Posts like this one. Clever, succinct. I imagine most people will say this is an attack on religion– and knowing PZ, it is. However, it can also be interpreted as being an attack on fantastical thinking, which I think is an excellent metaphor.
Posts like this one. Clever, succinct. I imagine most people will say this is an attack on religion– and knowing PZ, it is. However, it can also be interpreted as being an attack on fantastical thinking, which I think is an excellent metaphor.
April 2nd, 2006 at 8:48 pm
I picked door A several times recently: Coke and cheese enchiladas, after the queso appetizer, at lunch; my wives brownies this evening; rum raisin ice cream last night and more. Broad is the path to door A.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:28 am
He left out the most important part. If you go through door B, you can always change your mind and come back since Door B is for those who CAN change their minds! Not so with door A, which must be why no one has been able to report back what they saw.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:36 am
Hey Phil,
Your friend may indeed be cool, but so are many of the replies and posts that follow. Of course, that is what makes the whole exercise fun…trying to figure out which drug the responder may have taken before considering his/her reply (Bear Volcano and the Flaming Tigers???). Actually,a lot like your average entry. Reading your posts is fun, but not as much fun as waiting a week (or a month) later and let the replies add up. Yeah, that’s my reason for usually replying a month later, uh-huh, yep, that’s it.
Now, as for my way of thinking, I would work out opening Door B. Once I get it unlocked, I wouldn’t open it or step through, but keep it slightly ajar, and call for Guardian A. I would say to him “Hey, look at this”, fling open Door B while jumping back, and if the tiger comes pouncing out, it would obviosly eat (and burn) the stunned dolt (he was annoying anyway) allowing me time to slip through and lock the door behind me. I love logic problems, but I don’t do metaphors.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:55 am
Flaming tiger. Heh.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:39 am
It’s posts like that which make me really hate Science blogs. The unabashed egotism and elitism really make me wonder how far science will go if all people are exploring is their own rectums.
The truth, which has been with us all along, is that science and religion can co-exist, and peacefully. We are beings with curiosity and a need to learn, and if you believe in God (or any higher being), then that is a gift He gave to us to learn with. For me, it’s almost as if He created all this and wants us all to learn how He did it.
But if you keep to your side of the fence and just stubbornly stand there grimacing at the equally unenlightened morons on the other side, you’re just as bad. Religion and Science in equal measure fills you with an incredible wonder at this universe we live in…more than any feeling you get from one alone.
Try it.
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:06 am
Science vs. Religion; Well, I guess that hasn’t been resolved in the 200 years since the Enlightenment, so it’s unlikely to get sorted out in few blog posts.
Speaking only for myself, I think it’s very hard to reconcile them, without diluting one or the other so much that it ceases to be anything very meaningful. (e.g. making science so elastic that things like astrology and crystal channelling start to count as science, or making religion little more than wishful thinking)
But I fully realise that that’s argument from incredulity, and since there clearly are people who can reconcile science with their faith, the world must be a more complex place than my worldview allows.
Just my 0.02 eurocents
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:04 am
Maybe whats behind door A is so much better that people get eveything thats behind door B and more. I still think you could change you mind if you go through door A since there is nothing in the analogy that says you can’t. It’s all about choice. I would agree that alot of religious people are closed minded when it comes to science, but not all of them are and its already been stated truthfully that many people can reconcile religion and science. When we die and move on all that goes with us is knowledge, so learn all you can here and be that much farther ahead in the next life.
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:10 am
To RAD: I spent most of my life on the other side of Door A. All my questions had answers, yet I was never satisfied with the answers. I turned around and exited Door A. There in the hall, I did lots of research and chose Door B. To this day, I’m still unlocking doors and having a blast doing it.
So yes, you can change your mind after going through Door A.
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:17 am
Way cool!!! Loved it!
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:22 am
There’s an old Indian fable about a strident, vocal atheist who loudly proclaimed that he hated God, each and every day. It didn’t matter if you believed in one god or a thousand — he despised the very idea. With every act he did, milking his cow, cooking his lentils, each hour of his life, he cursed all the gods the sick fancy of mankind had ever invented.
After a long lifetime spent denying religion, the man died, and his soul was instantly united with God in eternal bliss. See, among the many traditions in the stupefyingly complex spiritual history of India, there’s the idea that in order to attain union with divinity, one must keep the thought of divinity constantly in mind.
The spiritual diversity of our species is mind-boggling. Take, to pick a random example out of billions, the old Buddhist proverb which says, “To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven. The same key opens the gates of hell.”
And, on the flipside, there’s a line which could have come from a dozen cultures, to wit: “If you should see a blind man lying in the gutter, kick him. Why should you be kinder than God?”
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:59 am
all I know is that anything that is too easy is not worth it…so I would pick Door B.
April 3rd, 2006 at 4:52 am
To RAD: I spent most of my life on the other side of Door A. All my questions had answers, yet I was never satisfied with the answers. I turned around and exited Door A. There in the hall, I did lots of research and chose Door B. To this day, I’m still unlocking doors and having a blast doing it.
So yes, you can change your mind after going through Door A.
This has been my experience in life as well, although I’ve now spent most of my life on the other side of Door B, having fled from the confines of Door A at a younger age.
April 3rd, 2006 at 4:59 am
The truth, which has been with us all along, is that science and religion can co-exist, and peacefully. We are beings with curiosity and a need to learn, and if you believe in God (or any higher being), then that is a gift He gave to us to learn with. For me, it’s almost as if He created all this and wants us all to learn how He did it.
I completely disagree. Science and religion can only co-exist due to laziness or at least a lack of desire of science to defend itself. Science and religion depend on different kinds of thinking (some would argue that one depends on a LACK of thinking, which may be too strong, so let’s say it’s just DIFFERENT thinking). The two kinds of thinking are opposite… they cannot be reconciled.
If you apply scientific thinking to religion, religion breaks down because it is illogical, and lacks the support of any kind of evidence. If you apply religious thinking to science, science becomes unnecessary and indeed, also breaks down because nothing needs evidence any more due to the existence of a god’s or gods’ will(s).
Yes, there are religious scientists - but to me those people occupy an untenable position. It’s unreasonable to say “I accept this aspect of scientific thinking, but for that aspect, I have to believe in a supernatural power”. Because their position is untenable, they must eventually fall to one side or the other. Sadly, in my opinion, they often (usually?) seem to fall toward the fantastical thinking side.
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:02 am
There’s no reason why you can’t go through both doors at once.
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:33 am
Judging by the fact that I apparently don’t see more people trying
to crack door B, I’d ask myself how many people come through
here, how frequent, and how easy the door is if the door requires the
the same mental faculties as to think up some lame excuse like a flaming tiger on the other side.. on the other hand, these guys are guardians,
so either they must leave their respective doors unguarded to check
what’s behind their or the other door, or they only tell you what they’re
told to believe is behind the door.
Me myself, I’d chalk up a door on a blank wall in the room with no
doorknob, proclaim myself its guardian and label the door C..
Then, if anyone comes up I explain that the door is impossible to open,
but that if you manage despite the odds, you’ll gain knowledge unknown
to anyone else… then I wait until something divine and very angry comes
up and asks me what I’m trying to do here..
@ ruidh: yes there is, two guardians whom are clearly observing you,
denying your potentially infinite states prerequisite..
April 3rd, 2006 at 6:08 am
I will still always say that you can believe in a higher being qand be effective in science. Everyone will of coarse have different opinions and that is great and I would never presue to “push” religion on anyone. I do have y opinions and that is all they are. to e they best explain our existance to me. I agree that they are of two diferent ways of thinking. sut because some one chooses not to believe in God doesn’t make him non-existant, exept to that person. I don’t want science attacked or slwoed down by religion because there is just too uch to learn to leave it up to those “God did it and thats the end of it” people. Science doesn’t have all the answers and religion doesn’t have all the answers but someday between the two aybe we will. I don’t think you can put one side or the other into the “your absolutely wrong’ catagory. Each serves its purpose.
April 3rd, 2006 at 7:59 am
I don’t particularly care for this story. The doors (as usual) are a metaphor for death (otherwise the choice between doors would be pointless since you can always change your mind). However, going with that metaphor, and taking the religious/atheist interretation, there should be nothing behind door B.
I also think that the message is paradoxically Calvinist: hard work = more fulfillment. All in all, rather poor.
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:08 am
Au Contraire, it isn’t about death! It is about life. It is about where you get your answers. Do you have them spoon fed to you without questioning the source, or do you reason them out… Do you want everything handed to you unquestioning, or do you work for figure things out yourself. It is only when your life is over do you get attacked by the Bear Volcano and the Flaming Tigers. Which would be death.
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:23 am
Yes I agree with Douglas as there are multiple doors behind Door B (”many more doors, each one harder than the next, and no end to them in sight. “)
No doubt I would pick Door B as I can’t rely on the comfort of a supreme being looking over me.
Also, I think the flaming tiger is really cool.
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:33 am
I really like PZMeyers writting. And his ideas are realy cool too. I think though he suffers from trying to hard to justify something. I read this post of his… and yes it is beutiful… and wonderfull… and when he describes Door B it is what I get out of science… but in the end this whole piece is a straw man. There are people that have gone through Door A and decided they didn’t like it. I’m one. There are also a lot of people that have gone through Door A and liked it… then came and worked on the doors of B as well. Yea, yea… I’m picking nits… its what I do. I could only HOPE to be able to write like PZMeyers.
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:35 am
That was plain delightful! I loved it. I’ll probably take the door B. “A” guy looks pretty delusional. At least the other one admits it’s not an easy path.
I love challenges.
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:36 am
I viewed it as a metaphor for life as well. Behind door A is the easy path… the hallway that leads you past an infinity of doors that all lead the same place that door B does. At the end of the hallway is the nothingness of death.
Behind door B is the series of doors. Behind the very last door is the nothingness of death.
At any point, you can change your mind and go into the other hallway, and in both cases, you wind up dead.
All that remains is to decide whether you want the challenge and work of enlightenment behind door B, or the blissful ignorance of door A.
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:47 am
This quote is from a Sufi parable called “The Food Of Paradise” in which the storys main character Yanus says,” I have at last learned that the understanding of a man is conditional upon his capacity to understand. For you, this food was the remains of your daily toilet. For me, it was the Food of Paradise.” This in response to food that came to Yanus mysteriously floating on a river.
Sufis have tendered parables to humanity for over a thousand years. Their point has always been that we must first have a thirst for knowledge and then the hard headedness to PROVE that knowledge.
All knowledge is an arduousl and dangerous persuit but ignorance will kill you and leave you blind.
Sometimes we’re “given” knowledge. It’s usually worth what we paid for it.
Door B will eventually tell us what really lies beyond door A and we’ll be able to tell others about it as well. But it may take a while,,,
Gary 7
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:48 am
@Evolving Squid:
I don’t think things are as black and white as you seem to. I’ll bet that there are LOTS of very religious people who are good scientists. I’ll further bet that there will be lots more in the future. To me, religion is crazy, so something crazy like being a good scientist and religious dosn’t seem to be that much more of a streach.
April 3rd, 2006 at 9:51 am
I think people get confused about religion when they say science and religion cannot coexist. SOME flavors of religion are definately incompatable with science, and reject science outright. These are not representative of people of faith even though they are lately a very vocal minority.
Although I am “faith-challenged” and have difficulty with the existance of a supernatural being, I cannot prove that God doesn’t exist, didn’t create the universe, and didn’t create the scientific laws and evidence we use to understand the universe.
If someone claims the earth is flat or only 6000 years old, they are obviously wrong and misguided. If someone claims that belief in God gives their life meaning, comforts them, or helps them behave well in the face of destructive temptations, I must respect their choices and I have no right to deny the value of their belief system for them.
As scientists, we do not have all the answers, and those that can find a belief system that satisfies their needs without requiring rejection of observable and testable reality should be able to support both science and religion.
Wayne
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:31 am
I have problems with the metaphor. The description for behind door A reads more like an afterlife than a path for living. It reads like a description of Heaven, not as a means of living. Door B is meant to represent skeptical thought, scientific analysis, the whole bit. Clearly that is not an afterlife, as Guardian B discusses having gone through his door lots of times.
Evolving Squid’s extrapolation helps, but the story as written has equivalency problems.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:39 am
I think Wayne’s post shows the best example of sound scientific thought. He said “Although I am “faith-challenged†and have difficulty with the existance of a supernatural being, I cannot prove that God doesn’t exist, didn’t create the universe, and didn’t create the scientific laws and evidence we use to understand the universe.”
I also have difficulty with the concept of random interactions between hydrogen atoms following the “Big Bang” resulting in the diversity of life that we observe on Planet Earth (and perhaps elswhere in the universe) and in such a short period of time. Does that mean Darwin was wrong? No, as far as he went I think the evidence is compelling, but the extrapolation of what he observed back to the “beginning” is as much an act of faith as is belief in God. So before you are too quick to dismiss relegious faith as ignorant, determine how much of your own scientific beliefs are also articles of “faith”.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:08 am
Some of the comments here move *me* to parablize:
I found myself in a room filled with mechanical and electronic devices, all in various stages of repair. There were also lots of raw materials there, to build any kind of device or structure I wished. And in the middle of it all, a toolbox, filled with hammers, screwdrivers, wrenches of all kinds. Wonderful!
As I reach into the toolbox for a screwdriver, a voice says, “What are you doing?”
“I’m getting a screwdriver,” I reply, “to fix one of these devices, or take one apart to see how it works.”
“The hammer is the only tool you’ll need.”
“No, there are some things only a screwdriver can fix. A hammer would just wreck it.”
“Oh, you’re one of *those* people. People who don’t use hammers.”
“Not at all. Some jobs require hammers, others screwdrivers, others wrenches.”
“Utter nonsense. Any task that requires a screwdriver is trivial and meaningless. Anything worth doing, you do with a hammer. People who try to use screwdrivers are superstitious, ignorant and probably evil. Most of the problems in this world are caused by people who use screwdrivers, you know. And I speak from experience. My parents used screwdrivers, and I did myself, when I was young and naive. But I learned better, and saw how worthless and dangerous they were. I can’t even understand people who use screwdrivers anymore.”
At first, I was angry with the person, for showing such contempt for my choices. But then I thought about it, and felt sorry for him. There were so many things he could not do and experience, all because he limited the tools he could use. So I just shook my head and smiled.
Then I picked up my tools and went to work.
One more quickie: Anyone who says that living a religious life provides “simple” answers is like someone who sees a mathematician doing vector calculus and says, “Well, that stuff’s easy! All that guy was sit and scribble on a piece of paper for awhile.” In other words, they’ve never done it.
Reject the Choice.
Regards,
JIM
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:39 am
Change “hammer” to “holy chezwuzzit of antioch” and you’ve got a good parable there.
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:41 am
Hey,
What’s this thread about? Rad, give me the rundown.
Tom
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:43 am
Is this the theists or ID apologetics page?
Any really fierce supporters and defenders of the evolution faith in here?
Hark who goes there?
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:50 am
defenders of the evolution faith
Nobody has faith in evolution. You either examine the evidence and accept its veracity based on the evidence, or you reject it. Faith is not required. In fact, if you accept evolution on faith, you fail and slide down that big snake from 96 to 32.
As an aside, this is interesting reading and vaguely related to this topic:
http://www.canada.com/globaltv/edmonton/news/story.html?id=08f6ed7e-d182-4662-8936-be836f4b97cf&k=65842
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:54 am
As a visited PZ Myers link “Pharyngula” and his post “Doors”, where this topic originated, I shall also pose much the same question as I did there. Except on re-reading it, I found a couple of mistakes in my typing, and I actually didn’t put the question plainly! This is my latest take on the subject.
I have read all the comments, and I am surprised to see NOBODY has ventured the idea that Guardian A is really the guardian of Door A. Likewise the Bs. What if Guardian A is in reality guarding Door B? And vice versa. I think a whole new scenario opens up, and presents some interesting variations. Or does it really?
Re-read the conditions again, I think that you will find it is a viable position. Even if I have missed something (and I guess I would be soon corrected), I still expect the same arguments would go on.
And should I commit myself? (Not sure I like the word ‘commit’!). I would have to select Door B. But that’s Life, dude. It is a plain analogy for the Christian Ethic, as against the Devil. And it is the same with most other Beliefs, they all have their justifications for Right and Wrong, Good and Bad, Pure and Mixed. Why believe in fairy tales and medieval hocus pocus, which has its roots in the witch-doctors of our ancestors. Some people do not recognise this and just blindly believe what they are told, usually at a cost to them in the form of donations. These are the Door A people, and truly, some of them are high-minded, wonderful people. But there are also high-minded, wonderful people at the other Door, B. We are all capable of being deluded, just wanting it to be “Perfect’.
I’m afraid Life ain’t that easy.
Ivan.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Door A in the story is a [i]lousy[/i] reflection of true religion.
True religion is as much about how you live your life as where and how you will end up after you die. True religion should be just as intellectually chanllenging as Door B. True religion goes where science cannot go; for science fails to work in “what cannot be tested or verifiable.”
Can a scientist be a poet, or a poet be a scientist?
Science deals with the natural realm. But does the human experience begin and end with the natural realm?
Honestly, I resent the “you have to chose either science or religion” mindset. In fact, it is more intellectually challanging trying to weave the two together and walking the line between them than to just throw religion to fantasy.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Nebularain,
I agree with you. It’s real easy to say no, it’s much more challenging to say yes.
I have no problem at all with folks who just shrug their shoulders and say
“I don’t believe in God” and then move on to the next topic of discussion.
As a Catholic Christian, more and more, I am trying to live my faith every day.
It’s really easy to chastise the church for giving Galileo hell oh so many years ago, but the same church righted itself a few years ago and the same church for hundreds and hundreds of years has been on the forefront of education and science particularly.
Galileo was just an aside.
And a word about Bob Summerfield of Astronomy to Go….
If you want to meet someone who does real Astronomy talk to this guy who roams around the country with the largest mobile Telescope, a 36 inch “Dobsonian” reflector…called the Yardscope, showing everyone who wants to see the beauty and wonder of the Universe above!:)
Nice to see you here Bob.
Phil, you should interview this guy!
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Hey folks,
In order to have a serious discussion with somebody relating to evolution, genetics or microbiology you need to have some knowledge of such. To have dialogue relating to the Christian faith or Judaism you need to have some knowledge of the scriptures ie. the Old testament, New testament,
I’m from the trap door in the floor?
Torah and Talmud. If you have non of these you will undoubtedly defer all knowledge and/or beliefs to somebody who you consider an expert.
Since men are fallible, I think it would be a good idea to think for oneself and study on your own.
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Can I get a witness? Amen brothers and sisters!
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Does this remind anyone else of that part in The Labyrinth?
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:48 pm
As a number of people have pointed out, science and religion can co-exist peacefully for some people. People have also pointed out that scientific thinking and religious thinking can be successfully applied in different areas of their lives. I agree.
I do see people, including my friends, making good use of religious thinking in their lives. However, I do not think any type of faith or religious thinking is useful in trying to understand the true nature of the Universe. Science is the best way, and I really don’t think religion or faith can help at all.
Also, someone mentioned it requiring as much faith to believe in evolution all the way back to the “beginning” as it does to believe God did it. I disagree. We can observe evolution happening in the real world today (see Jonathan Weiner’s “The Beak of the Finch”). We can also compare the fossils of previous lifeforms with those still living today. On the other hand, I don’t think anybody knows whether God exists or if there even is a supernatural realm. In one instance, we’re extrapolating from what is known about the world, and in the other we are extrapolating from an unsubstantiated belief. I think there is a difference.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:10 pm
One thing I’ve always said about Religion is that it is the Science of the Soul. When kept to that sphere, it’s easily reconcile Religion and Science. Nothing fancy about it, it’s just a higher understanding of both. Using Religious thinking to solve Scientific problems is just as loony as the reverse.
Here’s how it works for. Evolution is correct…we evolved from apes, which evolved from the first amino acids to join together billions of years ago. Arguing against this idea because the Bible says something different is like arguing that Lord of the Rings is porn because you’re reading Penthouse.
However, when you read Genesis, all it really says is that this was created. It started at some point and a consciousness was behind it. If you take this to be true, then it’s a simple leap to see all the various Physics and Mathematics we use to describe this universe as the how. That is what Science can answer, and very effectively. We move forward in leaps and bounds understanding How every day, and it’s always wonderful when some evolved ape figures out how to reach the next rung on the ladder.
But Science cannot answer the Why of the Universe. It can’t. Why is a fundamentally personal answer. I can tell you how stars create heavy elements, but no one can answer why and satisfy everyone. It’s in the differences that religion lies.
And that’s the difference. If you reason for Why is God (or whatever name your higher being has), then that’s how Religion and Science coexist for you. If your answer is simply because thats what happens from the How, then thats your religious belief.
Continuing this false notion that Religion and Science are at war and cannot reconcile is as faulty a decision as the Spanish made when they started their Inquisitions. And in the end, aren’t we supposed to learn beyond what our ancestors knew? For me, one of the happier days this past year was when people began seeking out the Vatican for a statement concerning ID…and the Vatican refuting the notion because it’s not scientifically valid.
If the Bishops at the Vatican can reconcile their religious beliefs with their scientific knowledge, what’s holding us back?
Nick: The True Nature of the Universe is not just How, but Why as well. There’s also the question of Where, What, and Who. Science is wonderful at the How part. But it still cannot answer Who or Why.
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:41 pm
dukrouse: I agree with a lot of the points in your post. But if there are Who and Why questions regarding the true nature of the Universe, I still think science is the only way to possibly arrive at their answers. While nothing is certain in science, scientific progress leads us along a spectrum of belief about the Universe, from uncertainty towards certainty. I don’t see how religious thinking or faith could in principle move us along this spectrum, even if science fails with regards to those specific questions.
If you think Why is a personal question, then it’s hard for me to link its answer in some way to the true nature of the Universe. If there really is a Why answer to the Universe, then it must be a part of the true nature of the Universe, and not something subjective and different for every person. I agree that people can come up with their own answers if they wish to, and that this can help them in their lives, but I don’t see it getting us any closer to understanding the correct answer, if there is one.
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Jim Said:
>Some of the comments here move *me* to parablize:
Great, now we’re going to have parable wars. Just what I needed.
Evolving Squid Said:
>Change “hammer†to “holy chezwuzzit of antioch†and you’ve got a good parable there.
Hey, since when are you allowed to read your own interpretation in to a metaphor/parable?
icemith Said:
>I have read all the comments, and I am surprised to see NOBODY has ventured the idea that Guardian A is really the guardian of Door A. Likewise the Bs. What if Guardian A is in reality guarding Door B? And vice versa. I think a whole new scenario opens up, and presents some interesting variations. Or does it really?
It seems fairly evident that the intent of the story is that Guardian A is connected to Door A, and Guardian B is connected to Door B. It seems the authors intent was not to challenge that assumption, but force it. Guardian B is clearly talking about Door B - all the locks and chains and apparent difficulty to open. So he isn’t speaking about Door A.
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Hello again,
Let’s look at what is compatible with the Genesis acount of creation of life and what is not.
theism: (paraphrase) In Genesis is states that God created the fish and aquatic organisms , the birds and then God made the living creatures that lived on the land after their own kind. He told them to be fruitful and fill the earth. Then God created them as such and God saw that it was good.
Then God said,”Let us make man in our image,in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and the living creatures that move on the ground”. So God created them as such and God blessed them and said,”Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over it.” God saw all that He had made and that is was very good.
evolutionists: abiogenesis or chemical abiogenesis states that in a random chance-like fashion that simple life formed out of nothing from a primordial soup and evolved. Through genetic mutations also by chance and natural selection through the process of genetic recombination all animal and plantlife philogenically over billions of years became what we see today. The presumption being that everything in nature has an upward urge. The evolutionist believes that modern man evolved from apelike ancestors to what we are today. Apparently we are still evolving.
The premise that one species evolved into another is at odds with the Genesis acount of creation. Every creature listed in Genesis was created after it’s own kind, with it’s own unique features and DNA limiting the effects of gene mutations. Darwin knew that his theories not only hinged upon the future discoveries of transitional fossils but he also knew that macroevolution would have to be proven or his theory would not hold.
NeoDarwinists or modern evolutionists continually try to use examples of microevolution and adaptation to prove macroevolution.
Genetic discoveries continually confirm the plausibility of creationism. The more a scientist studies DNA, genomes and genetic mutations the more he finds that the encoded available DNA for the changes already exists in the DNA molecule. When they observe or synthesize mutation, one thing is certain. Genetic mutations are either neutral or harmful to the organism. These findings are inconsistent with macroevolution. They need to prove that there are beneficial mutations, not adaptations in nature which will produce an evolution of an organism. The law of retrogression however which is completely consistent with creationism is universally active. Geneteic mutations producing cancers, birth defects and the like are sometimes passed on inherently. The DNA however has a capability to recheck and correct detrimental mutations in some cases. This is called back mutation. Amazing stuff.
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Yeah, but…
Many Christian churches (including the Roman Catholic Church) recognize the Genesis accounts as myth. So, there is no stance on the creation of life that is at odds with scientific fact in many churches’ doctrines. Indeed, in the Catholic Church at least, evolution is accepted. Abiogenesis, to my knowledge, hasn’t been dealt with, but it does not appear to be in conflict with Church teachings. So while your criticism is valid of some religions, it is not of others. And, indeed, with regard to those religions that conflict with scientific thought, that criticism is a good thing.
So, where am I going with this? I just want to state that both sides of the debate tend to oversimplify. Bad form.
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:31 pm
It should be stated that where I say, “So, there is no stance on the creation of life that is at odds with scientific fact in many churches’ doctrines,” I mean specifically relating to evolution. I’m not well-versed in other cases, so I can’t comment.
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Tom, there is so much in error with your post it’s hard to know where to begin. Perhaps you should go back and research your topic.
For starters, evolutionists make no pronouncements on abiogenesis. The latter is a separate field of research.
Much of what you write after that is simply untrue. There are plenty of references even in the BA blog comments of entries past if you can’t find them on your own.
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:19 pm
As a practicing Catholic I can say that we believe the core truth of the Book of Genesis is that God Created both the heavens and the Earth and everything including makind and all other life on this planet.
The words are inspired by God and written by human hands…beautiful words, poetic words, words that ancient Hebrews and today’s Christians can understand.
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Of course, I meant mankind.
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:31 pm
Tom,
Why is it that you disagree with the premise that God created everything including all the scientific laws that we have discovered?
Science, after all, is just the questioning we can do because the Universe,built by God himself, was made to be knowable.
And isn’t that what Genesis says? That we are made in the image of God that is to say that we have an intellect?
I very much am of the opinion that any Christian who cannot understand the above is really committing a sin against God.
If you are really a Christian, than you should have no problem with understanding.
Perhaps, it would help for you to study what the early Church Fathers thought. like St. Thomas Aquinas for example.
April 3rd, 2006 at 6:58 pm
And here’s a link for what the Director of the Vatican Observatory says about this:
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18504
April 3rd, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Well,
I was raised Catholic as most of my family and grew up in a Catholic community. Catholicism is not the only Christianity. You will never see me genuflect or kiss the ring of your pope. You are questioning whether I am a Christian when most of your doctrine is not even consistent with what Jesus or His disciples taught. Most of the Catholics I know don’t even even own a Bible nor do they put any creedence in it. I do not trust the word of men just because they wear a robe and crucifix or a lab coat.
That would categorize me as a critical thinker. God did create the natural laws of the universe. Among these are the law of retrogression that is universally active since the fall of man. This is demonstrable in nature and in the extinction of species. The earth groans and travails. It was once perfect when created but now requires redemption.
I fear that the church of my fathers is more interested about it’s falling off of membership than it’s commitment to truth. If truth is your stumbling block then read John 18:37-38. What Pilate asks is answered in our culture with “it is relative to what ever you believe”. I don’t buy it brother.
April 3rd, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Hey Mr. Evolving Squid,
Give me 5 examples of “observable” genetic mutations in mammals that are “beneficial” to the organism . Explain how they are consistent with evolution and natural selection. If they were synthesized in the lab explain in laymans terms what control conditions were used. Keep in mind that a mutation consistent with evolution is one that is passed on inherently to a progeny. Good luck.
April 3rd, 2006 at 7:50 pm
P. Edward Murray:
What reason is there for agreeing “with the premise that God created everything including all the scientific laws that we have discovered”? Some people may find such a notion comforting, I suppose, but I find such a premise not only unnecessary but one which raises immense logical difficulties.
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:09 pm
“The truth, which has been with us all along, is that science and religion can co-exist, and peacefully. We are beings with curiosity and a need to learn, and if you believe in God (or any higher being), then that is a gift He gave to us to learn with. For me, it’s almost as if He created all this and wants us all to learn how He did it.”
- dukrous
——————————————
“I completely disagree. Science and religion can only co-exist due to laziness or at least a lack of desire of science to defend itself. Science and religion depend on different kinds of thinking (some would argue that one depends on a LACK of thinking, which may be too strong, so let’s say it’s just DIFFERENT thinking). The two kinds of thinking are opposite… they cannot be reconciled.
If you apply scientific thinking to religion, religion breaks down because it is illogical, and lacks the support of any kind of evidence. If you apply religious thinking to science, science becomes unnecessary and indeed, also breaks down because nothing needs evidence any more due to the existence of a god’s or gods’ will(s).
Yes, there are religious scientists - but to me those people occupy an untenable position. It’s unreasonable to say “I accept this aspect of scientific thinking, but for that aspect, I have to believe in a supernatural powerâ€. Because their position is untenable, they must eventually fall to one side or the other. Sadly, in my opinion, they often (usually?) seem to fall toward the fantastical thinking side.”
- Evolving Squid
—————————————————
My response to Evolving Squid:
I totally disagree with your stand on this. Religion is only about believing in a being that created the universe, or created the rules of the universe and then started the ball rolling. The rest is what the clerics and people who run Organized Religion say is their truth. Right now, we don’t have the technology or facts to prove there is/was such a being, but someday we might, at which time Organized Religions will lose their impact. (Actually, I think sometime before that would be good… like tomorrow!) Religions rely on faith, and when you have proof, you don’t need faith.
There appears to be, based on evidence gathered by scientists throughout the ages, order to the Universe (and chaos.) How did that order get there?
Science may one day have an answer to that question. It could have been the grand design of an individual being with infinite power, or the machinations of a race of beings. Or maybe it just IS. I personally think the latter is unlikely.
Maybe the plan, all along, as penned by Arthur C. Clarke in The Nine Billion Names of God, is for us to discover the basis of that order, and, once we do, our purpose is at an end. Or better yet, once we do, our purpose is to create the next (or another) universe all our own. That would be pretty cool.
I find it terribly presumptuous of any religious person or any scientist to say that their way is the only one. I also feel that it is extremely close-minded. That’s where Ellie, in Contact, was before her trip.
This doesn’t have to be a war. Personally, I like Carl Sagan’s ideas the best.
If the scientists who make the loud noises about religion and science being incompatible could just get out of their heads long enough to open their hearts a little, maybe we could stop taking a stand that is so rigid about faith and build a beautiful bridge everyone can use.
April 3rd, 2006 at 9:25 pm
Door A participants ask how life could have spontaneously generated so quickly without a deity’s help. Door B participants might wonder aloud who could possibly think that over 10 billion years is quick.
When someone says that it happened by chance, they aren’t really thinking about probability. They are thinking about improbability. Take a thing that only happens one time in ten billion - then give it ten billion billion chances. You’ll have billions of occurances of something that is horribly unlikely.
So life is hugely unlikely to start on its own. The Earth, when cooled sufficiently, may have offered billions of opportunities every second or so the inklings of life to begin. Given a half billion years or so worth of seconds times billions of chances and you make something hugely improbable into something nearly impossible to prevent.
jbs
April 3rd, 2006 at 9:29 pm
Tom,
I am sorry, but I have to disagree. To me it’s always very interesting to find folks who disagree are “fallen away Catholics”:)
I shall endeavour to remember you when I say the Novena of Divine Mercy just before Divine Mercy Sunday.
Other than that, yes, there are other forms of Christianity but truthfully and historically, The Catholic Church is the only one directly started by Christ himself with St. Peter as the first Pope…of course you knew that anyway.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:25 pm
Door A: Job as a street sweeper or burger flipper.
Door B: Job in engineering.
My religion: Treat others the way you want to be treated by them.
April 3rd, 2006 at 10:49 pm
Nick: The True Nature of the Universe is not something we can ever comprehend. You always have to leave room for error. After all, one of the thoughts that makes me giggle is the idea that God began the Universe, and Life is just an unaccounted for coincidence.
When you consider the nature of the universe with us as a side effect, you start to understand the mystery of the platypus.
April 4th, 2006 at 2:13 am
If the catholic church was started by Peter and continued since that time then how did it survive the great Apostasy where the priesthood power was taken from the earth to be restored at a later time? There are several different catholic faiths as well and I think the Roman Catholic is the most wide spread. This was organized by Constanine in the 300s AD.
It is fair to say that the bibles rendition of the creation is a pretty short story about the beginings of the earth. It doesn’t say how anything was accomplished in terms of creation and no one really knows. Science has studied the how for some time may be finding some truths to the how but there still is alot to learn and discover. Religion has a hard time with evolving from an ape because we were “created in Gods image.” That has a hard time reconciling science with religion. Also I don’t know what peoples take on the Cambrian explosion would be.
April 4th, 2006 at 3:20 am
Taken literally “created in God’s image” is a refutation of evolution. But the Bible is written in metaphors. Therefore, we have to take the idea that we are created in God’s image to say that we are uniquely blessed among the creations. But, are our bodies the creation, or our souls? What that line represents changes depending on your answer. But that is a old discussion in the Talmuds that will probably never be solved and not an argument fit for a scientific blog.
April 4th, 2006 at 3:38 am
I didn’t get to finish since I am at work and had to leave to fix a few things. After waking up a little better I realized that I didn’t really start out right. So sorry P. Edward if it sounded like an attack on Catholics. What I was actually driving at, and I realize I could be way off, was that you seemed to me to be saying that since the catholic church was started by Peter and they endorse evolution that it must be right. Also the Jewish religion has been around since before moses and was led by Jehovah or Christ as he was called before his birth. I don’t know wether or not the Jews embrace evolution or not by the way it just seems like the startings of a weak arguement for christianity and evolution if that was where you were headed. If not then my apologies. I believe there is good in all religions and truth in all religions.
April 4th, 2006 at 3:44 am
Getting back to the parable business–I liked PZ’s door metaphor since I wrote a children’s parable-like poem as a teenager. I’d scan if I could, because it’s too long, but the gist of it is this:
This girl was like a butterfly, flitting around from flower to flower, sipping the sweet nectar of all these beautiful flowers, with little care of the world. One day as she danced and sung along the many roads she travelled she came upon this iron-clad door. It looked cold, forboding, Romanesqe-looking, and devastatingly boring. So off she flitted again to all the pretty flowers. But somehow she kept coming back to this door, so eventually she developed a curiousity about it and contemplated its nature. Then one day she touched it. It was not like cold steel–it radiated warmth, in fact, so she decided to sit down next to it and remained there basking in its warmth. The other flowers were beckoning to her to come back to them, but she said, “No, it is too fine here, I think I shall stay and learn its secret.”
Then one day amidst the wisps of wind she heard a voice say, “Why don’t you open the door?” She became cold and frightened, but decided to try because she was so curious about what was behind it. So, she pulled and tugged and finally managed to push open the door. What she found was the most exquisite flower she had ever seen, with an endless supply of nectar, so exotic and interesting…hardly boring. So, she broke down the door, forgetting all the other flowers who now seemed so drab and dull, their colors washed, their nectar bitter. And every door she came upon afterwards, she did the same, and broke each one down, still laughing, singing and dancing along all those roads.
OK, sounds corny (I’m not on drugs now and wasn’t then. It was about a not-so attractive person who was oh-so-smart; but the door was about fear, superficiality, the promises of all those otherflowers, and that often exquisite things lie behind ugly, scary doors. Self-interested people lied about a “tiger” being behind the door, but there wasn’t one. It wasn’t easy opening the iron-clad door, but it was well worth the effort to do so.
So, I would pick Door B.
I could add (since this is an astronomer’s blog) that satellites are like ugly doors; really they look like awkward insects, but the images they provide and the information they send us are exquisite.
Now, I could make up parables and metaphors all day long, and no one can say mine is any more right or wrong than another’s parable or that any story has more *truth* to it. When you get right down to it, I think I’m RIGHT. I’m arrogant enough to think I’m right. You think you’re RIGHT. I may not be able to prove to you, based on understanding human nature, mankind’s use of religion, parables, myths, stories, etc., and the need for such things, that the universe doesn’t give one whit about abstract concepts like spirituality, love, hate, and existentialism. You can’t provide me physical evidence that such supernatural things as gods exist. My cat is right now contemplating a bug. He is amused by this bug. What does it mean?? How do I know he isn’t in love with the bug? How do I know that he doesn’t think the bug was put there especially for him?
I do not begrudge people for their beliefs, for if I did I would be contradicting myself about understanding human nature. So…I think I’m right, you think you’re right…so what are we going to do about it? We can agree on plate tectonics, or that a rock came from Mars, because it is not indigenous to the Earth. It’s ironic that we can agree about rocks. Rocks, I say!
So, we must agree about rocks, at the very least. One can’t deny the rocks. Personally, I’m not going to worry about what others promise me, and make up my own stories. Otoh, some people, I admit, really do need to have some kind of “higher power” to give them strength. I regret that I inadvertently caused someone who really needed faith to stray from it–he had neither the curiousity or aptitude for what was behind the “iron-clad doors.” Before any religious scientist takes offense, I mean to say that some people can’t maintain a balance. One doesn’t need science to appreciate the physical world–science is merely a conduit to understanding it–but one does need to balance faith and the realities of the physical world, at the very least, if we are to progress. IMHO.
I post in the a.m. so I have an excuse, lol.
April 4th, 2006 at 4:18 am
BTW, at work I got ACCESS DENIED when I opened up this entry. Why? Is it PZ’s link? I can get into “The Onion” at work, but not this? Methinks “The Onion” is a chosen unblocked link. So strange to start getting these denials. (Spies at work, so I should say here: I love our techies, they’re great! GR is great, so intelligent, and might I add handsome and fit? So sad he’s leaving us. And he’s left-handed, too!
April 4th, 2006 at 4:45 am
Well,
It’s nice to hear you are going to pray for me P. Edward. Sometime I would like to have a debate with you on Christian doctrine. I would hope that you would put your trust in the scriptures rather than man-made doctrine though.
Do you also believe that the Pope is the one and only vicar of Jesus Christ?
Is he infallable? Or is he a sinner like you and me, saved by grace?
April 4th, 2006 at 5:58 am
I finally got to read that link Mr. Squid and I remeber the story in my local paper also. That would be almost impossible to really test I think because there are also plenty of people who feel aided in their recovery because of prayer. Were these people ones who actually believed prayer would help them? It doesn’t say. Also as taught by scripture, faith precedes a miracle, meaning if you don’t have faith in a prayer helping you get better, for example, then prayer won’t help you. Even Christs healings in the bible required some act from the afflicted. Easy to take a study that finds what you believe and say “see I was right”.
April 4th, 2006 at 8:16 am
Dear Mr. Squid,
I’m still waiting for your evidence pertaining to genetic mutation. I welcome somebody who will attempt to prove as to whether genetic mutation relating to natural selection actually occurs in nature. This theory is what the philogenic tree and neoDarwinism is founded on. Without proof that organisms evolve into better, stronger and even more sustainable creatures through genetic mutation evolutionary crumbles like the twin towers.
Make my day.
Tom
April 4th, 2006 at 8:25 am
Oh, yeah. I forgot the parable.
Door B. Sounds like it’s more fun.
April 4th, 2006 at 8:29 am
Hey Rad! Wassupppp? Sounds like you know a bit about scripture. Cool.
April 4th, 2006 at 8:39 am
Hey Squidman. If you are stating that evolutionists do not espouse the theories relating to abiogenisis or chemical abiogenesis, than what is their explanation for the origin of the simple organisms that everything else hypothetically originated from. It is the foundation on which a foundation was built upon. You are not making any sense.
In order for evolutionists to perpetuate their theory there is a sequence in the forming and evolving of lifeforms. You cannot divorce abiogenesis from evolution unless you replace it with either panspermia or intelligent design.
Chronology: Abiogenisis>microevolution¯oevolution>speciation and finally natural selection
Or: Creation or intelligent design >microevolution&adaptation
April 4th, 2006 at 11:23 am
Well I can hold my own with scripture but not with science. I’m working on the lattter.
April 4th, 2006 at 11:44 am
That’s cool Rad. You know what is funny about some folks in here?Some answer you through uttering that what you are stating is false or wrong and leave it at that. Like a child saying uh uh. It usually follows with no facts or logic to support their view. I find that with just about any topic.
The common denominator in a debate has to be a known reference ie. known demonstrated scientific fact if you will or the conclusions of a successfull experiment establishing proof.
With theology it has to be scripture. To have a reasonable discussion about the context of scripture, we need to take into account metaphor, hyperbole, simile, oxymoron and plainly spoken text and distinguish between them. An exhaustive study and understanding of scripture will show that there are many examples in other texts that help furnish explanations of a primary text. Do you agree?
Science is very similar.
April 4th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Elf Eye, P. Edward Murray was speaking directly to tom sevigny in that remark. It was believer to believer, so has no bearing for the rest of us.
P. Edward Murray Said:
>Other than that, yes, there are other forms of Christianity but truthfully and historically, The Catholic Church is the only one directly started by Christ himself with St. Peter as the first Pope…of course you knew that anyway.
Or so you believe, and so taught by the Roman Catholic Church. But the Protestants believe that Catholicism changed over the early years, and distorted the true vision intended by Jesus. Thus Lutheranism was the return to the true church, not leaving the true church. It’s all in perspective and opinion. Frankly, that argument is convincing to no one but a Catholic.
RAD, that article is amusing. Funny how prayer studies that confirm positive effect are lauded by christians but this one shows negative effect, so it can’t be trusted. Personally, I agree there are criticisms but they apply equally to all attempts to study prayer.
>That would be almost impossible to really test I think because there are also plenty of people who feel aided in their recovery because of prayer. Were these people ones who actually believed prayer would help them? It doesn’t say.
That people feel aided in their recovery is irrelevant. We know the placebo effect is real. People feel aided in their recovery by all sorts of nonsense, even detrimental actions they think are good for them. That’s why tests have to be conducted with controls to rule out placebo.
>Also as taught by scripture, faith precedes a miracle, meaning if you don’t have faith in a prayer helping you get better, for example, then prayer won’t help you. Even Christs healings in the bible required some act from the afflicted.
Another problem with the study, how do we know they were praying to the right god? Maybe you have to pray to the god that corresponds to the person, so all other prayers are useless? Maybe only Catholic prayers are answered (pray the rosary), and all others aren’t in the correct form. Or is it only Seventh Day Adventist prayers?
April 4th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Well stated Irishman.
If Ed refers to his own bible, the Douay Rheims version he would see that many of the statements he is making are derived from man-made dogmas and doctrine void of any support in scripture. He is entitled. I cannot judge or condemn him. I am not righteous. I can debate truth with him though, employing canonical scripture.
April 4th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
Irishman: Actually, I’m afraid the Jews were right. (2 cookies to whoever gets that reference).
April 5th, 2006 at 1:59 am
Dukrous would that be South Park?
April 5th, 2006 at 3:12 am
You know I didn’t even ask what kind of cookies first, that could be bad. If that is right they also did a “Mormons were right” episode.
Well Tom, to some extent I agree but there are plenty here who have a good amount of knowledge to share and probably just get tired of reiterating the same arguement over and over so they leave it at your wrong. I can say I have learned plenty here.
April 5th, 2006 at 7:18 am
No, It was Rowan Atkinson. He was playing the devil welcoming people to hell.
April 5th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
I wonder if Adolph Hitler is still getting pineapples stuffed up his colon in hell. Harvey Keitel is the devil, momma.
April 5th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Asking for specific mammalian mutations that have been observed to cause a new species is a trolling question. The evolution process takes time and requires specific conditions to produce a separate new species. (That is, there are long periods between the events that seem to suddently separate a species into two). That we have not witnessed any successful mammalian events during the few decades we’ve been able to study DNA means little. Check this out:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Several specific, though non-mammalian, examples of speciation are listed. These are examples that have been observed to occur, not inferred.
For speciation to occur, the mutation first needs to be beneficial. The ratio of harmful to beneficial mutations is high. We have plenty of examples of harmful mutations - but because these result in fewer or no offspring, they do not result in a new species. Many otherwise normal people are unable to have children - some of these are genetic problems caused by a mutation.
The first instances of a “good” mutation do not cause a new species, and because most populations manage to mingle with other populations nearby, any changes are eventually propagated throughout the species, over time, and thus no separate species is created.
In the historical record, though, speciation can be inferred because a given species currently extant is not present in earlier ages. Of course, one must trust the geologic record and other means of dating fossils to understand this.
jbs
April 6th, 2006 at 4:20 am
Thankyou jbs for proving my point.
April 6th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Thanks for responding jbs,
What you have just stated is correct. Genetic mutations produce an either neutral or detrimental condition to the cells of the organism. From all that I have studied and read in the past 28 years pertaining to genetics I have always understood this to be the case. Geneticists had pretty well understood this back in the 1960s.
Alteration of the DNA sequence through deletion, insertion, inversion and substitution does not demonstrate any type of beneficial effect to an organism consistent with natural selection. Since mapping of DNA of a multitude of organisms has already been accomplished and geneticists have a good understanding of the fact that each organism has pretty much identical DNA within it’s own species barring a few neutral or harmful mutations, I think it’s safe to rule out that we evolved through mutations.
You and I will experience approximately 40-100 genetic mutations in our lives. These mutations will be caused by various forms of radiation, pesticides (mutagens), household chemicals, hydrocarbons, etc. and may
experience some random mutations. It is pretty much a certainty that none of these mutations is going to yield a beneficial outcome in our physiology. The only “vestigal” organ we may lose in our lives may occur form a date with Lauraina Bobbit.
I do not trust the fossil record either, based upon conclusions and dissertations by evolutionists and paleontologists. George Gaylord Simpson, (world renowned paleontologist) made the declaration that the 32 classes of mammals are all found completely formed in the fossil record and trnasitional fossils are nonexistent. He also said that this is not only the case for mammals, but this phenomenon was universally evident throughout all species of organism.
Are you telling me that you are a proponent of punctuated equilibriam?
Because if you believe that, I have some wetland to sell you real cheap.
April 6th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
tom sevigny:
“Alteration of the DNA sequence through deletion, insertion, inversion and substitution does not demonstrate any type of beneficial effect to an organism consistent with natural selection. Since mapping of DNA of a multitude of organisms has already been accomplished and geneticists have a good understanding of the fact that each organism has pretty much identical DNA within it’s own species barring a few neutral or harmful mutations, I think it’s safe to rule out that we evolved through mutations.”
Can you point to authorities on this subject that say this?
April 6th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
Thanks for the offer of some wetland. I grew up near a minor swamp. But at the moment I have all the property, wet or dry, I can afford…
Meanwhile, I don’t believe Dr. George said exactly those words. He said the 32 classes had all their basic characteristics in the earliest fossil records, not that they were fully formed. He continues by commenting that there is an apparent convergence of the orders as you look back in time so that in the earliest records the 32 classes are more alike than they are now.
jbs
April 6th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Hey Nick,
Look up every site that has to do with genetics. I’m not talking about creationist or ID sites. Evolutionists are strangely silent about the lack of evidence that genetic mutations can cause beneficial effects. Geneticists can only site neutral or detrimental effects caused by mutation. It is well known. They go as far as considering that sickle cell anemia which is a mutation within the hemoglobin is beneficial because you are less likely to contract malaria with this condition. Geneticist Seymour Benzer was the first to begin to understand that mutations do not yield a beneficial results in his experiments with a species Drosophilia (fruit fly). Look it up.
The fact remains that unless science can prove that macroevolution occurs in nature (not adaptation & microevolution) evolution is a matter of faith.
April 6th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
Hello jbs,
Simpson made the point of stating that the lack of transitonal fossils and the fact that the 32 classes of mammals were found in the fossil evidence intact as were all organisms. What he didn’t plainly say he impleid if you study the context of his writings. These two factors contributed to the forming of the theory of punctuated equilibriam.
Punctuated equilibriam was a way of explaining away these two factors and in my opinion a feeble attempt to shore up evolutionary theory. What it did in essence is wave a wand making the fossil evidence for philogenis transition invisible in geology.
April 6th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
It’s fascinating to see that the peppered moth is still used as an example of speciation. I read comments on talk origins abbout speciation and every other word, when it times to be conclusive, is” maybe “or” this is probably because”. The fact that homosapiens cannot mate and have offspring with chimpanzees is because they have one more chromosome. Duh! That’s the way they were created. Evolutions “believe” that this through genetic mutation. They cannot prove it anymore than they can disprove ID.
I read the posts and articles in talk origins and what I read can be of interest but many of the conclusions drawn are so biased that even when the evidence is lacking it is held up as proof. Nutty.
April 7th, 2006 at 6:53 am
Correction: chimpanzees have one extra pair of chromosomes. Typo
April 7th, 2006 at 7:25 am
Nick,
Start with Seymour Benzer’s studies relating to his use of mutagens on the gametes of Drosophilia Ergonaster (spell check?) The reason he used this species of fruitfly to observe the mutation processes was that it had some
profound genetic similarities to humans and had a rapid reproduction rate.
He wanted to see if a mutagen (mutation causing agent) would produce a passed on trait in the memory of the fly. The genome was large and very similar to a human’s. Since this species of fly reproduced roughly every 24 hours, he could observe generational mutations in the lab.
He administered the mutagen to the sperm and egg of the drosophilia and as expected the progeny carried the mutation. Successfull experiment in microevolution. The fact that the mutation was not lethal to the fly gave him encouragement . The conclusion was kind of sketchy because it was understood that mutation did not produce a positive trait.The mutation was considered either neutral or harmful. These experiments go back to the 1960s, but it took until the year 2000 for geneticists to finally map out the DNA of this species of fruitfly.
Since the 1960s geneticists especially in the last decade have made many wonderful discoveriesthat have aided in prevention and cure of diseases.
Though it is understood that genetic mutations which are happening all of the time are either neutral or harmful, many are lethal evolutionists are strangely silent about this fact.
Once again, like the Rolling Stones Song said, “Time is on their side”. Somehow even though they can not prove beneficial gentic mutations presently we are to believe that over time this will occur. Magic?
April 7th, 2006 at 10:16 am
Tom, thanks for your posts. This confirms what I have recently come to realize. That is, belief in macroevolution is as much an act of faith as belief in ID.
April 7th, 2006 at 10:46 am
DJ, don’t believe everything Tom says… in fact, I haven’t seen a whole lot of accuracy from him at all. The arguments he uses are long-debunked; a readthrough of PZ Myers’ blog archives will show you that.
April 7th, 2006 at 11:01 am
That’s the third time you used the term debunked, but this time you didn’t send anybody to your favorite propoganda site at Talk Origins.
Talk Origins touts it’s site as being a unbiased site where anybody can share their views. When somebody has real doubts about the validity of evolution, they give them their definition of biological evolution: Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. It is really hard ro argue with a statement like that. It is unspecific.
Microevolution and adaptation produce those effects. The larger changes which define whole species are the changes that would need to to be observed to substantiate neoDarwinism. The “belief” that somehow a species of horse would reach up to eat off of branches of a tree rather than graze causing through natural selection over a great period of time, producing a long necked species. It is not observable in the fossil record and definitely is not demonstrable in genetics.
In a nutshell, NeoDarwinism is more of a metaphysical belief with each passing day than a scientific theory. There is no proof that genetic change is the sole causing agent for the diversity and complexity within an organism. It is merely an attempted explanation.
April 7th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
You’re a creationist, arguing about proof? This gets better all the time.
April 7th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
tom sevigny, you seem to be speaking of giraffes (long necks and whatnot). Africa is full of similar, related species of antelope relatives that eat the leaves of bushes and trees. They have them of all sizes, from the tiny dik-dik (less than 2 feet tall) to the giraffe (16 ft tall).
http://www.wildwatch.com/resources/mammals/dikdik.asp
http://library.thinkquest.org/16645/wildlife/dik-dik.shtml
Giraffes are not horses. They are only distantly related to horses, more distantly than they are related to deer.
A different theory on why giraffes evolved long necks:
http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm
April 7th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Thanks Irishman,
I thought everybody had bailed. Yeah I’m familiar with those species. They are beautiful. Africa has some beautiful wildlife. I was just making a point. The point is that they are either a species or a genus.
The real proof is in the DNA.
Hey Bad Astroman,
I wasn’t intentionally and overtly trying to offend you. The debate was raging was over natural selection and the existence or lack of genetic evidence for neoDarwinism. I think the reason why I put a thorn in your side is because I’m not preachy. You can deal with crazy theists easily enough because you have plenty of support in here for your case. It’s easy to discount a religious freak.
I’m just issuing a challenge to you to come up with some natural genetic mutations that have been observed in mammalia that have demonstrated a beneficial result consistent with natural selection. I’m aware that (artificially) geneticists are able to do a lot of things in the lab.
April 7th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
No, first, you’re not really a thorn in my side. Second, I don’t care so much whether someone is preachy or not; I care if they are wrong or not, and if they can provide evidence, and if they are using good logical reasoning. I have done some reading about evolution, and I have seen many of your claims debunked. I am an astronomer, so I try not to delve too deeply into biology, since I prefer not to talk about things I don’t know about.
April 8th, 2006 at 3:30 am
Hey tom, is this all somehow related to the cambrian explosian? That is to say the animals showing up in the foossil records fully developed. I am going to have to read into these debunked arguments so I can see both sides.
April 8th, 2006 at 5:48 am
Irishman,
As far as the explanation of how the giraff got its long neck, It says right in that article “The most recent explanation is more plausible since it provides better evidence for evolution.” This is what I think Tom is driving at and some others that if you look at the evidence with the assumption that evolution is THE answer then the evidence points to it. And this is still a giraff becoming a better giraff not a new species coming into exsistance through natural selection and evolution
April 8th, 2006 at 5:56 am
I should also mention that I realize what evolution is but as far as the origin of the species and Macroevolution is concerned this isn’t a good example to me. My opinion I realize and it will get hashed apart I’m sure but your doing here what you claim ID does in that you take an example and then make it fit what you believe to be true. I’m sure there is more evidence here but this bit doesn’t really fly with me as a good example to show evolution to be the way we evolved from primordial ooze to present day.
April 8th, 2006 at 7:21 am
More fuel to the fire
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/07/ants.study.reut/index.html
April 8th, 2006 at 7:28 am
Top of the morning to ya Rad,
Well the primordial ooze or soup thing is abiogenesis. It’s not a very viable theory. Because scientists have been able to produce some resultant enzymes and amino acids in the lab under controlled conditions, they think that over time nature through chemical abiogenesis produced simple life forms. The paradigm of spontaneous generation(abiogenesis chptr. 1) was round filed long ago, so the logical answer was to try to prove that it was through chemical means over a vast amount of time.
The strange thing about Talk Origins is that although these theories and hypotheses all have to eventually jive, they say that it doesn’t matter
” how” life originated evolution is a fact. It’s kind of like building a house on sand and saying don’t worry about erosion, it is irrelevant.
Punctuated equilibrium is the theory that I would study to debunk, Rad.
This is the way that evolutionists have explained away the overwhelming
lack of transitional fossil evidence. Approach this with your usual critical thinking.
April 8th, 2006 at 7:30 am
I’ll check in in the afternoon. I’ve got to go deliver some blueprints I just completed.
April 8th, 2006 at 10:57 am
Debunk:To expose the exagerrated or false claims, etc. of.
Sounds like an ambiguous word…
Disprove:To prove to be false.
Now that’s a word.
April 8th, 2006 at 10:59 am
The thing thats interesting about the ant story is that it once again is about ants changing into ants and no anything else beyond that.
I think that’s why debunk is used in correlation to ID instead of disprove
April 8th, 2006 at 11:15 am
When I go to bed I climb into debunk.
April 8th, 2006 at 11:17 am
What’s dis about ants?
April 8th, 2006 at 11:22 am
cnn story linked above
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/07/ants.study.reut/index.html
April 8th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Oh yeah, interesting stuff. I wonder what ants did before picnics.
April 8th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Hey Rad,
Back in 1983 I was studying solar energy and alternate energy programs and we built several active solar systems; drainback and draindown systems. We did the plumbing and controls and everything. It was cool.
I read a story about a discovery made in 1985 or so about what the most effective pigment was for a solar absorber plate. Do you know what it was?
April 8th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
Uhhh no but I’ll guess red no blue no green wait yellow?
April 8th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
There were no picnics before blossoming flowers, I mean what would you give to your date? Picnics evolved after flowers also so we could study ants
April 8th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Ha ha ha. Leaf green. Tells you a little about the way things were designed doesn’t it? We were using black absorber plates back then. Nobody ever thought of green. You know green leaves and photosynthesis and etc…
April 8th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
I almost stopped at green, not bad for an off the wall guess eh?
April 8th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Good guess man
April 8th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
I’ve been reading about the capabilities and design of the human brain.
It is something that we take for granted every moment. The amount of bits of information processed to carry out such a simple task as unlocking your car door or turning a door knob is astounding. According to one site, if you were to compare the processing capacity and memory to that of a computer, the human brain can process 20 million billion calculations per second, that’s 100 billion neurons x 1000 connections per neuron x 200 calculations per second per connection.
These control conscious and unconscious thought and all of the controls for our involuntary functions. Most of these processes are occuring and we aren’t even aware of them.
When you think about the vast complexity and capability of the human brain and the intricacy of it’s design it makes it awfully hard to accept that
we were formed by accident. Consider for a moment the plausibility that
the human body was formed through the randomness of natural selection vs. a supreme intelligence. Yeah you heard me right, not just intelligent design, but supreme intelligence. Ok you can go back to eating your ham sandwich.
April 9th, 2006 at 12:10 am
tom sevigny; Natural selection is random? Where does the “selection” come into play then?
April 9th, 2006 at 2:12 am
It s all about belief. If you truly believe in a supreme being then how can you not believe in a creative process starting life? Sure the is obviously some evolution that occurs that can’t be denied but it all started with God. As far as “poof” there’s a planet I think thats not at all the way it happened but more like taking the already existing particles and organizing them into a planet by whatever means he uses.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/04/05/supernova.blast.ap/index.html
Here is a bunch of material ready to be organized into a planet. What takes it from a swirling mass of particles andturns it into an earth or some other planet? I would say cracking the mystery is a little premature for science to claim. They did find what they expected to find out there, planet building particles orbiting a supernova but that hardly cracks the mystery of how it gets from that to taking the form of a planet. The guess is that it all bangs and fuses together until a planet forms. Wouldn’t stuff bang together just cause more smaller particles circling a star instead of fusing it together?
I would have to agree that natural selection isn’t random either.
April 9th, 2006 at 3:42 am
I think the word “smashing” was rather ill chosen and the “fusing” does not happen until the resulting “clump” is rather large.
In a cloud of dust particles orbiting a star, some will have orbits so close that eventually two particles will be so close to each other that their mutual gravity will keep them together. This will happen simultainiously all over the cloud and these double particles will intersect with other, both single particles and double particles, to form even larger clumps. The bigger clumps will begin to work as vacuum cleaners, attracting more dust particles and smaller clumps. Continue this for millions of years (possibly only thousands of years) and you will end up with one big clump that have cleaned the orbit of dust. At one point the clumps’ gravity will grow so big that the pressure at its core will cause the center to heat up and melt the particles and become a liquid. This is when the fusing start to happen.
April 9th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Natural selection indeed relies on randomness of genetic mutation. This was Charles Darwin’s observation and it is being carried by neoDarwinism. The weaker, less able to survive and reproduce in a stressed environment would indeed decrease while the stronger more adapted would be sustained and propogate.
The problem arises when you consider that for this process to accomplish macroevolution there would need to be an enormous amount of beneficial genetic mutations. What is demonstrated in nature is that genetic mutations are neutral or harnful to the organism. Even if detrimental mutations could be attributed to the inevitable disappearance of species, you still need to prove that beneficial genetic mutations are universally occuring consistent with the upward urge of evolution.
April 9th, 2006 at 10:51 am
I agree that most of the time you will see neutral or harmful genetic mutations. But when you do have mutations you, beneficial mutations are bound to happen too. They are rare and I do not for a minute believe you can observe them with the resources we can put into it over say a span of 200 years.
The mutations are in the millions over billions of years, what’s so hard to believe? That’s a lot of observations to make if you want to document it.
April 9th, 2006 at 11:11 am
Hard to “BELIEVE” ? You said it I didn’t.
April 9th, 2006 at 11:19 am
The point I was making related to the dynamic of randomness and it’s implication in natural selection and genetics.
“Bound to happen” and “believe” is what I got for a response. I’m not trying to be facetious, just making an observation Thomas.
April 9th, 2006 at 11:36 am
In our lifetimes you and I will experience between 40 and 100 genetic mutations. Many will be caused by mutagens in our environment, air or ingested food. Some will be inherent. It is almost certain that all will be neutral, detrimental and even lethal. There is a possibility however of “back” mutation which can be attributed to the correcting mechanisms which are already present in our DNA.
DNA is a lot like a computer software program. It has a mapped out plan for who you are going to be physiologically,but it also has countermeasures and safeguards to recheck the activity occurring within the cells. Amazing stuff.
Let’s be reasonable here. Don’t you think that we would observe some type of beneficial gene mutations (not synthesized) in the human physiology consistent with evolution theory?
April 9th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Another thing that makes it hard to totally buy into evolution without design is that in millions of years the best penguins can do is what is documented in march of the penguins? And why does the osteritch still have wings if they can’t fly? wouldn’t that be mutated out of their DNA and maybe grow some hands or something useful? Maybe they stay that way because girl osteritches don’t like hands? Besides I have to trim my trees soon and being able to swing like a monkey would be useful right now. I know we can be too far removed, I just look at my 4 year old and think maybe we are reverse evolving.
April 9th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
osterithces are not finished yet
April 9th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Ha ha ha
April 9th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Well like I have said before, the best way to lose a vestigial organ is to get your ole lady really mad and leave a sharp knife on the nightstand.
April 9th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
RAD, the Cambrian Explosion is not nearly as abrupt as was originally thought - it spans thousands of years. Also, traces of precursors are found in lower strata, it’s just taken a lot of looking. One of the primary reasons is that prior to the Cambrian, the body parts that were available didn’t fossilize well. Bones and calciferous shells fossilize much better than soft tissue.
As far as giraffes, you miss my point in posting that article. Tom posted a statement about the theory of how giraffes got long necks. I replied with a newer theory. That was the context, not proving macroevolution.
>It says right in that article “The most recent explanation is more plausible since it provides better evidence for evolution.†This is what I think Tom is driving at and some others that if you look at the evidence with the assumption that evolution is THE answer then the evidence points to it.
Wait, Tom posts that the theory of how giraffe necks evolved is inconsistent with Evolution. I post a new idea that is more consistent with Evolution, and now the problem is that it fits Evolution better? You seem to be picking on the choice of wording.
Again, the topic is how giraffes got long necks, not wha