The turkeytalk challenge- a creationist responds

[Ben]

Helen Fryman of http://www.carm.org has sent me a response to the turkeytalk challenge. To briefly summarize the challenge:

In order to be considered a real science, creation "science" must be able to explain the basic data. I have outlined 11 bits of evidence from molecular genetics which creation science must, at minimum, be able to explain at least as well as evolution in order to be taken seriously.

Since this is about creation science's ability to explain the evidence, then certain kinds of arguments constitute automatic failure:

* Irrelevant arguments. Don't talk about moon dust if you're supposed to be explaining genetics.

* Attacks on evolution. This isn't about disproving evolution; it's about showing that creation science can explain the evidence.

* Declarations that creation science doesn't need to explain the evidence. If creation science is real science, then its raison d'etre is to explain all the evidence.

* Quotefests. Don't quote some high muckey-muck saying that evolution is bunk, or protein homology is bunk, or that all the evidence has already been explained away. You can only quote an authority if you are quoting a particularly lucid explanation of the facts.

* Declarations that it's unfair for me to use technical jargon. My use of jargon is not meant to obfuscate; the unfortunate fact of the matter is that there is no layman's term for words like "intron" or "exon." I have already provided a detailed FAQ (http://psyche11.home.mindspring.com/molevol2.html ) explaining all of the technical terms I use.

* Declarations that it's unfair of me to expect creationists to be able to handle molecular genetics. This has already been discussed at some length in the original thread, but the long and short of it is that if lay creationists want to claim that mainstream molecular genetics is wrong, they should be able to back that position with argument. Moreover, nothing stops them from seeking out creationist molecular geneticists who could answer the questions for them- nothing, that is, except for the fact that creation science is a lie, and cannot provide answers to the questions.

My challenge is specifically addressed to people who believe that a hypothesis involving the separate creation of individual kinds is supported by the scientific evidence. If anyone can provide such a framework with valid explanations of the elevent questions, I will read three books of their choice. (Like I said, I don't have money to give away like Kent Hovind- so I have to offer something more valuable.)

Here is the original thread, with the eleven questions:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...7&pagenumber=1

In my next post I'll present Fryman's arguments.

-Ben

[Ben]

Here's Helen Fryman's reply. I've quoted my original post and inserted her replies.


------------------------------------

Took a look at the questions. It's too bad a lot of you evolutionist apologizers don't keep up with real science. Here are some responses marked by asterisk lines. (Note: I've removed the asterisks, since it's possible to indicate her replies using the quote tag.) You may post them if you want, but I don't have time to get involved in the forum:

Originally posted by Ben
I've been hearing some creationist rumblings here and there on the SDMB lately, but no one really comes out and makes an argument. Wildest Bill claimed that evolutionists are trying to indoctrinate children with the "ole trick" of claiming it's a fact when it isn't.

Depends on what sort of evolution is being talked about. Variation is known and proved. The type of evolution that posits that a single celled original cell was precursor to all the life forms we have today is not only not proved but is biologically impossible.

ImNotMad has made some vague, handwaving statements about "design."

Fairly easy to see unless one is intentionally blind or ignorant.

Mahaloth states that evolution is "just a religion."

I strongly disagree. However evolution is the science preferred by the religion of materialistic naturalism, which credits matter with creative abilities.

Talk is cheap, folks! You could just as well talk about the "ole trick" of claiming that the sky is blue when it isn't, or talk about the "religion" of General Relativity. But where's the evidence?

In particular, why has no one attempted to answer the stumper questions?

1. Why do the calculated phylogenetic trees (ie "family trees") of orthologous proteins agree with the pattern of relationships between species which evolutionists claim to have reconstructed from the fossil record?

They don't. See Henry Gee's "In Search of Deep Time" if you want verification of this point from an editor of Nature.

Why do unrelated proteins serve similar functions in cases where evolutionists claim that those functions evolved independently in the fossil record? (For example, odorant binding proteins in vertebrates and insects, and lens crystallins in vertebrates and molluscs.)

Considering that evolutionists claim that convergent evolution is responsible for anything direct descent might not be, there is no way to disprove evolution nor is there any trick evolutionists can't pull out of their grab bag of tricks to claim that 'this is what we predicted.' These things are NOT predicted by evolution but evolution is altered when necessary to accomodate them. There is a big difference between prediction and accomodation. In the meantime, for you, why do vastly different molecular pathways get used by different organisms to produce RNA???? How does evolution explain THAT one?

2. Why does the arrangement of genes and pseudogenes in the hemoglobin clusters correlate with their calculated phylogenetic trees?

They don't.

3. Why are similar functions sometimes served by completely different proteins? Why are completely different functions sometimes served by similar proteins?

That is the handiwork of God, or in Walter ReMine's words, The Biotic Message. There is no way evolution can account for it. We do not have to explain that one, you do.

4. Why do retrogenes lack introns, and have a poly-A tail? Why are they sometimes cut short? Why are they flanked by repeat sequences which are characteristic of transposons and other inserted sequences?

So that the genetic code will be read correctly.

5. Why do pseudogenes exist? How do you explain their observed features?

Actually, calling them pseudogenes is probably an expression of our ignorance rather than their lack of function. We have recently found that some genes are turned on only by extreme circumstances, such as stress. I'm sure, if you have kept up with the literature, you have read about this. There are probably some sections of the genome which are no longer operative, which would be predicted by creation, as we know that mutations do happen and that they do disable sections of the genome. They are heritable when they are not affecting the organism before replication and exist in the germ cells.

6. Why do transposons exist? Why do some transposons carry pseudogenes for transposases?

When this is a subject which is under intense study right now, why are we supposed to know the answers when you don't?

7. Why do introns exist? How do you explain their observed features?

What observed features are you talking about?

8. Why are exons predominantly of class 1-1? Why is exon class conserved when particular exons appear over and over again in different proteins?

Did you know that trying to impress people with technical material is not impressive? Did you also know that genes are responsible for FAR less than we originally credited them for? Did you know that a fertilized frog egg can have the entire genetic package removed and it will still go through the first cell divisions before death? Those first cell divisions are NOT genetically controlled. Would you care to explain what is actually happening? There are a large number of geneticists and biologists who would be fascinated with your explanation if it has anything to do with reality at all.

9. Why do pseudoexons exist?

Why do you call them 'pseudo'?

10. Why do we see the observed mutation rates (creationists might prefer to think of them as "observed number of differences") for different classes of genetic information? Why do pseudogenes differ between species roughly as much as introns and fourfold degenerate sites do, while protein coding genes differ much less?

Try using your head. Protein coding genes, when they differ, kill the organism. Thus they don't get passed on. As for seeing observed mutation rates, would you expect us to somehow see unobserved mutation rates???? It is, in the meantime, not what we observe, but how we interpret it which is the sticking point.

11. Why do amino acids on the outside of proteins show higher mutation rates (or observed differences, if you prefer) than amino acids in the hydrophobic core or active sites of proteins?

Gee, I don't know. What do you think?

Go right ahead, guys. Prove the superiority of creation science over the evilutionist house of cards. I ask any and all believers in creation science to put their money where their mouth is by answering these eleven questions.

This list is absurdity plus. What you are trying to do is back some creationists into a corner where you have expertise and they don't and this does nothing regarding the creation evolution debate except prove that you are an intellectual snob.

(Please note that weaselling is not permitted. Your task is to provide a scientific explanation of the biological facts within a creationist framework. Diversionary tactics, such as attacking evolution without supporting creationism or introducing irrelevant subjects such as the Paluxy tracks or moon dust will be considered an implicit admission of abject defeat.)

In the meantime, would you care to explain the specified complexity we see in a flower in terms of evolution? Or perhaps give me the list of mutations necessary to produce a hip joint in a fish? Or perhaps you would like to tell me why no parent I have ever heard of jumps for joy when told their newborn has a mutation, thinking it might be a good one?

[Ben]

Originally emailed by Helen Fryman
Took a look at the questions. It's too bad a lot of you evolutionist apologizers don't keep up with real science.

We'll see who's been keeping up with real science...

Depends on what sort of evolution is being talked about. Variation is known and proved. The type of evolution that posits that a single celled original cell was precursor to all the life forms we have today is not only not proved but is biologically impossible.

Talk is cheap. Prove that it's biologically impossible.

Incidentally, it's unfortunate that Fryman doesn't actually explain what her hypothesis is. If you check her website, you see that she's a YEC.

They don't. See Henry Gee's "In Search of Deep Time" if you want verification of this point from an editor of Nature.

Actually, he's Chief Science Writer at nature. You've failed on a few counts here:

* Quotefests aren't permitted.

* You don't explain what the real pattern of the fossil record is, provide evidence to back that view, and show how it can be explained from within your creationist framework.

* The textbooks state that in broad strokes, the genetic evidence agrees with the fossil record. I've performed the phylogenetic calculations myself, and I have seen that they agree. Even prominent creationists like Jack Sarfati agree that genetic evidence shows alligators to be more closely related to birds than other reptiles, although they are too ignorant to realize that that is exactly what you would expect from the fossil record. I haven't read Gee's book, but I imagine he discusses the fine points at which the fossil and genetic records disagree because they are ambiguous.

Considering that evolutionists claim that convergent evolution is responsible for anything direct descent might not be, there is no way to disprove evolution nor is there any trick evolutionists can't pull out of their grab bag of tricks to claim that 'this is what we predicted.'

Another failure condition: this is about explaining the evidence, not about attacking evolution.

These things are NOT predicted by evolution but evolution is altered when necessary to accomodate them.

On the contrary, if you read the actual question:

"Why do unrelated proteins serve similar functions in cases where evolutionists claim that those functions evolved independently in the fossil record?" (emphasis added.)

You'll see that these examples are, in fact, precisely what evolution would predict. The fossil evidence came first, followed by the genetic evidence.

There is a big difference between prediction and accomodation. In the meantime, for you, why do vastly different molecular pathways get used by different organisms to produce RNA???? How does evolution explain THAT one?

Again, you've met the failure condition. You've made no effort to explain the question, and are merely attacking evolution.

In any event, would you care to cite your arguments about RNA? Cites from the primary literature, that is.

They don't.

"If the Earth is flat, why do Apollo photographs show-"

"They don't."

I have a paper or two here that says they do. Maybe you would care to address the evidence, rather than dismissing it?

That is the handiwork of God, or in Walter ReMine's words, The Biotic Message.

I'm afraid that this is just a vague quotefest, minus any actual quote. What is the Biotic Message? Why would God's message to us look exactly like what you'd expect from evolution?

There is no way evolution can account for it. We do not have to explain that one, you do.

On the contrary, it's exactly what you would expect from evolution. If you pick up any textbook on evolution, you'll see the explanation. I even explained this point in detail in the FAQ! Perhaps if you were to study evolution before criticising it?

So that the genetic code will be read correctly.

You're claiming an effect completely unknown to mainstream science, and I ask that you back your point with evidence. Moreover, non-retrogenes have introns, lack a poly-A tail, and are flanked by repeat sequences, and yet they are read just fine. And why do retrogenes need to be cut short in order to be read correctly? Shouldn't it be the case that full-length genes are needed?

Actually, calling them pseudogenes is probably an expression of our ignorance rather than their lack of function. We have recently found that some genes are turned on only by extreme circumstances, such as stress. I'm sure, if you have kept up with the literature, you have read about this.

Of course I'm aware of the fact that some genes are only turned on under extreme circumstances. But you seem to be completely unaware of the basic facts of pseudogenes. Pseudogenes contain stop codons which would terminate any attempt to turn them into protein, and thus cannot be expressed. Moreover, the mutation rate for pseudogenes is equal to that of other regions of the genome which mainstream science considers to be nonfunctional.

There are probably some sections of the genome which are no longer operative, which would be predicted by creation, as we know that mutations do happen and that they do disable sections of the genome. They are heritable when they are not affecting the organism before replication and exist in the germ cells.

Then why does the distribution of the pseudogenes follow the pattern you'd expect from the fossil record? Why do higher primates, including humans, share a vitamin C synthase pseudogene?

When this is a subject which is under intense study right now, why are we supposed to know the answers when you don't?

Read the FAQ for the "answers."

What observed features are you talking about?

See the FAQ. Among other things, Introns have a mutation rate comparable to pseudogenes.

Did you know that trying to impress people with technical material is not impressive?

Did you know that there is no layman's term for exon class? Please answer the question.

Did you also know that genes are responsible for FAR less than we originally credited them for? Did you know that a fertilized frog egg can have the entire genetic package removed and it will still go through the first cell divisions before death? Those first cell divisions are NOT genetically controlled. Would you care to explain what is actually happening?

Not only does this not explain the evidence, it has nothing to do with the question at all!

I must admit that I'm a little puzzled by the "DNA denial" that is becoming increasingly common among creationists. Epigenetic information is old hat to mainstream science, and it's not clear to me why creationists have relatively recently latched onto it as some sort of proof against evolution. As in Fryman's reply, the argument is generally too incoherent for me to find any logical thread connecting the two. I think it started with this essay by Jonathan Wells:

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/hobi182.htm

If I've got the right essay, then Wells seems to be claiming that DNA doesn't contain the information needed to build an organism from a zygote, and implying that God must sculpt every embryo by hand. But again, creationists never explain this point in any detail.

There are a large number of geneticists and biologists who would be fascinated with your explanation if it has anything to do with reality at all.

It has a lot to do with reality. Read the FAQ, and you'll see.

Why do you call them 'pseudo'?

Read the FAQ.

Try using your head. Protein coding genes, when they differ, kill the organism. Thus they don't get passed on.

As Darwin's Finch already pointed out in the old thread, this is a strangely evolutionist answer, coming from a creationist.

As for seeing observed mutation rates, would you expect us to somehow see unobserved mutation rates????

Instead of nitpicking on my wording, I'd rather you actually answered the question.

It is, in the meantime, not what we observe, but how we interpret it which is the sticking point.

Yes, I suppose that was the entire point of my asking you the question, wasn't it...

Would you care to actually provide us with your interpretation?

Gee, I don't know. What do you think?

Read the FAQ.

This list is absurdity plus. What you are trying to do is back some creationists into a corner where you have expertise and they don't

You mean like Duane Gish does? Would you care to criticise him for using that tactic?

and this does nothing regarding the creation evolution debate except prove that you are an intellectual snob.

No, it proves that creationism can't answer the evidence. Creationism is Potemkin science: it only exists at the surface that the public sees. Once you look behind the facade and ask uncomfortable questions about more advanced evidence, the creationists call you a snob.

In the meantime, would you care to explain the specified complexity we see in a flower in terms of evolution? Or perhaps give me the list of mutations necessary to produce a hip joint in a fish?

What did I just say? Anyway, Darwin's Finch has already addressed these in the old thread.

Or perhaps you would like to tell me why no parent I have ever heard of jumps for joy when told their newborn has a mutation, thinking it might be a good one?

Again, this has already been explained by Darwin's Finch. Oftentimes creationists phrase it as, "Why does no agronomist jump for joy when he finds that one of his plants has a mutation?" Haven't you folks heard of ruby red grapefruit? It arose from a mutation in the 1950's. Modern canola oil was the result of random radiation-induced mutations in rapeseed.

In my own work, we often try to analyze protein structures in light of clinically relevant mutations. When we do this, we have to keep in mind that there are four kinds of mutations:

1. Mutations so bad that they kill the embryo within days. (We never hear about these, because doctors never see them.)

2. Moderately bad mutations, which allow the patient to survive but cause disease. (These are the ones we know about, because they come to the attention of doctors.)

3. Neutral mutations. (We never see these in clinical databases, but we can find them by comparing orthologous proteins.)

4. Beneficial mutations. (We rarely see these, although they exist, because good news doesn't draw attention like bad news does. As a result, you don't hear about them unless they're part of a clinical study.)

In any event, don't you believe in microevolution? How do bacteria gain antibiotic resistance, if not through beneficial mutations?

-Ben

[Ben]

DNA denial appears again:

http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/histonecode81001.htm

No explanation of why it's of such interest to creationists, though- this was ARN's front-page story.

Incidentally, I've written ARN about the challenge. To date, I've written four creationist websites about the challenge, while the creationists on SDMB haven't written to a single one. Don't be shy, guys- if creation "science" is real science, then you should be proud to find someone who can answer the questions.

-Ben

[Ben]

I've now written http://ChristianAnswers.Net about the questions.

Thus far the count is:

Carm (Helen Fryman's answers)
Revolution against Evolution (No response due to understandable personal crisis)
ARN
ChristianAnswers
AnswersInGenesis (gave me a SECRET reply which I can't tell you about )

and, of course, the creationists at talk.origins, only one of whom attempted to answer even one of the questions.

Am I forgetting anything?



-Ben

[kaylasdad99]

So, I guess you're not going to read Dr. Fryman's book list, huh?

Did she even say what the titles were?

BTW, what's up with the AIG folks believing they can place a no re-transmittal codicil onto an e-mail that they voluntarily sent to you? And what's up with you caving to them? Can you at least share with us the language in the original text that makes yo believe they have the right to copyright stuff they placed in your inbox?

[manhattan]

Ben, I'm all against the lies of Creationism and everything, but geez.

What, precisely, is your point here? Should I reproduce all my emails, too? (half the board here shouts, "noooooo!")

Wanna debate some lady with a website? Go for it. Wanna debate someone here? Find someone to debate. This whole series of "I wrote these people who don't post to this board and here is what they said, and they are wrong and so there" is nothing more than a self-aggrandizing ego trip on your part.

[sdimbert]

Originally posted by manhattan
Wanna debate some lady with a website? Go for it. Wanna debate someone here? Find someone to debate. This whole series of "I wrote these people who don't post to this board and here is what they said, and they are wrong and so there" is nothing more than a self-aggrandizing ego trip on your part.

Actually, manny, the word that came to my mind was "mastubatory."

Seriously, Ben, you've convinced us all that you know your stuff. But, if nobody wants to talk about it, why not let it drop?

[manhattan]

Originally posted by manhattan
...but geez.

Originally posted by sdimbert
Actually, manny, the word that came to my mind was "mastubatory."

So, are you trying to say that I misspelled "jizz?"

[sdimbert]

[quote]Originally posted by manhattan

So, are you trying to say that I misspelled "jizz?"

Yuck.

Yuckyuckyuck.

Yucky yuckity yuckyuck.

[9Amber]

Ben:

Your questions have been asked on this thread at ARN:
http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000912.html

[DouglasOfCalifornia]

This whole series of "I wrote these people who don't post to this board and here is what they said, and they are wrong and so there" is nothing more than a self-aggrandizing ego trip on your part. [/b]

Well, maybe I'm the only one who did, but I enjoyed reading it.

Even learned a thing or two, actually.

[Liberal]

I don't understand why she can't refer you to a book (Henry Gee's "In Search of Deep Time") but you can refer her to an FAQ.

[vanilla]

I once read a book by a Harold Hill "proving" creationism true.
Wish I coudl recall the name of it.

[JonF]

Originally posted by vanilla
I once read a book by a Harold Hill "proving" creationism true.
Wish I coudl recall the name of it.

"From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo". Aimed at children.

The only thing I can find on the Web is from WHY GOD'S PEOPLE SHOULD REJECT EVOLUTION:

"Harold Hill, in his humorous book on creation, From Goo to You by Way of The Zoo, proposed an experiment in entropy which anyone can do. Just let yourself go--do nothing at all to take care of yourself. Here is what will happen:

After one day, you feel like a slob.
After two days, you look like a slob.
After three days, you smell like a slob.
After four days, you are a slob.

Despite your best efforts you won't evolve wings, but others might--to get away from you! Contrary to what advertisers tell us, you're not getting better, you're getting older. Nothing gets better or more complicated without some form of intelligence directing it. I don't like to keep repeating myself, but where there is a design there has to be a designer . . ."

That's pretty meaningless and pointless, and has nothing to do with entropy or evolution ... I don't know if it's representative of the entire book.

[kabbes]

Because, Lib, Ben wrote that FAQ himself. This means that it isn't a quotefest, but his own explanation.

Furthermore, the FAQ answers factual questions, such as "what are exons?" It doesn't attempt to debate in itself.

pan

[APB9999]

Let me make a few things clear.
1) I'm an atheist
2) I believe that evolution is the correct explanation for the charateristics of the current biota of earth as well as the now-inorganic evidence left by past organisms (like the fossil record).
3) I can put myself in the other guy's shoes and try to construct an argument on his behalf. It doesn't mean I believe that argument.

That said, I will take a shot at a couple of the items on your list, Ben.

Numbers one and two: Why do the calculated phylogenetic trees (ie "family trees") of orthologous proteins agree with the pattern of relationships between species which evolutionists claim to have reconstructed from the fossil record?

I can imagine God creating the world, and that world having the characteristic given. In what way is that observation INcompatible with creationism? Moreover, if an intelligent designer were to make a type of creature, like an alligator, and another similar creature, like a bird, he might use similar methods at the molecular level. Morphology might reflect the same aesthetic, hence a correlation between the fossil record and homologies. Why would God NOT make similar homologies in morphologically similar organisms? Really, a designer can do anything that takes his fancy.
[Note: You may object that this does not have any explanatory power, that it's silly, etc. I agree. But it is not formally false in any way. This is the problem with a theory that has a God who is both omnipotent and inscrutable - it can explain ANYthing, after the fact.]

The best you can say is that there are two observations: the fossil record implies a phylogeny, and molecular homologies imply clades that mirror that phylogeny. You are making the obvious (to me) leap that there is a common cause behind these observations, but that is not strictly logically required. Correlation does not always imply cause. Certainly, the creation theory is much poorer explanation than evolution, but that's as far as you can go. I realize of course that that's your point.

As I write this, I find myself thinking that the confusion in the creationist camp may have less to do with specific points of biology than with a general notion of what constitutes a good explanation for observations in science. After all, I expect most would argue with my above assertion that creation theory IS a poorer explnantion, and that may be easy to show if we can get agreement on what the definition of an explanation in science is. This is a point perhaps easier to argue, since it is a step removed from the emotionalism that often surrounds evolution for the true believers.

[Liberal]

Because, Lib, Ben wrote that FAQ himself. This means that it isn't a quotefest, but his own explanation.

What's the diff? As E. Poe said, "No man has ever had an original thought."

Whether a paraphrase of something he learned or the very thing he learned from, I see no difference in this context between quoting oneself or someone else.

Furthermore, the FAQ answers factual questions, such as "what are exons?" It doesn't attempt to debate in itself.

But the lady offered the book's information as a factual answer to Ben's question, i.e., "if you want verification of this point from an editor of Nature."

[vanilla]

Thanks. It was an interesting book.

[Ben]

Originally posted by manhattan
What, precisely, is your point here? Should I reproduce all my emails, too? (half the board here shouts, "noooooo!")

Am I really reproducing all my emails? I asked Fryman for a reply for the SDMB, and she gave me one, specifically stating that I had permission to post it on the board. It seems to me that if she didn't want you to hear what she had to say, she wouldn't have spent the time to craft a lengthy reply, much less given me permission to post it.

We also have kaylasdad99 and Mangetout asking that I post the AiG email, although I have declined to do so. Moreover, DouglasofCalifornia has stated that he is finding this thread to be worthwhile. If you and "half the board" don't want to read Fryman's side of the argument, why not just read a different thread, instead of trying to spoil it for the rest of us?

Wanna debate some lady with a website? Go for it. Wanna debate someone here? Find someone to debate. This whole series of "I wrote these people who don't post to this board and here is what they said, and they are wrong and so there" is nothing more than a self-aggrandizing ego trip on your part.

Since the original thread went to 5 pages and about 250 posts, and since IzzyR, cmkeller, Darwin's Finch, etc., etc., and even sdimbert (who now characterizes the thread as "masturbatory") had earlier expressed an interest in the discussion, you'll have to excuse me if I thought people would find it interesting to hear the creationist side of the argument.

-Ben

[Ben]

Originally posted by Libertarian
I don't understand why she can't refer you to a book (Henry Gee's "In Search of Deep Time") but you can refer her to an FAQ.

What do you feel I should have done instead of referring her to the FAQ?

-Ben

[Ben]

Originally posted by sdimbert
Seriously, Ben, you've convinced us all that you know your stuff.

Seriously, sdimbert, you're making some insulting assumptions about my motives. Do you really think your assumptions are warranted? Do you think you can be so sure of your analysis that it warrants insulting me right off the bat, rather than first taking a more polite approach?

But, if nobody wants to talk about it, why not let it drop?

On what grounds do you base your observation that "nobody wants to talk about it"? As I pointed out to Manhattan, it seems to me that this has been one of the longer threads in GD.

-Ben

[Ben]

Originally posted by vanilla
I once read a book by a Harold Hill "proving" creationism true.
Wish I coudl recall the name of it.

I believe the title was Evolution: Starts with "E", Which Rhymes with "T."

-Ben

[Ben]

Originally posted by 9Amber
Ben:

Your questions have been asked on this thread at ARN:
http://www.arn.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000912.html

Thanks for the link- I found it interesting to see who posted them. At least now I know my email to ghoti actually got through!

-Ben

[Liberal]

What do you feel I should have done instead of referring her to the FAQ?

Nothing more nor less than what you asked of her. Instead of, "Read my FAQ", simply "We call them 'pseudo' because..." Either that, or let her refer you as well.

[Ben]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Nothing more nor less than what you asked of her. Instead of, "Read my FAQ", simply "We call them 'pseudo' because..."

You mean that I should have pasted the relevant portion of the FAQ here?

Either that, or let her refer you as well.

Refer me to a book which clearly cannot contain the relevant information, or let her refer me to a FAQ which has a few paragraphs containing the answer?

-Ben

[Netbrian]

I must agree that I too have enjoyed reading his debunkings of the creationist responses. Already I know just how freaking deep the creationist side will try and go, as well as the intricacies of BOTH sides that I never imagined existed. So if my thought matters, carry on and fight!

[Liberal]

You mean that I should have pasted the relevant portion of the FAQ here?

I mean that you should have answered her questions directly, just as you expected her to answer yours. Rationalize it however you wish.

Refer me to a book which clearly cannot contain the relevant information, or let her refer me to a FAQ which has a few paragraphs containing the answer?

You said you hadn't read the book. How can you know, therefore, that it contained no relevant information? From what you've presented here, from my perspective, the debate looks like a draw.

[Ben]

Originally posted by Libertarian
I mean that you should have answered her questions directly, just as you expected her to answer yours. Rationalize it however you wish.

So you feel that these two cases are equivalent?

* I answered her question by directing her to a FAQ which contains a concise answer, which she could find by, at worst, searching for the word "pseudoexon" on the page.

* She directed me to an entire book which I cannot search electronically, which is apparently not written with the intention of providing a concise creationist explanation of the evidence, and the relevant portions of which she did not summarize into a few paragraphs.

I think your analogy would be much more apt if I had directed her to a textbook, rather than to my summary. Do you really deny that she would have a much easier time of finding the information in my FAQ than I would of finding it in the book?

You said you hadn't read the book. How can you know, therefore, that it contained no relevant information?

I asked for a creationist explanation of the evidence. She directed me to a book, by an evolutionist, and she doesn't even claim that it contains a creationist explanation. Instead, she declares that the book will only prove that the evidence is not as I claimed it to be, but she does not summarize what the true state of the evidence is, nor does she provide a creationist explanation, nor does she indicate that a creationist explanation is to be found in the book.

In any event, I already gave my reasons for forbidding quotefests, and you've completely failed to acknowledge them.

From what you've presented here, from my perspective, the debate looks like a draw.

So when I ask for a creationist explanation of the physical arrangement of hemoglobin genes, and she answers simply, "They don't," that's a draw?

-Ben

[jab1]

Lib, are you going to debate Ben or just continue to chastise him? Who made you his daddy?

[Liberal]

Do you really deny that she would have a much easier time of finding the information in my FAQ than I would of finding it in the book?

No, I don't. But then, you should have laid the ground rules something like this: "only referencing of on-line searchable text is allowed." Maybe she would have opted out if she does not have the resources to post an FAQ of her own.

A debating point is not won simply by standing on a higher hill than one's opponent. Other than being more trouble for you, if you cared to test her veracity, there is nothing about your having an online FAQ and her having merely a textbook that gives your argument more weight than hers.

...she declares that the book will only prove that the evidence is not as I claimed it to be, but she does not summarize what the true state of the evidence is, nor does she provide a creationist explanation, nor does she indicate that a creationist explanation is to be found in the book.

On the contrary, I think she summarized what she believed to be the true state of the evidence quite nicely with two words: "They don't." That is, calculated phylogenetic trees of orthologous proteins do not agree with the pattern of relationships between species. Then, she said that if you didn't believe her, you should see the book she referenced.

You cannot require of her a creationist explanation for phenomena that she does not believe exist.

In any event, I already gave my reasons for forbidding quotefests, and you've completely failed to acknowledge them.

I understand your reasons, and I agree with them. I think the ground rules you laid out are entirely reasonable. But I certainly did not fail to acknowledge them. In fact, I brought them to your attention in asking why she was bound to them while you were not.

A quotefest is no less a quotefest when it comes from an electronic page instead of a paper one.

So when I ask for a creationist explanation of the physical arrangement of hemoglobin genes, and she answers simply, "They don't," that's a draw?

Well, no. It was the whole thing. You two seem utterly to despise one another. It's one of those debates where the engaged parties believe life, freedom, and honor is on the line, leaving the audience to sift through the egos to get to the facts.

Your point is valid that she must address your very technical arguments head on without excusing herself by saying she doesn't know what you're talking about. But unless you want your debate's outcome to be decided subjectively, it is we, the audience, who must understand your arguments. And from my perspective, as a layman in the field, it seemed to me that she did indeed know what you were talking about, but simply disagreed. Surely you can understand that, from that perspective, it looked like a draw.

[Liberal]

Lib, are you going to debate Ben or just continue to chastise him? Who made you his daddy?

[shrug...] I dunno. Same guy who made you my hemorrhoid, I reckon.

[Ben]

I suppose I could simply quote the relevant portions of the FAQ here, as Libertarian suggested, but doing so would involve so much quoted text that it would be larger than the webpage Freakboy quoted and which Lynn removed.

Does anyone think there's any validity to Libertarian's complaints? I don't want to waste time debating with Libertarian, because clearly nothing I say will convince him, and now he can't even get his facts right. But if anyone else thinks he has a point, I'll be willing to talk to them.

-Ben

[Liberal]

I'll save you the trouble, Ben. I withdraw my complaint and regret the expression of my interest in the matter. I have no idea what "facts" you believe I can't get straight. I gave you my opinions, thus, "I think she summarized...," "I think the ground rules...," and "You two seem..."

I did say that an argument is not won by posturing. That is a fact and it is straight. I did say that an audience must understand your arguments in order to judge the debate. That is a fact and it is straight.

As to your suggestion that I am obstinate (..."clearly nothing I say will convince him...") it is a matter of record that I agreed with your reasons and that I thought that you made a good point. Perhaps you, too, will not be convinced by any cause.

As to didacted text, it is not against the rules to post material that is one's own work. My homepage link below has post after post of my own words. A whole story. No one has removed it.

[Mtgman]

Ben, I read the original thread for a while and I have read the beginnings of this one. I have a question for you.

What are you looking for? Do you plan to convert to a creationist if someone can logically refute your points? You seem pretty determined in your attitute to finish this. Will it ever end? What answers could satisfy you?

I remember a thread started on a programming newsgroup I frequent. The original poster posed a challenge to the "gurus" Write a program without any semicolons, if statements, dollar signs(the method of indicating a variable in this language), along with a bunch of other arbitrary restrictions. He claimed a "real programmer" could do it. When people posted early attempts which were simply work-arounds, ie using the octal values for the semicolons and such, he declared them cheaters and excluded their solutions. One of the most well known and respected(even feared, for her flame burns bright and spares none) posters replied saying "Your rules are ridiculous. Your contest is pointless. It is completely not representative of any situation which would ever occur. You have people jumping through hoops for your own amusement. Get over yourself."

Saying creation science has no rigorious explanation for some of the quirks in the human genome serves no ligimate purpose. Similar arguements were made when vestigial traits were discovered, they weren't resolved, why do you expect these to be? Baiting them and hassling them into trying to write answers to suit you will get you rejected out of hand by anyone with any amount of intelligence. No one will play a game in which one of the opponents is in control of the rules and is the judge who will decide the victor.

I once came up with what I considered a creative way to solve a physics problem in a classroom. The challenge was to drop an egg from 40 feet as slow as possible, with an apparatus that weighed as much as possible. The teacher expected two sets of results, light and slow, or heavy and fast. The other entries ranged from lots of helium baloons tied to foam-wrapped eggs to a box of bricks with a foam wrapped egg on top in the center. My device was a winch made out of Lego Technic bricks which lowered itself via an elaborate pully system(final mechanical advantage of 9) and a very slow motor. It took somewhere in the neighborhood of a week to lower the egg and weighed in at about five pounds(we had to judge the rate at which it lowered and extrapolate, it had made no noticeable progress during the class period we conducted the experiment). The rules did not specifically outlaw mechanical devices and my device was within the size requirements.

I was describing my device, to one of the school physics jocks, you know the type, have math trophies and compete on the academic team, and, of course, arrogant as hell. He told me that he could easily beat my time and that if he was in the contest I wouldn't have stood a chance. I asked him what his idea would have been, genuinely curious. His answer? "Well first I would have made sure the rules disallowed mechanical devices. Then..." I don't remember what the rest of his idea was because I tuned him out right there. One of the secrets of debate, never enter an arguement where one of the interested parties gets to act as judge.

You want an answer, let someone else ask the questions and set the guidelines for judging them. Distance yourself from the issue, that should be the first rule of any good scientist. Involvement skews objectivity. Period.

Steven

[jab1]

Originally posted by Libertarian

[shrug...] I dunno. Same guy who made you my hemorrhoid, I reckon.

Ahh, you blame God for everything.

[Ben]

Originally posted by Mtgman
Ben, I read the original thread for a while and I have read the beginnings of this one. I have a question for you.

What are you looking for?

I'm looking to educate people.

Do you plan to convert to a creationist if someone can logically refute your points?

Yes, in the off chance that someone could explain the evidence better using a creationist model, I would give serious consideration to it.

You seem pretty determined in your attitute to finish this. Will it ever end? What answers could satisfy you?

Don't like the thread? Don't read it. Other people are finding this discussion to be interesting and informative.

Saying creation science has no rigorious explanation for some of the quirks in the human genome serves no ligimate purpose.

Whoa, now. Who said anything about quirks in the genome? You might as well describe Newton's Laws as "irrelevant factoids about how things move sometimes." Did you even read the FAQ?

No one will play a game in which one of the opponents is in control of the rules and is the judge who will decide the victor.
...
His answer? "Well first I would have made sure the rules disallowed mechanical devices. Then..." I don't remember what the rest of his idea was because I tuned him out right there. One of the secrets of debate, never enter an arguement where one of the interested parties gets to act as judge.

You want an answer, let someone else ask the questions and set the guidelines for judging them. Distance yourself from the issue, that should be the first rule of any good scientist.

What do you find arbitrary about my rules? My rule is that if creationism is going to be taken seriously as science, then it has to explain the evidence just like any other scientific theory. All the other rules are just special cases. If you bring up irrelevant arguments, you aren't explaining the facts. If you attack evolution, you aren't explaining the facts.

-Ben

[Mtgman]

Originally posted by Ben

I'm looking to educate people.

A worthy ideal. Education is more effective when it's not confrontational however. The most apt quote is "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

Don't like the thread? Don't read it. Other people are finding this discussion to be interesting and informative.

When did I say I didn't like the thread? I asked what answers would be satisfactory. Knowing that you've slung around a lot of terms like "reasonable" "logical" and "evidence" and knowing human nature as I do, I seriously doubt your idea of these concepts matches up with others. This is an arguement which can have no conclusion, and therefore is pointless.

Whoa, now. Who said anything about quirks in the genome? You might as well describe Newton's Laws as "irrelevant factoids about how things move sometimes." Did you even read the FAQ?

And reading the FAQ is a prerequisite to knowing enough about debate to understand when one side is making the rules to the detriment of the other? The existance of unusable genetic sequences suprised scientists as much as it did anyone else. I feel justified in calling a result which took pretty much everybody by suprise a "quirk." And I know enough of molecular biology to have understood your original questions without your FAQ, thank you very much.

What do you find arbitrary about my rules? My rule is that if creationism is going to be taken seriously as science, then it has to explain the evidence just like any other scientific theory. All the other rules are just special cases. If you bring up irrelevant arguments, you aren't explaining the facts. If you attack evolution, you aren't explaining the facts.

I guess depends on your definition of relevant doesn't it? Specifically I have problems with these bullet points.

* Quotefests. Don't quote some high muckey-muck saying that evolution is bunk, or protein homology is bunk, or that all the evidence has already been explained away. You can only quote an authority if you are quoting a particularly lucid explanation of the facts.

Given that you can describe anyone you choose as a muckey-muck and discredit their views, as evidenced by the dismissal of Mr. Gee when his work was cited. It's not to difficult for a layman to learn enough about molecular biology to debate with you, but it's too much of an inconvenience for you to go to the library and check out a book. If you're really shy of reading, you could have asked for page citations or further clarification. Dismissing the evidence that could have been presented in that book simply because it isn't convenient for you to peruse is exactly the type of rules-wrangling that I am referring to.

* Declarations that it's unfair for me to use technical jargon. My use of jargon is not meant to obfuscate; the unfortunate fact of the matter is that there is no layman's term for words like "intron" or "exon." I have already provided a detailed FAQ (http://psyche11.home.mindspring.com/molevol2.html ) explaining all of the technical terms I use.

And how do you know people understand your FAQ? It's noble of you not to try to obfuscate, but when I first read your original questions, I thought "There's a much easier way of bringing this up. Simply ask about vestigial organs such as the appendix." This is much more accessible and understandable by the layman. I would point you to this thread on Slashdot where someone made the claim that genetic evidence, very similar to what you point towards, proved evolution. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/02/22/1413218

* Declarations that it's unfair of me to expect creationists to be able to handle molecular genetics. This has already been discussed at some length in the original thread, but the long and short of it is that if lay creationists want to claim that mainstream molecular genetics is wrong, they should be able to back that position with argument. Moreover, nothing stops them from seeking out creationist molecular geneticists who could answer the questions for them- nothing, that is, except for the fact that creation science is a lie, and cannot provide answers to the questions.

Your last sentence is all the evidence a thinking person needs to know to stay way the hell away from any kind of debate with you. Lay creationists are not claiming that your observations are wrong, they are claiming your interpretion of those observations is wrong. Interpretations can not be proven or disproven, and you are arguing from every bit as weak a position as they are in that regards. Yet somehow you seem to believe your position, meaning your opinion on the correct interpretation of these observations, is as unshakeable as the observations themselves. I assure you it is not.

Steven

[Ben]

I've dealt with most of Mtgman's criticisms already, earlier in the thread. Anyway, life is too short to waste too much time on this kind of thing. Again, if anyone else finds Mtgman's criticisms to be worthwhile, I'll respond in more detail. I couldn't help but make a few comments, though:

Originally posted by Mtgman
Given that you can describe anyone you choose as a muckey-muck and discredit their views, as evidenced by the dismissal of Mr. Gee when his work was cited.

Mtgman, don't put words in my mouth. I didn't dismiss Gee at all. I dismissed Fryman's improper use of the cite, and I most certainly did not do so on the grounds that Gee was a "muckey-muck." I'm sure that Gee has some good things to say- I just don't think that any of those things will be a creationist explanation of the data, because he isn't a creationist.

And how do you know people understand your FAQ? It's noble of you not to try to obfuscate, but when I first read your original questions, I thought "There's a much easier way of bringing this up. Simply ask about vestigial organs such as the appendix." This is much more accessible and understandable by the layman.

Mtgman, if you want to discuss vestigial organs, then fine- go to one of the other creationism threads and talk about vestigial organs. But I started this thread in order to discuss molecular biology, and the people participating in this thread want to discuss molecular biology, and I don't see why it's wrong for us to discuss the arguments that interest us instead of the arguments that interest you.

Besides, to suggest that my eleven questions can be boiled down to a question of "vestigial organs" is simply ludicrous.

Lay creationists are not claiming that your observations are wrong, they are claiming your interpretion of those observations is wrong.

Funny, Lib was just criticising me by saying that I wasn't accepting the fact that creationists disagree with me on the basic evidence. Mtgman, did you even read Fryman's reply?

Interpretations can not be proven or disproven, and you are arguing from every bit as weak a position as they are in that regards.

Actually, this is about theories, not just "interpretations." You know, the scientific method?

Again, I don't think it's worthwhile to waste more time on Mtgman, but if anyone else thinks he has a point, I'll address his comments in more detail.

-Ben

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by Ben
...We also have kaylasdad99 and Mangetout asking that I post the AiG email, although I have declined to do so...

I would love to see what it is they have written that can simultaneously be so sensitive and secret, but at the same time can be the key to conclusively dismissing evolutionary genetics forever, ah well, you're right to honour their request, I suppose.

Ben, may I suggest that in future you add a clause to your outgoing email questions reserving the right to publish any replies?

[Ben]

Originally posted by Mangetout
Ben, may I suggest that in future you add a clause to your outgoing email questions reserving the right to publish any replies?

An interesting idea, but if they're going to play games with me, I'd rather people knew that. If I had had such a clause in dealing with AiG, they just wouldn't have responded at all, and we wouldn't know about their cloak-and-dagger mentality. But overall, I suppose it's a good idea.

-Ben

[Mangetout]

But by failing to respond, we may assume that they concede the argument, we may even warn them of such a conclusion in advance if we like.

[Ben]

I've received an answer from ChristianAnswers.Net. At first, Tom Henderson stated that he would shop my questions around to other creationists if I gave him the url for the FAQ. I did so, and asked why they needed the evolutionist answers before they could give me the creationist ones. Here is his reply:

Ben,

Thank you for your response. You are welcome to post mine on your forum.

YOU posed these 11 origins questions sets. In my view you should have first
demonstrated that an evolution model has a good explanation of all of them
BEFORE you challenged creationists to respond.

Since my last note I took a look at your forum link and the responses of
Helen Fryman to the 11 questions you posted there.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...threadid=83694
I thought she did an excellent job! I can't improve on them. As stated
above I think you took a backwards approach to the issues. You posted her
responses, then mostly ridiculed them, I felt, without ever showing your own
position on those 11 areas and how it was a reasonable one.


Thanks for the link you provided today.
http://psyche11.home.mindspring.com/molevol2.html
I read through the first quarter of it and skimmed the rest. It seemed like
an excellent DNA tutorial.
At the end of it the 11 sets of questions are posed as a "challenge for
creationists". But it did not appear that the text provided the
evolutionist's position on those questions.

Am I to assume that your position is merely that DNA and its associated
mechanisms are merely the results of random mutations with the good ones
preserved by natural selection? Come on! Not in all the billions of years
you could want would such a complex configuration as we see in DNA result by
chance (with all the intermediate stages likewise surviving natural
selection culling processes).

But that is not your toughest problem! Even with a DNA structure where
would the INFORMATION stored in the DNA come from? Information doesn't come
from chance. Chance only results in noise.

"I'm not looking for a theistic evolutionist answer" either. Theistic
evolutionists believe in evolution. They just use God to get you
evolutionists through your infinitude of improbabilities and
impossibilities. They simply say God was the designer and He used
evolution. I don't think God would do that. And chance plus natural
selection can't design DNA and information for all the life forms that use
it.

The only reasonable answer in my view is "special creation of individual
kinds" by a Creator with the know-how and wisdom to do it and a plan behind
it all. If that's too simple for you that's too bad! But that is where I
think the scientific evidence points. Think about it.

Since science has revealed the incredible complexity of life and all its
associated structures and processes it is difficult for me to understand
from a scientific perspective how there is still an evolutionist left - Tell
me why you all haven't fallen on your knees before the Creator and pleaded
"What must I do to be saved?"
http://www.christiananswers.net/gospel/home.html
http://www.greatcom.org/laws/


Tom Henderson
tom@christiananswers.net
Creation SuperLibrary Coordinator
http://CreationSuperLibrary.com

-Ben

[tomndebb]

So the best he can do is admit that he is not capable of imagining something to occur and concluding it cannot have occurred?

::: sigh :::

I think even Anselm could have done better than that.

[Dr. Lao]

Originally posted by Ben
<snip>

Am I to assume that your position is merely that DNA and its associated
mechanisms are merely the results of random mutations with the good ones
preserved by natural selection? Come on!

<snip>

Tom Henderson
tom@christiananswers.net
Creation SuperLibrary Coordinator
http://CreationSuperLibrary.com

That's it, I'm convinced. The weight of the creationist argument is just too strong.

Message to creationist: arguments from increduality are very, very weak. It is basically an admission that you don't understand, and have no desire to.

[Darwin's Finch]

Originally posted by Ben
(Actually, responses by Mr. Henderson)
YOU posed these 11 origins questions sets. In my view you should have first demonstrated that an evolution model has a good explanation of all of them BEFORE you challenged creationists to respond.

I don't get this one at all...unless, of course, he's tacitly admitting that they don't have the answers on their own, can't even come up with answers on their own, and the best they can hope for is to poke holes in the only available theories in a misguided attempt to "prove" something.

Since my last note I took a look at your forum link and the responses of Helen Fryman to the 11 questions you posted there. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...threadid=83694
I thought she did an excellent job!

There is obvious disagreement here.

At the end of it the 11 sets of questions are posed as a "challenge for creationists". But it did not appear that the text provided the evolutionist's position on those questions.

Again, it shouldn't have to for this purpose. Either creationists can come up with a viable "theory" (or even just an explanation) on their own, or they should admit that it is a faulty, less-than-satisfying view for understanding biological phenomena. That, or they simply wish to cling to it as an act of faith, regardless what evidence may actually exist.

Am I to assume that your position is merely that DNA and its associated mechanisms are merely the results of random mutations with the good ones preserved by natural selection? Come on! Not in all the billions of years
you could want would such a complex configuration as we see in DNA result by chance (with all the intermediate stages likewise surviving natural selection culling processes).

Oh look! The "chance" argument...again. I think that at the very least, these people should a) take an organic chemistry course, and b) a statistics course. Maybe they will then see just why these arguments receive so mich disdain.

But that is not your toughest problem! Even with a DNA structure where would the INFORMATION stored in the DNA come from? Information doesn't come from chance. Chance only results in noise.

Oh. That again. ::sigh:: There is no "information" in DNA; DNA, beyond acting as an ultimate template for the creation of proteins, contains no "information". It is impossible to extrapolate upwards from "DNA strand" to "organism", just by deciphering the "code".
The application of Information Theory to DNA is seemingly becoming more popular amongst IDers, if not creationists. Unfortunately, what they fail to realize is that Information Theory is a man-made concept, created to help explain certain aspects of communication, rather like the concept of a magnetic or electric or gravitational field is used to explain magnetism, electricity or gravity, respectively. The fields do not truly "exist", anywhere but in concept. The idea of "information" being contained in DNA is simply an anthropomorphic projection onto a molecule.
Besides, it seems to me that there is a hell of a lot of noise in DNA in the form of pseudogenes.

They simply say God was the designer and He used
evolution. I don't think God would do that. And chance plus natural selection can't design DNA and information for all the life forms that use it.

God's spokesman, I guess. Whatever we think God would, or would not, do is irrelevent. The question is, can we determine what God did do, if, indeed, God did anything?

The only reasonable answer in my view is "special creation of individual kinds" by a Creator with the know-how and wisdom to do it and a plan behind it all. If that's too simple for you that's too bad! But that is where I think the scientific evidence points. Think about it.

Reasonable, perhaps, if one clings to erroneous ideas about chemistry and statistics, and the anthropomorphism of molecules.

Since science has revealed the incredible complexity of life and all its associated structures and processes it is difficult for me to understand from a scientific perspective how there is still an evolutionist left - Tell me why you all haven't fallen on your knees before the Creator and pleaded
"What must I do to be saved?"

To which, I can, regrettably, only respond with a heartfelt

[jab1]

Originally posted by Ben
YOU posed these 11 origins questions sets. In my view you should have first demonstrated that an evolution model has a good explanation of all of them BEFORE you challenged creationists to respond.

He doesn't realize that you simply wanted to know what creationists believe? Oh, boy.

Not in all the billions of years you could want would such a complex configuration as we see in DNA result by chance (with all the intermediate stages likewise surviving natural selection culling processes).

Of course, he doesn't bother explaining why.

Even with a DNA structure where would the INFORMATION stored in the DNA come from?

What information? And if there is information in DNA, then who is it for? If there is no intended receiver, then there is no information. It's just a bunch of chemical compounds strung together.

The only reasonable answer in my view is "special creation of individual kinds" by a Creator with the know-how and wisdom to do it and a plan behind it all.

What plan? How does he know there is one?

Tell me why you all haven't fallen on your knees before the Creator and pleaded, "What must I do to be saved?"

The same reason he won't sacrifice a goat to Zeus so he can go to Elysium Fields.