And speaking of ghoti, has anyone informed him of the existence of this thread? I ran a rough draft of the 11 questions by ghoti back before I wrote the FAQ (BTW, my name there is “tardigrade.”) The results were annoying, to say the least. At various points it became fairly clear (to me, at least) that he had no idea what he was talking about, but he didn’t want to admit it, so he demanded that I explain it for the benefit of the other people in the thread. He also made this statement:
(Bear in mind that back on LBMB ghoti argued that protein homology is bunk, because you can’t sequence proteins- you can only sequence DNA. Ergo, scientists don’t know what the protein sequences are, and can’t compare them! Are we to believe that someone who doesn’t remember high school biology has taken college-level courses in molecular biology?)
If you read the thread all the way through, you’ll be treated to ghoti’s constant declarations that scientists don’t know where the information in DNA came from.
BTW, what did SoulFrost do to get banned? That reminds me- once ghoti locked out a thread I was in because I had called mythbuster’s argument “childish.” Ghoti declared that had I merely called his argument childish, that would be one thing, but since I called mythbuster childish (which I didn’t) then he was locking the thread for 24 hours. At that point I left in disgust. It’s noxious, really. The creationists can walk all over the evolutionists and the PP mods won’t lift a finger. Navigator, at least, has practically admitted outright that he has a double standard when he moderates the PP.
Ben, bitching about the moderation practices of other message boards here in Great Debates is not only most likely incredibly useless, I find it inappropriate. GD is for debating arguments, not complaining about moderator actions; and if you have a problem with the mods of another board, it would be much more effective and greatly preferable to me that you take it up with them. Thank you.
My apologies; it won’t happen again. What about my other statements about ghoti? Normally I wouldn’t be discussing non-SDMB folks in GD, but ghoti is something of a net celebrity, at least around here, and in regard to C/E.
A brief comment or two about another person you know on another MB would probably be fine, but an extended dissection of an argument with someone who isn’t here to defend themselves seems a bit tacky. If you’re going to discuss ghoti’s argument at length, you should probably invite him over to give his side. Also, unless you had permission to repost his words, you’re in danger of copyright violation and all-around poor netiquette.
I’d like to direct you to a question that I’ve gotten no responses to so far. No doubt it has been overlooked by the participants in this thread, who seem well educated in these matters, so I am taking the liberty of pointing it out.
Just because Occam’s Razor isn’t logical in and of itself, it doesn’t mean that it is illogical. It just means that there is no (formal) logic to support it. This is because it is axiomatic.
Occam’s Razor isn’t an argument - it’s a decision method. It’s like choosing a mathematical function based on minimising least squares - an eminently sensible thing to do, but by no means the only possible way of making your choice.
It’s a good personal philosophy, but it is in no way intended to be a rigorous proof of anything.
jab1, I’m hurt. Do you really think that I would have that much difficulty with this?
Your translation of Genesis 1:20 is a quirky mistranslation by the King James Version. The original Hebrew more accurately reads like the NIV and other versions (quoted below is the NIV):
All English Bibles on The Bible Gateway agree with this translation, with the exception of the KJV and the “21st-century KJV.”
Just in case you were wondering, I haven’t really been participating in this thread because it seems as if Ben’s questions were addressed specifically to those who think that the Biblical “young Earth” is scientifically provable fact rather than as a matter of faith. I am not in that camp, hence, there’s not much I can contribute…although I’m glad I came back and saw you (Jab1) calling on me.
BTW, Ben, I have to commend you on that web page of yours. It is a valiant effort, but I’m going to have to re-read it a few times to understand most of it. I got lost after the “family tree” diagram. But it’s certainly a good try.
So you’re arguing that God simply created all animals out of nothing and then put them where they belonged? (The translation you cited does not say where the animals came from, so the implication is that God simply willed them into existence.) If so, why did He need dirt to create Adam and a rib bone to create Eve?
Thanks, cmkeller. BTW, for all our (sometimes acrimonious) disagreements in the past, let me stress that I appreciate the fact that you’re trying to learn and that I would be happy to answer any questions you have. In fact, since IzzyR has already asked a few questions, it may be worthwhile for me to start a GQ thread just about the FAQ. I also appreciate feedback on my writing, because I’d like to make the material as clear as possible for laymen.
He didn’t need the dirt and the rib, he did it that way in order to make a point for us to learn from. According to Jewish tradition, he created man from dirt so that man would be humbled…if a man is ever too full of himself, he should bear in mind that, in essence, he is only dirt (if not for G-d having transformed him…in other words, all our significance comes from G-d). He created man as a single individual so that no one could claim to be inherently better than anyone else, as they all ultimately have the same ancestry. He created Adam as a single, androgynous individual and then split him into male and female beings so that human beings would inherently feel a sense of incompleteness without a partner of the opposite sex, and so that when the couple joins together they will feel a special kind of completeness in their soul that goes beyond mere procreation.
I am, of course, merely bringing a representative sample of the Jewish commentators’ answers to those questions; there are (in Jewish belief) many facets to G-d’s actions, too much to truly go into depth in a venue such as this.
Ben:
Hey, I’m always interested in learning…that’s what I’m here for. (I certainly hope I’ve never come across as a “witness.”) As I further attempt to understand the information on your page, I’ll certainly post any specific questions I have.
I’ve also received a point-by-point reply from Helen Fryman of http://www.carm.org, and I’ll post it when I get a chance later. (I’m coming down with a cold, and the post would require a bit of formatting to transport it from email to the SDMB.)
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?
I also want to note that thus far, not a single creationist has even tried to give a scientific answer to all eleven questions from within a framework of special creation of individual kinds. I’m upping the ante: I’ll read three books of your choice, if you can meet the terms of the challenge.
**Try using your head. Protein coding genes, when they differ, kill the organism. Thus they don’t get passed on. **
[/quote]
This one is my favorite. I don’t know if she’s right or not about the protein-coding genes thing, but it sounds to me like she’s advocating natural selection!
**
Sex. It’s all about sex. The complexity evolved to specifically attract other organisms in order to aid in pollination. The flower itself does the plant no good in any other way.
**
Specific mutations? Of course not. However, there are several fish fossils (e.g., Eusthenopteron) which, while clearly being fish also possess the precursors to the ulna, radius, and humerus, while at the same time possessing the standard “fishy” trait of lepidotrichia (the “rays” of the fins). The fact that these lepidotrichia are themselves jointed dermal bones means that it doesn’t take a great mutational leap to slowly transform some of these bones near the base of the fin into thicker forms.
**
Probably because most parents aren’t told, “Your baby has a mutation.”
And how does she suppose parents would react upon hearing their child had mutations such as those mentioned here?
Yes, I found that to be rather odd myself, a bit reminiscent of Gish’s argument about there being no fossils in precambrian strata. Isn’t Gish supposed to be arguing that it’s impossible to put meaningful labels on the strata at all?
Since this thread is now into 5 pages, I was thinking of starting a new thread to address Fryman’s reply. Would the moderators object?
Wow. Ben. Good job. To me this whole debate (I mean in general…not just this thread) could have been avoided if the Bible wasn’t taken in such a literal sense.
The Prodigal Son
The Great Flood
Adam & Eve
…and on and on…
I think these were simply stories created to help the very uneducated people in biblical times to understand what the POINT was.
Some fundamentalists got it in their head that every Christian HAS to believe that everything in the Bible actually happened.
I prefer to believe that the authors of the Bible were trying to teach people how to be good. The stories have morals but they are just that. Stories.
Anyway, I’m going to ask the mods to close this thread, and I’m going to start a second one on Fryman’s answers. This one is getting to be too long, and I think Fryman’s replies (being the first to really claim to have scientific answers to some of the questions- Gaspode’s replies don’t count, since he states that they are not scientific, and were too vague to really discuss) represent a new phase in the discussion, since now we can actually talk about the creationist response.
