My Response to Atheist Sean C.
>: I had to laugh when I read this blog.
Sean, thanks for reading the blog. Remember that the one that laughs the last laughs the best.
>: As a bona fide evolutionary biologist...
"bona fide" means "in good faith", "acting without the intention of defrauding", so, what do you mean here, oh Sean?
Do you mean that by being "evolutionary biologist" you are an atheist philosopher blinded to everything that counters a speculative macroevolutionary biology currently shaped a la Darwin?
>: I'm constant amused by the time and effort creationists expend trying to debunk evolutionary studies.
Even thought Intelligent Design is not "creationism", creationists and anyone else are rightfully entitled to debunk baseless speculations sold as "proof" for a speculative and macroevolutionary "closed" worldview.
To point out the precision of a real microchange (call it microevolution) versus an ideological and baseless speculated macrochange (call it macroevolution) it is a legitimate scientific endeavor, always ignored by the ideologues of materialism such as Sean C.
Please Sean, don't you run like every other materialistic darwinian evolutionist which ever posted here... I need to ask you: Do you think that under the current dominance of Darwinism in biology we already have an adequate identification of biological varieties in nature? My own answer is a sounding NO!
Sean, are you blinded not to see that what is currently sold as examples of "speciation" are indeed examples of variation within compatible groups of organisms, hence microevolution is fraudulently being sold as macroevolution by "bona fide" atheistic "evolutionary biologists", er, pseudo-philosophers like you, Sean? That's SAD!
>: Sad.
Yes, sad is Sean's atheism blinding his "objectivity" as when he writes the very next line:
>: Better to ask, what would it matter if God didn't exist?
Well, Sean, by your choosing you can live very empty in your closed worldview and then, at the end, just to wait to die uneventfully. What would it matter to you anyway, oh Sean? However, it is very clear that your atheism is biasing all your possible science, if any.
Sean, your writing demonstrates that you are only an atheist philosopher attempting to put some of your poison on the minds of objective scientists.
Sean, is it not plausible and testable the precise identification of biological varieties and the consequent generation of new biodiversity that we are proposing here? By your atheistic thumb, supposedly this pursuit is not scientific.
>: I would have thought that the recent landmark decision against intelligent design in Pennsylvania would make you folks take a step back and actually think.
Sean, you evidently are not an objective scientist but an atheistic philosopher and a baseless politic. Intelligent Design researchers are not affected at all by biased decisions not to think! You need to consider that the rigorous identifying of biological compatible varieties and the consequent generation of new biodiversity is science indeed.
>: Carry on, however, it makes little difference.
It really makes a Universe of difference for the minds of thinking people!
>: Cheers
Sean, answer the points that here I posted in bold.
PS,
Teleologist declared: "What Hunt and other religious Darwinists are so adept at doing is take minute changes over time and make leaps of faith to macro changes." More comments on the deception of macroevolution as well as here.
Interesting postings here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
----------------------------------
Scott E. Page (pangloss, a Prof. of Complex Systems, Political Science, and Economics at U. Mich. attempted to ridicule the statement:
"The discovery of genes expressed only in particular organisms or species (“species specific genes”) can be emphasized as a product of intelligent design, as these are not present in any other organism, discarding a continuous evolutionary way of transmission of genetic material, and enforcing the discontinuous, nonlinear origin of the genomic organization of living beings."
Then, Page went after the statement: "For example, the human genome contains at least 223 genes that do not have "the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree", never transmitted "vertically"."
http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/showthread.php?t=79771
The original number of 223 genes not found in primates was written in three places:
1- Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. Nature. 2001. 409, 860-921.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409860a0.html
“An interesting category is a set of 223 proteins that have significant similarity to proteins from bacteria, but no comparable similarity to proteins from yeast, worm, fly and mustard weed, or indeed from any other (nonvertebrate) eukaryote.”2- The Human Genome, Elizabeth Pennisi. Science. 16 Feb 2001. 291(5507): 1177-1180.
http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0102/44.htm
"Another head-scratching discovery, made by the public consortium, is that the human genome shares 223 genes with bacteria--genes that do not exist in the worm, fly, or yeast"3 -
Microbial Genes in the Human Genome: Lateral Transfer or Gene Loss? Steven L. Salzberg, Owen White, Jeremy Peterson, Jonathan A. Eisen. Science. 8 June 2001. 292(5523):1903 – 1906.
http://scienceonline.org/cgi/content/full/292/5523/1903
“223 bacterial genes have been laterally transferred into the human genome” and “In the analysis used to support the claim that 223 genes have been laterally transferred into human.”The 2001 reported 223 non-linearly transmitted genes were re-visited in at least two places:
4 –In the 2 August 2001 correction: Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. Pages 565-566:
“Extensive sequence data from many additional organisms will be required to assess definitively the provenance of each gene.”5 - In 2003 Steven L. Salzberg in his power point presentation (Genome Paleontology: Discoveries from complete genomes) declares:
“Our re-analysis finds just 41 genes (Ensembl) or 46 (Celera) with best hits to bacteria – not 223… At least 3 have already been found in Drosophila, 10 more in other species.”
http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~zaki/Workshops/BIOKDD03/Salzberg-Talk.ppt6-Meanwhile a 2008 staff blogger wrote in "Figuring Out The Role Of Human-Specific Genes" that "There are around 23,000 genes found in human DNA but perhaps 50 to 100 that have no counterparts in other species."
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/figuring_out_the_role_of_human_specific_genes7 - In the most recent paper dealing with this information:
"The three genes reported here are the first well-supported cases of protein-coding genes that arose in the human lineage and are not found in any other organism," Knowles and McLysaght concluded. "It is tempting to infer that human-specific genes are at least partly responsible for human-specific traits and it will be very interesting to investigate the functions of these novel genes."
http://www.genomeweb.com/informatics/irish-researchers-sleuth-out-unique-human-genes-originating-non-coding-dna"Based on these findings, the team estimates that about 0.075 percent of human genes — roughly 18 of the 24,000 — are human-specific and arose from formerly non-coding sequence."
http://www.physorg.com/news171051139.html
"The authors also note that because of the strict set of filters employed, only about 20% of human genes were amenable to analysis."
More information: Knowles DG, McLysaght A. Recent de novo origin of human protein-coding genes. Genome Res. 2009 Oct;19(10):1752-9., doi:10.1101/gr.095026.109
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/19/10/1752.full
So, we do research because there are innumerable things that we are still ignorant of. Here Scott needs to remember the title words on the book that he himself wrote: "The difference, how the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools and societies"...
Salvador wrote:
"Secondary pupils in Northern Ireland are spearheading a campaign to introduce a scientific concept, banned in the United States, into the curriculum. Students from both secondary schools and some of the province’s most prestigious grammar schools claim that so-called intelligent design will give a “more balanced view of how the world came into being”."
posted by fdocc | 9:10 AM
5 Comments:
How does not believing in gods bias his scientific understanding?
Does your not believing in the infinite things you don't believe in bias your scientific understanding?
Get it?
Dear reader,
If you are not biased by Darwinism in any of its forms you need to honestly answer the questions that I posted above:
1. Do you think that under the current dominance of Darwinism in biology we already have an adequate identification of biological varieties in nature?
2. Are you blinded not to see that what is currently sold as examples of "speciation" are indeed examples of variation within compatible groups of organisms, hence microevolution is fraudulently being sold as macroevolution?
3. Is it not plausible and testable the precise identification of biological varieties and the consequent generation of new biodiversity that we are proposing here?
Concluding:
You need to consider that the rigorous identifying of biological compatible varieties and the consequent generation of new biodiversity is science indeed.
Fernando Castro-Chavez.
Fernando,
I read your response to Sean. I assume Coward is not his last name and that it is an attempt to categorize him and thus his conclusions as cowardly and thus a betrayal of some sort. If that is the case, and your subsequent rebuttal seems to suggest that it is the case, I would suggest that this is unnecessary. It is equivalent to evolutionists referring to persons of faith as stupid, idiots, or worse. I understand that a kind of respect can be obtained through fear of being humiliated, but this technique is used by those determined to conquer. This seems contrary to a person’s of faith (Christian especially) intent. It also takes on an aura of despair.
I’m an evolutionist. I am also a person of faith. These are not necessarily exclusionary. I do not believe God exists; I believe He created existence and that it is unfolding, evolving, as it was created to do. To me Creationism, though I do not question its veracity nor do I question its value, seems too rooted in a legalistic interpretation of the Bible, an interpretation more suited to the goals of a lawyer than a believer. I do not depend on the Bible or any other book as a contract between God and myself. That, it seems to me, would be an attempt, domesticate, to tame, to control that which cannot be controlled (God). I consider the Bible a gift from God, not written by God or dictated by Him (that, in my opinion, would diminish Him), given as a guide and written by those who have experience His presence. This is, of course, only my opinion. I do not mean for it to be an attack on creationism or an attempt to prove anything. It is where I am at the moment.
Intelligent Design is something else altogether. To a person of faith, which I am, it is deeply appealing. It is of course not scientific. It suggests a conclusion, but there is no way to scientifically verify it or to even justify its being accepted as a theory. It is an intuitive, irrational, conclusion though it does have just a touch of the rational in it. This does not bother me nor diminish God in my eyes. It is enough that He wants what is best for me (and for all His creation). I do not look forward to Heaven nor do I fear Hell. If God decides that I would be better off with no afterlife, I accept that as His judgment and certainly His right. If Hell or some intermediate place is his destination for me, this again is as it should be. If He decides it is in my best interests that He not accompany to places I find undesirable, I accept His judgment as to my final destination.
I believe that Science (the proper noun) is taken too seriously in this age. It is extremely useful, but we treat it much as those before us treated magic—it works, but we don’t know why and we don’t really care. That attitude moves it into the region of religion, but that is not its most serious problem. If we allow it to affect us fundamentally, we become mechanistic, dehumanized, and unfeeling. To the extent that religion enters the realm of science, it runs the risk of these same consequences. I suspect it would better serve God’s purpose if we would treat scientific discoveries and conclusions with more understanding and patience and curtail our understandably impatient determination to portray our relationship with God as a rational conclusion. I would suggest that if our relationships become rational and self-serving, they lack the depth of a meaningful relationship
I have a relationship with God. I feel His presence. This has nothing to do with science. It is irrational, intuitive. It is a step beyond science. Most important, it is a relationship. I do no need to justify this relationship. I need only accept it and thank God for His presence in my life.
Paul Edward Snyder,
In your blog you wrote twice that you are "an evolutionist and an atheist".
For your first point, it is evident that "evolution" can be dissected at the microscope to discern that "microevolution" is real while "macroevolution" is speculative.
For your second point, simon and sean, like you and like others, are atheists as well. Both of them blindly endorse a purposeless and non-guided origin of humans and of the universe. They reject any evidence of an intelligent design even under the pressure of the facts.
I have asked them how can not be science the adequate identification of biological varieties in nature, which is the proper study of variation, rather than a currently biased "speciation". The study of variation with the practical purpose to generate new biodiversity is testable and practical as well as does not rely on fables based on extinct bones...
However, instead of answering me, all of them ideologues and philosophers of atheism, all of them just run like... well... you are entitled to define them as you wish...
Finally, my deepest apologies to the two real S. C.'s that I have been able to find on the internet, they are not the fake impersonator that posted here using their name.
[Biography note: I am college student, raised Methodist, interestd in studying biology; my entire first year class (~500 students) just read Darwin's _Origin of Species_
after spending a significant amount of time during the first semester debating whether or not relgion and science can coexist (re: texts of Augustine, Aquinas, Gallileo, and others)]
--------------
You say that microevolution is "real" and macroevoluation is "speculative."
Speculative implies wild guessing, not the careful results of decades of research.
To be completely unbaised, as you claim you are trying to be, I would say that macroevolution is "inferred" to exist and cannot possibly be proven to be the result of either Darwinist evolution or intelligent design.
It cannot be proven to be the result of of intelligent design because (I think most people would agree) if God does exist, there is no way to verify that His hand is at work behind speciation even if we do have the opportunity to witness such an event. When you take biology down to the smallest level, we don't know the primary cause for anything: enzymes, chemicals, molecules inherently have certain properties, endowed by God or nature.
What causes mutations? Why does DNA polymerase sometimes make mistakes in replication of genes? Is it possible that random changes could result in the diversity of today?
You can answer these questions by turning to God or nature. Admittedly both sides have been close-minded in the past, but science at least, in its ideal form, is open to whatever can be backed up by EVIDENCE. Evolutionary scientists even they admit that they don't have it all figured out. They just have it the best so far. I would not be surprised if another Gould came up with another theory of punctuation (ei, break with strict Darwinism) in the coming decades to further reshape our theory of evolution.
The relgious perspective has changed as well, when confronted with evidence. At first the Christian idea of the literal genesis and a 5,000 year old earth was abandoned due to carbon-dating, etc.
Both sides are ideologically entrenched, close-minded, and change their opinion only when confronted with overwhelming evidence.
In my opinion, eventually science will come closer and closer to the truth through research until the only question left is whether the atoms moving are motivated by God or by themselves. And then it becomes not a matter of being petty over blogs and debating the rate of sand flowing into the ocean (a serious creationist argument i read once that the earth cannot possibly be billions of years old) but a simple question of individual faith and purpose.
Post a Comment
<< Home