, and the beauty of science is that it does not rely on any one person simply being an authority able to declare what is and is not correct. It relies on all sorts of people will all sorts of motives pushing pet theories, and the ones that win out are the ones that stand up, on the evidence, to sometimes vicious criticism.

“Wikipedia calls it the endosymbiotic theory although the correct term is symbiogenetics. At first, her theory drew much criticism from orthodox evolutionists of the “gradualistic” persuasion – how could two separate species merge together under the evolutionary model – completely absurd!”

To the extent that this summary is even honest (and it’s not particularly: it’s a caricature), sure: people thought the idea was silly (not because it somehow negated evolution, but largely because there wasn’t any evidence at the time that this particular weird thing was possible). But then good evidence was developed, and she was right, at least about mitochondria. And now our understanding of early life is that much richer. And note: it’s pretty darn hard to reconcile her work with anything OTHER than the evolutionary picture. Think about what her theory requires, what sorts of events it implies and when in the history of life these events must have taken place in order for all eukaryotes to show this particular pattern of descent.

“Her criticisms of evolution are better than anything I could possibly offer.”

Ok…. so what are they, exactly then? You keep saying that she has some killer knock-down argument against evolution, so what is it? Generally, I find that the best anyone can do, no matter how hard they try to warp her claims, is her criticizing the idea that natural selection on mutation is the only or major factor for evolution: her own theory is that symbosis plays a major part… followed by natural selection. In other words, she pushes just another version of variation and selection. But, as Magulis herself once wrote “these disagreements have been misrepresented to the public by creationists as evidence that the theory of evolution is in doubt.” Allen Hammond and Lynn Margulis, Science 81, p. 56

“Rather than taunt, I would offer the observation that this “convergent” evidence you cite is really a chimera.”

Ok, but then, I haven’t seen you deal with any of it. The page already linked, the 29+ evidences for macroevolution is a decent primer on the subject, but I haven’t seen you raise anything substantive at all about any of that evidence. So of what value is your opinion that it is a “chimera.” I don’t even have reason to believe that you’ve ever even read even that barest of introductions to the subject.

Instead, I’ve seen you treat science as if it were simply a series of proof texts, with your only obligation being to quote random scientists saying this or that (which may or may not be what they even mean, but is rarely the whole story on what they actually think regardless). But that’s not how science works at all. It’s based on evidence, not exegesis of quotations.

” To skeptics like me, the acceptance of theories such as punctuated equilibrium and symbiogenetics indicates that evolution is far from a stable, well-constructed theory that serves to unify biology, as you contend.”

Okay, but I put it to you that you simply haven’t bothered to understand what you are talking about, and so have no context as to what those theories are really about or how they play into the larger picture of evolution. Both have strengthened evolution as an explanatory framework, not weakened it, and both have reinforced the ultimate accuracy of the idea that life is descended from common ancestors via an evolutionary process. They’ve simply added in more details. But if you don’t see it that way, fine. It’s a free country, and if you choose to believe what you want to believe instead of learn what you are talking about, that’s your right.

Let me ask you something: without checking, do you know what the twin-nested hierarchy refers to? Do you know, actually know, without checking, what we call the groups in the overall tree of life: the specific sort of groupings we observe everywhere we look?

“Are you an evolutionist? (Answer – yes.) Do you have a position on evolution? (Answer – yes.) Do you have a position on cosmology? (Answer – yes.) Can you explain it? (Answer – no.)”

Lol, pretty unconvincing attempt at a save, but okay, I’ll take you at your word then. So, pretty much, yes, you got things right, except that my position on cosmology is that I don’t really have one because we just don’t know enough to say, or even enough to know what the right questions are. So? Where are you going with this already?

“Do biologists have positions on these things? My answer – who cares, I’m asking you.”

Ok… but why? What does the question have to do… with anything?

“I want you, not biologists, to explain to me what you think about how things began.”

I’ve already explained the scientific position on this many times over, which is also my position: I have no idea. No one has any idea. There are lots of things we don’t know, and some we may never know. That’s the humility of empiricism. I think you are just blowing smoke since you have nothing else to say, and no way to defend the falsehoods employed in the article that I pointed out.

Mountain Man, you know who I am and know what I “do for a living.” You know the institution I’m affiliated with, that I’m not a leftist (that I voted for Bush twice…), and on and on….

You posed this very question to me in a personal email a while back. I never made the time to respond and I apologize for that. Perhaps *this* is my response…. :)

In short, I get the impression that, by using this very question, you feel that you hold the trump card. You, a priori know, that this question has no answer as of yet. And anyone asserting an answer to this question is either a genius or a crackpot.

So, instead of me trying to answer, when I don’t know the answer (or anyone else that I know of…), let’s peruse the possibilities (pertaining to how the universe came to be…).

a. What if we can eventually convince ourselves (you included) that the universe indeed came from nothing…. That, in effect, something CAN come from nothing. How would this change your world-view? Further, how would this change how God fits into the picture?

b. What if we can convince ourselves (again, you included) that the universe came from something (as opposed to nothing) and we know the details of the source…. Let’s further suppose that it had a natural cause that could be explained with known physics (and possibly currently unknown physics but new physics yet to be discovered). How would this change your world-view and how would this change how God fits into the picture?

c. Let’s suppose that we could convince ourselves beyond all doubt (me included) that God created the universe. How would this change your world-view and how would this change how God fits into the picture?

I would venture to guess that any of the above scenarios wouldn’t change your world-view and how God fits into the picture! (With the exception that, for scenario “c,” there would be no room for the denial of God’s existence forthwith….)

The point, is that there is room for a belief in God if that is one’s desire, albeit scenarios “a” and “b” would negate the *necessity* for a God.

I think MM, that your objections to evolution are unwarranted. I would like you to keep an open mind on it as I am willing to keep open the possibility that God exists. Our mutual friend, Phil Jackson, if I’m not mistaken, is Catholic. I was also under the impression that Phil is not against evolution, per se, since the Catholic faith has embraced it (if you are reading this Phil, feel free to correct me if I’m mistaken). And you and I both know Phil’s stance on the existence of God…!

Say, are you still on for that beer? You, Phil, and I were supposed to get drunk and impress loose women with our combined intellectual brilliance…. :)

Some parting comments;
Patrick Mulligan,
I find you short-tempered, pompous, ill-informed, and overall, unpleasant to read.

Deane,
I find myself agreeing with your comments and I would venture to guess that you are more than a simple pedestrian in some field of science. Perhaps a biologist…? :)

Dunesong,
Your interlude into probabilities was great! (And this comes from an astrophysicist….) For fun, I might guess that you are a statistician, actuary, or mathematician…?

Thomas Brewton,
I have read past essays of yours (at the request of a former friend) and find that you are generally hostile towards evolution and science in general. I further believe that you are simply incorrect in your analyses and I no longer bother to read your articles (including this one…). No offense. :)

Cheers,
william

You indicated there is no such thing as de-evolution or reverse evolutionary change. Are you sure? If you are, you may wish to inform Niles Eldredge at the American Museum of Natural History; he’s the curator of invertebrates and one of America’s leading research paleontologists and expert on invertebrate fossils. Although he’s published 20 books and over 200 research articles, I’m sure he’d appreciate your insights into where he’s mistaken.

His publication of “An Extravagance of Species” (American Natural History Museum) in 1980 describes his research into trilobites. What caught my attention was his report finding both unique and advanced trilobite fossils in the earliest fossil beds, while noting that younger species members in the later fossil beds were less advanced. “Advanced” means physiological features in the earlier fossils not present in the younger fossils, sort of like finding human fossils 5 million years ago and then first finding ape fossils only 2 million years ago.

Be very careful when reading Eldredge; his findings and conclusions border on heresy regarding the orthodox “gradualistic” model of evolution. His conclusions weren’t just related to reverse change or de-evolution, he went even further and claimed not to find transitional intermediate links in the entire fossil series.

What he found instead was the sudden emergence of new species and sub-species and then long periods of stasis with relatively little or no directional change. Transitional evolutionary links forming a smooth series between older and younger species members were not present. His research was from examination of the Bolivian trilobite fossil beds and the Devonian fossils from the Gondwana beds.

As an aside, Eldredge co-authored with Stephen Jay Gould the heretical “punctuated equilibrium” theory that attacked the orthodox gradualistic model and proposed a new model that fit the fossil evidence (a novelty in evolution, a theory that fits the evidence emerging after 120 years).

Also a warning, Eldredge claims status as a true believer in evolution doctrine, just in a different denomination – he won’t appreciate you calling him a creationist because he criticized evolution theory.

Your comment “Evolution has, as I said, a remarkable potential for convergent evidence behind it ….” was very eloquent, but would get a strong argument from Dr. Lynn Margulis. Margulis is a strange bird for a so-called creationist, she criticizes evolution only with scientific facts and was so persuasive she was granted membership in the prestigious and exclusive National Academy of Sciences (probably to shut her up as much as recognition of her scientific brilliance).

If you bop over to Wikipedia and look her up, you’ll get a somewhat factual account of her theory, although Wikipedia’s comment that her theory doesn’t conflict with orthodox evolution theory is an absurd rationalization. What Margulis found in her cell research was evidence that mitochondria (a cellular organelle that provides the cell with energy) was probably the result of a symbiotic relationship between two completely separate species.

Wikipedia calls it the endosymbiotic theory although the correct term is symbiogenetics. At first, her theory drew much criticism from orthodox evolutionists of the “gradualistic” persuasion – how could two separate species merge together under the evolutionary model – completely absurd! As cell research progressed, protein analysis of mitochondria indicated the protein was closer to the symbiote than to the host organism, indicating that two separate species had merged earlier in a symbiotic relation, rather than competed in a “survival of the fittest” elimination grudge match scenario.

To promote her theory, Margulis offered biting criticism of the evolutionary model. Together with her son, Dorion Sagan (yes, she was Carl Sagan’s former wife), she published “Acquiring Genones: A Theory of the Origin of Species” (Ironic title, since an earlier scientist published “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection”). Her criticisms of evolution are better than anything I could possibly offer. The forward to her book was written by Ernst Mayr, the dean of American evolutionary biologists and he agreed she was correct in much of her criticisms. She also mentioned (and agreed with) the bio-chemical arguments of Dr. Michael Behe, one of the originators of Intelligent Design Theory.

Rather than taunt, I would offer the observation that this “convergent” evidence you cite is really a chimera. To skeptics like me, the acceptance of theories such as punctuated equilibrium and symbiogenetics indicates that evolution is far from a stable, well-constructed theory that serves to unify biology, as you contend.