Creation: Darwinian Evolutionary Frauds Pt. VIII
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Creation: Darwinian Evolutionary Frauds Pt. VIII”.
26 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
The Boston 3-Day
I will be walking the Boston 3-Day the last weekend in July in honor of Gregg's mom, Ryta Gail, who died from breast cancer when he was a little boy.
Find me on Facebook
Safe Site
We are committed to keeping the content on this site
family friendly and child safe.
-
Gregg & Hallee
Find Me on My Author Blog
* 
Hi Gregg,
.
You’ve not responded to my comment on vitamin C yet. What are your thoughts? You can try to knock down evolution all you want but all it takes is one piece of good evidence to show that it’s true.
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
Hi Neil,
.
I haven’t responded because I haven’t had time to study the issue.
.
However, I will make this observation about this comment. Your logic is exactly backward. All it takes is one limiting factor to show that evolution is NOT true. Thousands of limiting factors exist.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
Hi Gregg,
.
My logic is not backwards because I was not talking about limiting factors. I was talking about evidence that evolution has happened. Suppose I have some good evidence that evolution has happened. Surely that would show us that evolution has happened. That seems like very simple and secure logic to me. The fact that you can produce a different argument which sounds superficially similar doesn’t make my logic backwards.
.
The vitamin-C evidence is just one of many. I’ll let you get back to studying the issues…
.
May peace be with you.
Neil.
Let’s assume that a chessboard is the entire answer and we can only observe part of the chessboard in our investigation. One day we observe a white pawn and we say, “This is evidence that pawns are white!” Then, one day, we observe a black pawn.
.
I say, “Obviously, pawns were created to be either black or white from the beginning.” and you say, “No! This is ‘evidence’ that pawns can evolve from white to black!”
.
It simply depends upon interpretation of the evidence.
.
I do my research and present a scientifically sound argument that presents the limiting factor conclusively demonstrating that pawns never change color — that they are always white or always black. That limiting factor handily refutes what you interpreted and presented as evidence.
.
Thanks for your comment,
Gregg
Hi Gregg,
.
Yes, it depends on how you interpret the evidence. Like I said in my vitamin-C comment I use the scientific method to interpret it. What method do you use?
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
If there is good evidence that something happened, then you have to re-analyze your evidence that there are limiting factors which would have prevented it from happening.
Hi hd,
.
As I understand it, the limiting factors are theoretical rather than being based directly on evidence. Maybe Gregg can shed more light on this.
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
Sure. Limiting factors are not theoretical and any single limiting factor is enough to refute the entire theory.
.
Say you were to dive into the ocean and discover an old sunken ship loaded with treasure. Say you theorized that the ship sank in the year 1700 exactly. Then, say I find a coin on board dated 1705, another dated 1715, and another dated 1720. Each single coin becomes a limiting factor that logically refutes your theory. There is simply no way that the ship could have sunk before 1705 since it could not have sunk before that 1705 coin was minted. Likewise, for the coins minted in 1715 and 1720. Each single coin is a limiting factor that refutes the theory of the 1700 sinking and the 1720 coin puts the sinking at sometime after that coin was minted.
.
Suppose, though, that you have an agenda, a motive separate from pure discovery.
.
Suppose that if the ship sank later than 1700, for instance, you could not claim any part of the loot. In that case, operating under the influence of your greed driven agenda, you might hide the newer coins, perpetrate fraud, alter the data, lie about the dates, lie about me when I present the coins as contradictory evidence, ignore the coins, smugly condescend even though you are dead wrong. Or you might even attempt to fallaciously appeal to majority in order to minimize the impact of the newer coins since, “We found thousands of coins dated much earlier than 1705. I think we can ignore this newer sample as irrelevant in that context. After all we have faith that it must have sunk in 1700.”
.
You might claim ignorance like, “No one is really SURE what the conditions were like in 1700. They may have been RADICALLY different than they are today. The laws of the universe and time may not have applied and there may have been a ‘Big Sink’ that sunk the ship ahead of time. Given enough time, I’m confident we’ll get to the bottom of this.”
.
Since Darwinism amounts to a religious belief, the agenda is always a philosophy of methodological naturalism in the greater religion of secular humanism. This is how Darwinists are able to ignore hundreds — or thousands — of limiting factors that plainly refute their theory. They are able to set aside even simple logic and reason to propogate only “evidence” that supports this religious agenda.
.
I certainly hope this sheds more light.
Gregg
Hi Gregg,
.
In your ship example you have some hard evidence which refutes the claimed date of the sinking of the ship. Something you can hold in your hand. What evidence do you have that there is a limiting factor in evolution? You don’t have to go into all 1000. Like you say, just one will do. Pick the best one.
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
Be specific. What do you mean by evolution? Cosmic, Stellar, Chemical, Abiogenesis, or Macro-Evolution? I have no argument with so-called micro-evolution since that is simply changes or variations within kinds and not really “evolution” though the term has been co-opted by Darwinists since it actually DOES occur while the other five do not.
.
Also, I am all for a good debate but I will not be hounded or insulted and I will not engage someone who is disrespectful or condescending. If you are respectful and interested in debate on an equal footing, please continue.
And of course that is just the way creationist arguments sound to me.
.
I would question whether you can come up with valid limiting factors for biological evolution. I would guess that you could list things you would think are limiting factors (and maybe they are already given in previous posts). I would assume that biologists would think your ideas of limits are not supported by evidence.
“You might claim ignorance like,
“No one is really SURE what the conditions were like in 1700. They may have been RADICALLY different than they are today. The laws of the universe and time may not have applied and there may have been a ‘Big Sink’ that sunk the ship ahead of time. Given enough time, I’m confident we’ll get to the bottom of this.” ”
This example is curious: it seems exactly like the arguments from some creationists about conditions before the Fall or before Noah’s flood. For instance, maybe the rates of radioactive decay were different back then.
Good point. I really don’t indulge in those arguments.
.
I was thinking more of the Big Bang arguments about early conditions or the “Gases might have condensed in a vacuum way back then” arguments supporting so-called Stellar Evolution or even the Abiogenesis arguments.
“And of course that is just the way creationist arguments sound to me.”
.
Well, of course it is. You have your religion and I have mine.
.
“I would question whether you can come up with valid limiting factors for biological evolution.”
.
I think the biggest would be observation. Darwinian evolution has never been observed to take place. Observation is, of course, a step in the scientific process. Without observation there can only ever be speculation.
Observation isn’t a limiting factor for the processes of evolution actually happening though.
.
The small steps of evolution within ‘kinds’ are the same processes that can lead to species different enough to be classified as different genera or families or ‘kinds’. There is not a limiting factor for those processes between ‘microevolution’ and ‘macroevolution’.
I disagree. It is only “not” a limiting factor if you assume that Darwinian evolution occurs. It has never been observed.
I think there are two categories here, and what we observe or do not observe is a separate category from potential physical barriers to evolution. I think they could be discusses separately.
“I think there are two categories here, and what we observe or do not observe is a separate category from potential physical barriers to evolution. I think they could be discusses separately.”
.
Well, you asked me for the best limiting factor I could think of and I answered logically that a lack of observation of evolution occuring in the last 5000 or so years of recorded human history is a pretty convincing limiting factor.
.
Go back to the chessboard example. In my faith, I think a creator created the “chessboard” and all the pieces. I think that the creator created 8 white pawns and 8 black pawns and so forth. I think we can only ever observe a white pawn remaining a white pawn.
.
In your faith, you think that the chessboard magically appeared because the early conditions were radically different than present conditions. You believe that a common ancestral chess piece magically sprung into existence through some spontaneous generation that remains utterly unexplained and eventually grew into, perhaps a white pawn. You believe that a white pawn can evolve into, I don’t know, a black pawn or a white knight, then a bishop — or whatever. Maybe we have this entire religion based on really fancy artisitic impressions of nonsense complete with diagrams, charts, and graphs depicting various intermediate rooks and queens and whatnot.
.
But none of that is ever observed. What is observed is a white pawn, for example, is always and only ever a white pawn while a black pawn is only ever a black pawn.
.
So, in my opinion, observation is a pretty gigantic logical limiting factor.
.
What do you mean by a potential physical barrier to evolution? Are you saying there are none?
Hi Gregg,
.
It was actually me who asked you to think of the best limiting factor you could. Your answer is that we haven’t observed evolution happening in the last 5000 years or so. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that you’re right and that evolution hasn’t been observed. We need some common ground for a sensible discussion.
.
As you ask above, I’ll be more specific and say that it’s macro-evolution we’re talking about. I claimed in my comment about vitamin C that we have good evidence that macro-evolution has occurred. It doesn’t give us a direct observation of evolution occurring, but it does give good indirect evidence that it has occurred.
.
In asking for an observation of evolution occurring, you’re asking for good evidence in a particular form. It’s entirely possible that any evolution which can occur over 5000 or so years gets classified as micro-evolution. If that’s the case, we shouldn’t expect to find direct observations for macro-evolution. However, if we do find good indirect evidence that macro-evolution has occurred, we should accept that. Otherwise it wouldn’t be good evidence.
.
The question then boils down to whether the vitamin C evidence is good evidence.
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
This is a fascinating discussion; forgive me for intruding. After reading the above exchange, and the frequently referenced ‘Vitamin C’ comment by Neil, I get the impression that Gregg’s initial point is getting bogged down by the minutia of this or that.
.
The bottom line for most Information Scientists like me and Gregg is very simple: the extremely complex language and coding/decoding system found within even the so-called simplest of organisms’ DNA, RNA etc., precludes any and all fantasies of self organization. To argue otherwise would defy all established principles of Information Theory. Diminishing the role of the coding process–processes with which all good systems admins and programmers are quite familiar–belittles the complexities involved in its initial creation and subsequent adaptation. Ignoring the brilliance of this coding all-together would be intellectual suicide.
.
The bait-and-switch phenomenon rampant in these discussions does little to advance one’s argument—even to the point of talking past each other. Using words like “evolution” as a catchall to describe the various theories such as “everything from nothing/singularity evolution (cosmic),” to “gold from hydrogen evolution” (alchemy), to “bacteria from rock evolution” (spontaneous generation), even “frog to prince evolution” (macro) confuses the issue; especially when the only true evidence cited is from adaptation through natural selection and LOSS of already existing information. Define terms!
.
(BTW–Do I really need to point out that Gregg and I *DO *believe in natural selection and adaptation through *LOSS* of information? It can be considered very insulting to those who believe like we do when one rehashes the same tired proofs–most of which we do not argue against–of natural selection/information loss and extrapolate it to the other types. We are not n00bs.)
.
Gregg is presenting in this post a very humorous and sobering look at faith in a theory gone awry throughout the years. What one BELIEVES about a specific topic, as Gregg has stated, determines how any evidence is interpreted.
.
If I were walking down the street at night in New York City (I live in another part of Afghanistan from Gregg–I miss streets–even NYC ones–*sigh*) and saw a person with a slim-jim tool attempting to break in to a Porsche parked across the street, what I believe about what is occurring would determine my course of action. Do I call the cops on the scoundrel or help an ill-fated motorist obtain access to his own vehicle? Should I even care? My belief about the evidence I gather in a few brief moments will guide me in my analysis and determine my course of action.
.
Observation alone is not enough. It requires a correct framework for interpretation. Believing that one’s opponent is too ignorant to understand one’s own enlightenment does little for intelligent debate. Refusing to believe that there is more than one logical way to look at something is equally unfortunate. Worst of all is taking oneself so seriously to not to see the humor in some of one’s own beliefs. Let us lighten up, all you “ones”! :)
Gregg said he would do a post on information and books like those of Meyer and Dembski after he finished his fraud series.
(I still haven’t read those books yet and I’m not sure that I will.)
But since you’re talking about defining terms, maybe you or Gregg could clear up a point right away about your view on loss of information.
Suppose there is a single base pair change in the DNA in an animal’s genome ( for instance, from GACTG to GAGTG). Is this a loss of information because the original sequence is altered and no longer exists on that chromosome? Or is it a gain of information because the animal now has a new and different sequence on that chromosome? Or maybe it is both a loss and a gain?
Another example:
Suppose a gene is duplicated on a chromosome through an error during cell division? Is this a loss of information because the original sequence (one gene) is now altered and lost (replaced by the different sequence of two genes). Or is it a gain in information because the animal now has one extra copy gene on the chromosome? (An extra copy in some locations or for some genes would allow a faster synthesis of the gene’s protein.) Or both? Neither?
Hi Arrian,
.
Welcome to the discussion. Believe me, I don’t think you’re n00bs. If I thought Gregg and you were too ignorant to understand my “enlightened” view, I wouldn’t be here. I apologize for using confusing language at times. I’m quite used to using the word evolution to refer to the evolution of species: micro-evolution and macro-evolution. It’s difficult to remember to be specific every time.
.
I also apologize for using rehashes of tired proofs if I have. I don’t know which proofs you’ve become tired of. I should clarify that although the vitamin C evidence involves the loss of information, it is evidence for macro-evolution rather than micro-evolution because it involves the comparisons of genes between species. This comparison shows us that various primates, including humans, have a common ancestor.
.
I agree that we need a good framework for interpreting evidence. I try to use the scientific method, a method which has given us the understanding to produce modern technology.
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
I was responding to this:
” All it takes is one limiting factor to show that evolution is NOT true.”
The fact that we haven’t observed something (macroevolution) that by its nature we can’t reasonably expect to observe in the short term does not at all show that evolution is not true. It might be a limiting factor for you not to accept it, but that’s a different thing. As Neil said, we have indirect evidence for macroevolution.
By limiting factors, I expected you to list some of the things you’ve mentioned before, like maybe the mathematical improbabilities you’ve given, or maybe the idea of irreducible complexity or the age of the earth. For abiogenesis, I think you mentioned several – like L-amino acids, where the amino acids came from etc. These are more in line with what I meant by physical barriers because you can look at evidence for and against them. (Not that I’m interested in going back and discussing them at the moment, just trying to clarify what I was thinking.)
Since according to the ideas of biological evolution the processes for evolution within species and of different species are the same processes that would be involved in the eventual development of species different enough to be classified into separate families, there is no physical barrier between microevolution and macroevolution.
Gregg,
The photo from Pauli (1949, not 1946, my error in the original) that you identify as three “Philippine women” is identified by the author as three microcephalics (pg. 583). Probably British or American. The girls were there to support an argument for eugenics, not evolution. Extremely disagreeable for sure, but not good evidence for your general argument.
More problematically, the photo from Smith (1943, not 1938), was certainly not placed by the author to illustrate “primitive” and “more highly evolved” races, but was there to illustrate exactly the opposite point. Ella Thea Smith was in fact among the first biology textbook authors to challenge the conceptualization common among evolutionists and creationists alike that the so-called races represented some kind of natural or God-ordained hierarchy. Smith was also among the first to challenge the existence of a natural or God-ordained hierarchy of classes.
All this made Smith’s textbook, Exploring Biology, marginally less acceptable with school boards and textbook approval committees … of all stripes. Personally, I find it very interesting that the significantly more eugenic, racist and scientifically out-of-step Modern Biology (1947, 1951, 1956, 1960, 1963 …) was more popular, particularly in more conservative areas of the country. And all that text had to do to curry favor among Christians uncomfortable with the use of the word “evolution” in their kids’ classrooms was use the phrase “racial development” instead.
That’s interesting, right?
Finally, if I can ask a favor? As you seem to find regular value in my blog, Textbook History, I’d very much appreciate the occasional link.
“…there to support an argument for eugenics, not evolution. Extremely disagreeable for sure, but not good evidence for your general argument.”
.
Social Darwinism includes Eugenics. Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s first cousin, was the father of Eugenics and built on the “new science” of Darwin’s theory.
.
.
“Personally, I find it very interesting that the significantly more eugenic, racist and scientifically out-of-step Modern Biology was more popular, particularly in more conservative areas of the country.”
.
I would be really interested to know the qualifiable or quantifiable basis for this statement since school boards and educational administrators in general are known to be significantly less conservative than the mainstream members of the community in which they serve.
.
.
“And all that text had to do to curry favor among Christians uncomfortable with the use of the word “evolution” in their kids’ classrooms was use the phrase “racial development” instead. That’s interesting, right?”
.
It is an interesting opinion. I just don’t find that it is supported by facts or qualifiable/quantifiable evidence. After all, if someone is actually a racist, they automatically are not espousing Christian values. So, the evidence would indicate that someone who teaches or advocates the teaching of racism is not a Christian by definition.
.
Factually, historically, it was Christians who operated the Underground Railroad and who campaigned across the southern United States to end segregation. Those interesting facts are supported by qualifiable and quantifiable evidence and not really a matter of opinion.
.
.
Thanks for visiting and sharing your rather unique opinions. Please visit again.
“Factually, historically, it was Christians who operated the Underground Railroad and who campaigned across the southern United States to end segregation.”
Gregg, you are absolutely correct. And the ongoing movement toward recognition of and protection for individual civil rights – regardless of race, class, gender, religion, sexual orientation (yeah New York!) – has often, though certainly not exclusively, been driven through our churches (the last one, sadly, not so much). I’ve actually gotten into arguments with secular friends who cannot admit that a Christian minister led the struggle for black civil rights.
Many US biologists, conservative and liberal, religious and secular, throughout the first six or seven decades of the twentieth century, held to a belief that physical, emotional and cultural traits were the product of hereditary factors. As a rule, these biologists saw social welfare efforts as challenges to their authority and as competition for their funding.
Spending philanthropic and/or tax dollars on the institutionalization of the “feeble-minded” and the criminal, and support for tramps and “reliefers,” was framed not only as a waste of money, but as a “dysgenic” act, weakening the qualities of “the race.” It is an historical fact that “the doctrine of evolution” was forwarded to support this view. It was argued that dollars needed to be moved out of “womanly” social services and into “masculine” scientific management; that policies had to be written and dollars had to be spent to ensure that fewer children were born into “lesser” families and more were born into “superior” families.
Hitler barely made a dent in these beliefs.
What did dent, and eventually destroy, eugenics (in the 60s and 70s) were three movements – black civil rights, disability rights and what we used to call “women’s liberation.” Of these, the black civil rights movement was the most important. It became impossible for anyone to support any ideology (or faith) that ordered human beings into pre-determined hierarchies. Though it had been challenged in scientific circles since the 20s, it wasn’t until the end of the 1950s that the “science” that supported racial differentiations finally came under sustained attack.
The writing was on the wall by the end of that decade, and both conservative Christians and liberal secularists were forced to rapidly rewrite their histories to distance themselves from proximate racism and exploit the new social landscape. Geneticists erased eugenics from their textbooks (though a few, like the Southern Baptist Bentley Glass didn’t get the message). Conservative Christians erased their very real and very recent support for racial ordering, including their ravenous endorsement of the ideas of folks like Yankee Carleton Putnam (see Race and Reason – big pdf, sorry).
Here’s were the genius of Henry Morris emerged. He spotted the weakness in biology’s armor – the racism implied in the continued promotion of eugenics, now called “population management,” by men like Julian Huxley – and adopted the Seventh Day Adventist’s hard creationist line to frame an effective conservative response (Ronald Numbers is really good on this history). Morris took race off the table. By doing so, with “The Genesis Flood” in 1961, and the I believe even more important “The Twilight of Evolution” in 1963, Morris allowed conservative Christians to get the jump on secularists with a solid critique of an ideology – hereditary determinism – many liberals didn’t even know the theory of evolution was being used to support.
But as there were precious few real “good guys” in our country’s racist past, there are no real winners in our increasingly polarized present. Secularists tend to frame Christian values as the weapons of reactionaries, Christians tend to frame science as a foreign agent, or the Devil incarnate.
Maybe there is no other way.
Regarding your insistence that I offer a qualifiable or quantifiable basis for my arguments, the best source is my blog, Textbook History. There I publish not only my “opinions,” such as they are worth, but original quantitative and reasonably evidenced qualitative studies based a pretty decent data set – over 100 American biology textbooks published between 1907 and 1970, and many dozens of supporting studies and documents.