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:
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:
**
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.
**
Fairly easy to see unless one is intentionally blind or ignorant.
**
I strongly disagree. However evolution is the science preferred by the religion of materialistic naturalism, which credits matter with creative abilities.
**
They don’t. See Henry Gee’s “In Search of Deep Time” if you want verification of this point from an editor of Nature.
**
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?
**
They don’t.
**
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.
**
So that the genetic code will be read correctly.
**
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.
**
When this is a subject which is under intense study right now, why are we supposed to know the answers when you don’t?
**
What observed features are you talking about?
**
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.
**
Why do you call them ‘pseudo’?
**
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.
**
Gee, I don’t know. What do you think?
**
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.
**
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?
We’ll see who’s been keeping up with real science…
**
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.
**
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.
**
Another failure condition: this is about explaining the evidence, not about attacking evolution.
**
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.
**
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.
**
“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?
**
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?
**
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?
**
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?
**
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.
**
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?
**
Read the FAQ for the “answers.”
**
See the FAQ. Among other things, Introns have a mutation rate comparable to pseudogenes.
**
Did you know that there is no layman’s term for exon class? Please answer the question.
**
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:
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.
**
It has a lot to do with reality. Read the FAQ, and you’ll see.
**
Read the FAQ.
**
As Darwin’s Finch already pointed out in the old thread, this is a strangely evolutionist answer, coming from a creationist.
**
Instead of nitpicking on my wording, I’d rather you actually answered the question.
**
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?
**
Read the FAQ.
**
You mean like Duane Gish does? Would you care to criticise him for using that tactic?
**
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.
**
What did I just say? Anyway, Darwin’s Finch has already addressed these in the old thread.
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:
Mutations so bad that they kill the embryo within days. (We never hear about these, because doctors never see them.)
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.)
Neutral mutations. (We never see these in clinical databases, but we can find them by comparing orthologous proteins.)
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?
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.
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 :rolleyes: )
and, of course, the creationists at talk.origins, only one of whom attempted to answer even one of the questions.
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?
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.
"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.
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).
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.
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.
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.”
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?
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.
