Annoying creationists

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
I have one word which trumps your two words, mathematics.God forbid that I bore an evolutionarian with facts.What you are observing are microevolutionary processes and extrapolating these processes to macroevolution. Darwin misinterpreted the variations of bird beaks as mutation and selection when what he was observing was recombination and selection. Gould made the same error when he proposed his concept of punctuated equilibrium which is applicable to recombination and natural selection but not to mutation and selection. Evolutionarians have extrapolated the rapid changes that are possible with recombination and natural selection to mutation and natural selection. Dr Schneider’s computer model reveals the problems with this extrapolation.So let’s see you apply some mathematics to your genetic science and do the bookkeeping required to account for your theory. Dr Schneider tried this with random point mutations and natural selection and this mechanism does not balance the books. So choose your mechanism, formulate the mathematics and balance your books. In case you haven’t noticed, there is no selection mechanism that would evolve a gene de novo.Why don’t you describe the selection process that would give rise to the HIV virus de novo?Why don’t you give us the benefit of your vast knowledge and describe the selection process that would give rise to a gene de novo?Anybody on these links describe the selection process that evolves a gene de novo?You are missing the point to this discussion. The argument I am raising here is that Dr Schneider’s ev model of random point mutations and natural selection shows that this mechanism is profoundly slow at accumulating genetic information when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used in the model. The rate of information acquisition is far to slow to explain macroevolution by this mechanism. Dr Schneider is the head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute. His model has been peer reviewed and published in Nucleic Acids Research. If you believe that gene transfer mechanisms, horizontal gene transfer, molecular genetics, genomes in flux or gene transfers to plants by diverse species of bacteria will correct the mathematical deficiency that Dr Schneider’s model reveals in your theory, formulate the mathematics and correct your theory. Otherwise, your theory started without a mathematical basis and remains that way.What I argue is that random point mutations and natural selection is the cornerstone to your theory. Without this mechanism, all the other mechanisms you describe will not be able to fill the gap left when this mechanism is removed from your theory. Not only does Dr Schneider’s computer model remove random point mutations and natural selection as a viable explanation for macroevolution, it reveals another fatal flaw in your theory, that is a lack of a plausible selection mechanism for the evolution of a gene de novo.This is evidence for microevolution or genetic modifications by intelligent scientists. Since evolutionarians like to say that macroevolution is simply a series of microevolutionary steps, I have challenged this view that macroevolution is the de novo evolution of a gene. There is no selection process that would do such a thing.Since joobz won’t tell us how ribose formed in the primordial soup, perhaps you would tell us?

You have so many false underlying premises and contradictions here.

Micro evolution only nonsense is one of the weakest arguments of the evolution deniers' debate. It was a last ditch effort. "Oh yeah, well prove this then." "Umm, OK, then prove this." and on and on. Micro evolution only arguments arose when it was clear evolution in real time was indeed observable.

I told you, the genomes trace a map from the earliest organisms (and we know they are early because their genomes are the smallest) to all the other genomes on the tree. A pattern has emerged which shows how Behe's infamous flagellum argument is wrong. The pattern shows exactly how one goes from one species to the next. Just where are your invisible divisions in this tree of Life diagram?

There's nothing in any mathematical calculation that contradicts what is clearly visible in the DNA and RNA of every living thing on the planet. You are wrong, and outnumbered by the vast majority of scientists and mathematicians. For whatever reason, (I assume it to be you are invested in the outcome of denying evolution because it challenges your existing beliefs), you continue to only look at selective evidence.

No evolution mechanism for de novo gene in your knowledge base, the math fails in your limited selection of evidence, (I'm not even sure I agree with that since there is a lot of rebuttal you are ignoring in the talk origins and Panda's thumb web sites). You keep going on with your selected random point mutations ignoring all the observed mechanisms for gene mixing, gene transfer, segmentation of function which allows a single mutation to produce 6 fully formed and functioning digits instead of 5, and a rabbit embryo 'eye growth initiating gene' to be exchanged with the corresponding gene of a a fruit fly larva resulting in a perfectly normal fruit fly compound eye, and lastly the robustness of function which included the discovery the reason Behe's flagellum precursor was hard to find was the precursor wasn't similar. The flagellum arose from some completely different gene function.

Your single point mutation math was all for naught. "The rate of information acquisition is far to slow to explain macroevolution by this mechanism," because it isn't anything close to the complete process by which evolution occurs. "...formulate the mathematics and correct your theory." No need to, you haven't accounted in your model, or should I say Schneider's model, for the mechanisms which result in genetic change I have already documented. You have a flawed model which the folks at or similar to the folks at the Discovery Institute and AIG have selected (punny ) in order to produce a straw argument supporting their preconceived conclusion.

Evolution is observable.

• If you can tell me where species divisions occur in organisms' genetics,

• if you can sufficiently explain why genetic material is precluded from being added or subtracted from DNA molecules which is required if your hypothesis were even remotely correct that genetic material can only be exchanged,

• and, if you can explain your hypothesis why if genetic material can be exchanged that precludes exchanging enough material to result in a new species (Hint: for such an hypothesis, you would need to show how genomes differ from macro-species to macro-species.)

Going on that last point, it comes back to my two words, genetic science. If you had a better understanding of genetic science, you would already know that

• the difference in species is not related to the number of genes,

• that diverse species share an incredible amount of genetic material

• and, that many many examples of transitional species as well as transitional organs like eyes exist in real time.

The HIV virus didn't arise de novo, if you had done your homework you'd know the origin has been traced back to a place where the SIV and the HIV viruses diverged.

"Since evolutionarians like to say that macroevolution is simply a series of microevolutionary steps, I have challenged this view that macroevolution is the de novo evolution of a gene." No you haven't. You have selected (punny !) a single process for genetic change and claimed it was the main if not the only process. That is a patently false underlying premise in your version of reality.

You have a poor understanding of what genomes actually consist of. You are using the typical concept of evolution deniers, that of the results of the genome. A dog has features that differ from a cat and they cannot mate. But in the blueprints, the two have surprisingly similar genomes. Not only that, but you can map the genetic changes to determine how long ago the two species split from a common ancestor.

Genetic scientists are so far past those basics. Where the research is now being concentrated is in identifying what all the genes do, identifying how the genetic code results in the construction of proteins, how those proteins fold to make structures, how the codes are turned on and off, how much play there is in the system which means you can have a lot of 'single point mutations' without interfering with the function of the gene, and how to repair genetic errors by inserting new genes via viruses.

Do you really think we could do all that and still not understand the most basic means organisms evolve? But you in your mathematical wisdom see the folly in a science you know so little about?

Let me give you one more thing to think about. Do you think it is possible you've been duped? Have you read anything about the Discovery Institute and the wedge strategy? Are you aware this Christian think tank is not full of scientists like Behe (though they do rely heavily on any scientist ally they can find)? Instead, the DI is staffed by marketers and dare I say it, propaganda experts.

They would have you believe evolution scientists are all atheist activists. But there are many many theist evolution scientists. The Pope has acquiesced. The DI would have you accept Intelligent Design but the Bible says Creation. So there is an argument among theists. Theists argue over the literal interpretation of the age of the Earth. Some have gone with the science, some have not.

What is my point? Science is the stability factor here. Theists pick and choose which interpretations of the Bible they are going to buy. Scientists follow the evidence. Evolution theory has nothing to do with the Bible. No scientist cares if Bible myths are close or far from observed reality unless maybe they are investigating the myth. Science has no reason to ignore supporting evidence if it is there. If there were true evidence making the theory of evolution in doubt, why wouldn't you see an army of theist scientists supporting serious doubt in evolution theory?

The DI would have you believe there is anti-Bible bias in science. Why wouldn't the army of theist scientists be protesting the covering up of such evidence? And scientists buck existing consensuses in droves when the evidence bucks the consensus. The world is much too diverse, with theist and atheist, American, European, Asian, and Oceanic, male and female, young and old, gay and straight scientists out there. For 5 decades this diverse group of scientists has been researching every aspect of the theory of evolution.

If the theory were flawed, evidence would be mounting against the theory. Instead, all the evidence has led to one conclusion. And genetic science provided massive, overwhelming evidence filling the gaps in the theory of evolution. It could not have stood up to this scrutiny were it not correct. You wouldn't need the DI and a straw argument which selected (punny ) a single strand (punny!) of evidence to attack. The evidence would speak for itself. To you, the evidence speaks. To me, you've been duped by whoever sold you the straw, and they were likely duped by whoever sold it to them.


As to, "There is no selection process that would do such a thing.Since joobz won’t tell us how ribose formed in the primordial soup, perhaps you would tell us?", is your premise that because all the details of abiogenesis remain to be discovered, the whole theory of evolution fails? Why is something undiscovered in any way, evidence it will not or cannot be discovered?

[not proof read, expect corrections and maybe some links if I have time.]

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The protein portion of the hemoglobin complex is composed of two different polypeptide globins. Are your arguing that these globins are not transcribed from their corresponding genes? If not, you only weaken your argument more so since now you have two genes, neither of which have a selection process to evolve them de novo to form the hemoglobin complex.

No, none of the genes involved in hemoglobin (and it's not just two as you may be implying) has to evolve "de novo". All the genes involved have close relatives. There are many, many globins.

 

[articulett]

Earth to Kleinman (or should I say Dr. Behe):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am2.html

This stuff has been addressed again and again; creationists just can't compute (and this goes for your reference to Darwin's Black Box too, Hewitt).

"Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." Judge John Jones--transcript of trial above.

And more of Judge Jones opinion:

p64 We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

p71 ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed.

Look, Atheist--another FALSE DICHOTOMY!

[Conclusion]
...
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

...As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

...Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

And check out the irreducible complexity evolver applet--a model of how irreducible complexity evolves:

http://www.stellaralchemy.com/ice/

Go tell your silly lies to your gullible congregation, Kleinman. We have examples of hemoglobin evolving and devolving again. I guess you never checked out the ice fish link I gave many pages ago. Why is that, Kleinman? So you can continue to pretend that your not comprehending the facts means that goddidit?

Religion makes you arrogant and ignorant--the proof is on this thread. At least unwitting children are protected from this breathtaking inanity in public schools for now. You nutcakes propose incomprehensible "theories" while making a big stink out of knowledge we don't yet know and then pretend to yourself and others you are too deep and profound for mere scientists and the public to understand. Scientists don't take you seriously because your intelligent designer has made you a poor scientist and too stupid to realize it.

And though, you may be a little better, Hewitt--don't you think you ought to brush up on both your communication skills and your own theory as well as current scientific understanding. I don't think your Darwin's Black Box book reference is a very good source as it's been thoroughly discredited for it's inanity. And your reference to "free will" reveals your biases. No matter how many problems you have with evolution (still not clear) your opposing theory (s)? explains nothing. And the rejection of your idea is due to it's uselessness as well as it's complete incomprehensibility--not because you see something deep that no other scientists can comprehend.

It's dishonest to pretend that your deep theories are too complex for scientists and others to understand or that scientists are keeping you silent when the truth is you haven't really proposed anything while insulting those who have quite a bit of evidence in support of them. And it's also dishonest to obfuscate so that people don't know of your allegiance to intelligent design.

Anyone interested in the wedge strategy can read about it here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/wedge.html

 

[articulett]

Nice job, skepticgirl--but you know that Kleinman only reads for information that supports his silly beliefs. He cannot comprehend anything that conflicts with his "death to evolution" mathematical nonsensical theories. Notice that other creationists are even distancing themselves from him--none of them wants to be seen as being like each other.

 

[articulett]

http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?req....1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0280:IDEBEB]2.0.CO;2

Intelligent design is a throwback to William Paley's 19th-century “argument from design.”Instead of claiming the improbability of organs such as eyes and bird wings, as the old school did (developmental biologists have rendered that view silly), ID supporters like Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe (1996) adopt a modern facade by invoking the improbability of biochemical pathways and subcellular structures arising through natural selection. Instead of asking what function half a bird wing could serve, Behe belittles the utility of half a biochemical pathway. In other words, he argues that complex biochemical systems like the blood-clotting cascade could not have been selected stepwise by Darwinian mechanisms. In Behe's world, such pathways exhibit “irreducible complexity.” Add mathematician William Dembski's statistical arguments about the impossibility of chance accounting for design in nature, and the ID creed is complete.

Today's evolution deniers try to avoid mentioning God, because the Supreme Court soundly trounced “scientific” creationism—the previous incarnation foisted on our school systems—as patently religious in nature and a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Intelligent design merely invokes some sort of master architect. He, she, or it could even have been (wink, wink) an extraterrestrial, adherents coyly offer.

 

[The Atheist]

I did. I have trouble understanding it. I contend that everyone else does as well, since no-one seems to be clarifying. Compare that to this far more simplistic explanation:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061109130729.htm

Even you should be able to sum that up and compare and contrast the furthering of understanding this explanation gives compared to John's oscillation "theory" where cells=true replicators.

Interesting but speculative. I hope they find the right match, there must be an immense amount of combinations. Then they just have to hope that something spontaneous happens from there which will provide the spark of life. It still looks pretty Dr Frankenstein to me, right down to the lightning.

Certainly quite clear, but not hell of a revealing.

And as for your interpretation of me and what is going on in this thread--I will point out that only you seem to be deriving your particular understanding. To me, your claims are as convoluted and unsupported as John Hewitt's and Kleinmans. Moreover, it appears you've had similar issues with others. Instead of worrying about my verbosity, perhaps it would serve you well to look at your own or to plow through Hewitt's and see if you can possibly understand what he is saying and what his problem with evolution is--and then tell the rest of us.

I might give it a crack when I have a few spare hours.

You refer to creationist as the "c-word" while claiming that most Christians would proudly admit their Christianity in the scientific community?! Is there anyone out there other than yourself who gives you credibility on this topic?

All I can suggest is to check out some of the better christian sites. I am presently conversing with several scientists, all of whom are openly and cheerfully christian.

Have you read anything about Dover and the wedge strategy?

I was discussing exactly this strategy the other day. Very popular.

He wants everyone to try and disprove his incomprehensible theory rather than to understand or read anything new that shows us how we are very much on the right path without his oscillating-cell-replicating-sex-ethics-free-will whatever-the-hell theory.

Well, as I've said, time will tell.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nice job, skepticgirl--but you know that Kleinman only reads for information that supports his silly beliefs. He cannot comprehend anything that conflicts with his "death to evolution" mathematical nonsensical theories. Notice that other creationists are even distancing themselves from him--none of them wants to be seen as being like each other.

That's why I added the last half of the post, thought I'd try a different approach.

My guess is k will fade away when the arguments are too difficult to face up to, based on what other people do when they can't shift their paradigms back into sync with reality. My hope is he/she takes a look at the wedge strategy and recognizes the difference between wishful thinking the evidence supports Biblical myths and the reality the evidence does not.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Atheist, I didn't get to edit my post last nite when the forum crashed. What I had added was maybe it was you I discussed Joyce with. It sounds familiar. I have no tie to any hypothesis. I posted Joyce's as an example. Articulett's science daily link is another and I like the fact it says, "This vexing question has stumped scientists for years because of the sheer volume of possibilities." Your ideas are great as well. Time will tell how it occurred. My guess is there won't be anything mysterious involved, just fantastic.

 

[John Hewitt]

And, John, while I agree that no one understand abiogenesis completely I disagree with your contention about me being especially not up on it. I decided to see if that was true, but I found I could make sense of current scientific understanding on the topic just fine--it's you that makes no sense to anyone. If you want people to take your theory seriously, instead of insulting them, try learning to write with clarity.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061109130729.htm

Science Daily — Over the last half century, researchers have found that mineral surfaces may have played critical roles organizing, or activating, molecules that would become essential ingredients to all life--such as amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) and nucleic acids (the essence of DNA). But which of the countless possible combinations of biomolecules and mineral surfaces were key to this evolution?

This is just a bit of journalism. Mineral catalysis may be a factor in creating the organic soup but it presumes far more than you seem to think. These catalysis reactions are performed on chemically cleaned up surfaces and that seems too designed to me. I just assume the existence of chemical equilibria, which is hardly an assumption at all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For kleinman re de novo gene emergence:

Duplication and divergence: the evolution of new genes and old ideas.

* Taylor JS,
* Raes J.

Department of Biology, University of Victoria, British Columbia V8W 3N5, Canada. taylorjs@uvic.ca

Over 35 years ago, Susumu Ohno stated that gene duplication was the single most important factor in evolution. He reiterated this point a few years later in proposing that without duplicated genes the creation of metazoans, vertebrates, and mammals from unicellular organisms would have been impossible. Such big leaps in evolution, he argued, required the creation of new gene loci with previously nonexistent functions. Bold statements such as these, combined with his proposal that at least one whole-genome duplication event facilitated the evolution of vertebrates, have made Ohno an icon in the literature on genome evolution. However, discussion on the occurrence and consequences of gene and genome duplication events has a much longer, and often neglected, history. Here we review literature dealing with the occurrence and consequences of gene duplication, beginning in 1911. We document conceptual and technological advances in gene duplication research from this early research in comparative cytology up to recent research on whole genomes, "transcriptomes," and "interactomes."

The ghost of selection past: rates of evolution and functional divergence of anciently duplicated genes.

* Van de Peer Y,
* Taylor JS,
* Braasch I,
* Meyer A.

Department of Biology, University of Konstanz, 78457 Konstanz, Germany. yvdp@gengenp.rug.ac.be

The duplication of genes and even complete genomes may be a prerequisite for major evolutionary transitions and the origin of evolutionary novelties. However, the evolutionary mechanisms of gene evolution and the origin of novel gene functions after gene duplication have been a subject of many debates. Recently, we compiled 26 groups of orthologous genes, which included one gene from human, mouse, and chicken, one or two genes from the tetraploid Xenopus and two genes from zebrafish. Comparative analysis and mapping data showed that these pairs of zebrafish genes were probably produced during a fish-specific genome duplication that occurred between 300 and 450 Mya, before the teleost radiation (Taylor et al. 2001). As discussed here, many of these retained duplicated genes code for DNA binding proteins. Different models have been developed to explain the retention of duplicated genes and in particular the subfunctionalization model of Force et al. (1999) could explain why so many developmental control genes have been retained. Other models are harder to reconcile with this particular set of duplicated genes. Most genes seem to have been subjected to strong purifying selection, keeping properties such as charge and polarity the same in both duplicates, although some evidence was found for positive Darwinian selection, in particular for Hox genes. However, since only the cumulative pattern of nucleotide substitutions can be studied, clear indications of positive Darwinian selection or neutrality may be hard to find for such anciently duplicated genes. Nevertheless, an increase in evolutionary rate in about half of the duplicated genes seems to suggest that either positive Darwinian selection has occurred or that functional constraints have been relaxed at one point in time during functional divergence.

Rapid evolution through gene duplication and subfunctionalization of the testes-specific alpha4 proteasome subunits in Drosophila.

* Torgerson DG,
* Singh RS.

Department of Biology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada. togerdg@mcmaster.ca

Gene duplication is an important mechanism for acquiring new genes and creating genetic novelty in organisms. Evidence suggests that duplicated genes are retained at a much higher rate than originally thought and that functional divergence of gene copies is a major factor promoting their retention in the genome. We find that two Drosophila testes-specific alpha4 proteasome subunit genes (alpha4-t1 and alpha4-t2) have a higher polymorphism within species and are significantly more diverged between species than the somatic alpha4 gene. Our data suggest that following gene duplication, the alpha4-t1 gene experienced relaxed selective constraints, whereas the alpha4-t2 gene experienced positive selection acting on several codons. We report significant heterogeneity in evolutionary rates among all three paralogs at homologous codons, indicating that functional divergence has coincided with genic divergence. Reproductive subfunctionalization may allow for a more rapid evolution of reproductive traits and a greater specialization of testes function. Our data add to the increasing evidence that duplicated genes experience lower selective constraints and in some cases positive selection following duplication. Newly duplicated genes that are freer from selective constraints may provide a mechanism for developing new interactions and a pathway for the evolution of new genes.

There are hundreds of research papers looking at the specific events which result in genetic shifts from one species to another. These are a sample. Just about anything you search for in the field of genetics gets you volumes of research papers. A few years ago a door swung wide open when new laboratory techniques allowed inexpensive PCR DNA production. It made the study of genetic material easier and less expensive on a logarithmic scale. The revolution in genetic research took another leap forward when the new lab techniques were combined with the new computer science of bioinformatics, ie writing computer programs to deal with biology questions involving analysis of billions of bits of data.

The sheer volume of research in this new field is incredible. But the potential for what developments will result from it is beyond astounding. For those left behind because they crave the stability of rigid beliefs, there will be no biology and maybe even no science careers for them and medical careers will require adjusting to constant cognitive dissonance as the genetic research is most profound in medicine.

Other than that, who cares.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is just a bit of journalism. Mineral catalysis may be a factor in creating the organic soup but it presumes far more than you seem to think. These catalysis reactions are performed on chemically cleaned up surfaces and that seems too designed to me. I just assume the existence of chemical equilibria, which is hardly an assumption at all.

There are the most technical aspects of medicine, of molecular physics, astronomy, computer science, you name it. I couldn't hold an intelligent conversation with a microbiologist studying the metabolic pathways of T-cell inhibitor proteins blah blah blah.

But that hardly means I don't understand what, for example, the above citations are generally about. It doesn't mean I don't have a thorough understanding of virology and microbiology. If you only enjoy conversations on the intense levels of science such as one with an astrobiophysicist then your criticisms of Articulett are poorly worded. If you think, on the other hand, one cannot grasp the concepts if one isn't a PhD physicist or better, you are mistaken.

And, BTW, your quoted post doesn't have any concepts I am not familiar with.

Perhaps I might ask you and Atheist to briefly state what your positions of dispute are, (or give the post # that best describes your issues) for those of us coming late to the thread. Are you only questioning the maturity of the abiogeneis hypotheses and that they are still at very speculative stages? Or are you claiming current hypotheses are off track as I believe my discussion with someone about Joyce's RNA hypotheses was about?

 

[Kotatsu]

Do you think I dispute those observed facts? I don't.

Again, as my last post appears to have escaped you, do you consider the paper by Song et al. to be a possible observation of speciation in the lab, regardless of the fact that they do not term it as such in the paper? To remind you, the allopolyploid progeny --- which represent the karyotypes of three forms of Brassica previously described as species in their own right, distinct from the parent Brassica species of the experiment --- showed extensive genetic differences, differences in fertility and differences in at least five morphological characters after just five generations, when compared to the original parent plants. Also: if you do not consider it to be such, for what reason do you come to that conslusion?

 

[The Atheist]

Perhaps I might ask you and Atheist to briefly state what your positions of dispute are, (or give the post # that best describes your issues) for those of us coming late to the thread. Are you only questioning the maturity of the abiogeneis hypotheses and that they are still at very speculative stages? Or are you claiming current hypotheses are off track as I believe my discussion with someone about Joyce's RNA hypotheses was about?

I'm a bad person to ask - I'm a recruiter, not a scientist, but to me, abiogenesis is obviously the key. Everything else seems almost straightforward by comparison. He makes some interesting points as well on selection, which as far as my limited knowledge goes, are unique.

I'm just here as the train wreck - see under avatar. You could class me as the "bovver boy" who's been "sucked in by John the Creationist". I have no particluar axe to grind.

Just having a further bit of fun with this whole thing, I'm trying to find if there's any whiff of christianity about John via the internet.

Very cool name, John A Hewitt! Could be a saint (were you educated at Cambridge, John?), or maybe he's a sinner! A Dr John A Hewitt!

There's no link to him with religion in any way available, if there are any. One of the sites which links to his work is a christian site, the others appear to be a mix of all theories, or, in a couple of cases, non/anti-ID sites. He is noted as non-ID here by someone. Then again, the guy's an Aussie. We colonials are much easier to confuse.

I did find this interesting question on some obscure site. From 2003:

Dear All,

I would like to pick some brains.

What suggestions have been made about the biological role of intervening
sequence DNA?
Is this phenomenon confined to diploid organisms? Are their any diploid
organisms where it does not occur?

--
Yours Sincerely

John A. Hewitt
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.hewitt1/
"A Habit of Lies - How Scientists Cheat."

So, we can confirm that he's capable of seeking others' opinions when needed.

 

[John Hewitt]

There are the most technical aspects of medicine, of molecular physics, astronomy, computer science, you name it. I couldn't hold an intelligent conversation with a microbiologist studying the metabolic pathways of T-cell inhibitor proteins blah blah blah.

But that hardly means I don't understand what, for example, the above citations are generally about. It doesn't mean I don't have a thorough understanding of virology and microbiology. If you only enjoy conversations on the intense levels of science such as one with an astrobiophysicist then your criticisms of Articulett are poorly worded. If you think, on the other hand, one cannot grasp the concepts if one isn't a PhD physicist or better, you are mistaken.

And, BTW, your quoted post doesn't have any concepts I am not familiar with.

Perhaps I might ask you and Atheist to briefly state what your positions of dispute are, (or give the post # that best describes your issues) for those of us coming late to the thread. Are you only questioning the maturity of the abiogeneis hypotheses and that they are still at very speculative stages? Or are you claiming current hypotheses are off track as I believe my discussion with someone about Joyce's RNA hypotheses was about?

I have some troubling understanding what Articulett is going on about since she basically just calls me names all the time or provides irrelevant links and references.
So far as I can understand her claims, it is
1. Evolution is an inviolable truth.
2. All evolution is based on replicators.
3. Anyone who doesn't accept her view of evolution is a "creationist."
4. She is free to abuse anyone she deems a "creationist."

My position is
1. I do think evolution is correct but I do not consider any one articulation of it to be inviolable.
2. A correct view of evolution should not be based on replicators, it should be based on replicating data flows. Replicating data can be achieved by an actual replicator but that could not have been the situation in prebiosis. In that instance, the sun provides a much more reliable and plausible replicating data source that can lead to a purely chemical evolution and so produce early life forms.
3. Many other forms of evolution also do not involve replicators, for example social evolution, where memes are a figment of Dawkins imagination.

 

[John Hewitt]

I'm a bad person to ask - I'm a recruiter, not a scientist, but to me, abiogenesis is obviously the key. Everything else seems almost straightforward by comparison. He makes some interesting points as well on selection, which as far as my limited knowledge goes, are unique.

I'm just here as the train wreck - see under avatar. You could class me as the "bovver boy" who's been "sucked in by John the Creationist". I have no particluar axe to grind.

Just having a further bit of fun with this whole thing, I'm trying to find if there's any whiff of christianity about John via the internet.

Very cool name, John A Hewitt! Could be a saint (were you educated at Cambridge, John?), or maybe he's a sinner! A Dr John A Hewitt!

There's no link to him with religion in any way available, if there are any. One of the sites which links to his work is a christian site, the others appear to be a mix of all theories, or, in a couple of cases, non/anti-ID sites. He is noted as non-ID here by someone. Then again, the guy's an Aussie. We colonials are much easier to confuse.

I did find this interesting question on some obscure site. From 2003:

So, we can confirm that he's capable of seeking others' opinions when needed.

Gosh, Atheist, you have been busy. I was educated in Cambridge but not Caius, I did Natural Sciences at Trinity - Darwin's College. My BA specialized in physical chemistry, then I did a PhD in molecular biology and I was in research labs for some time too. I do not remember posting on the Aussie blog but that post fairly reflects my opinion.

All this stuff about ribozymes and the RNA world seems to me just piece of fallacious groupthink emerging from a social organization that prohibits dissent. The basic rule, laid down by its senior figures, will be, "don't criticise our work or you will regret it." I am sure that there are many people who understand the problems with ideas like the RNA world but they keep quiet out of fear for their careers.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thank you both for your summaries. I don't think anyone is a bad person. As one who pisses people off (hopefully on rare occasions) and who on occasion has to remind myself not to get pissed off, I've just started noticing how easy it is to get annoyed at people in our kind of forum discussions.

I was just hoping, without blaming anyone, to get the discussion back on track. I really wasn't positive what positions you both were arguing from.

I don't know what definition of replicators you are referring to. I'll have to find it in past posts. I think it's safe to say evolution deniers are either poorly informed or hold some kind of religious bias which has influenced them to select straw evidence to battle. I am quite serious when I say genetic science has gone so far past basic evolutionary theory as to render arguments against the theory absurd.

As to hypotheses upon which to base a theory of abiogenesis, evolution does not depend on them. I don't know many biologists who hold that view. On the other hand, evolution provides very strong evidence abiogenesis occurred somewhere. Once you have confirmed the theory of evolution, and we have, then there are only 2 means of abiogenesis, natural processes or magic. I'm confident in the former.

The mechanisms by which abiogenesis occurred are just not confirmed. So you should be able to present any hypothesis and Articulett and I are capable of considering them. But if those hypotheses are so convincing as to be as assured as say, John's ideas, then the evidence will win the argument. That's why there is no need to get mad at people who don't believe you or accept your expertise on the subject.

John, your web site is quite revealing. You are angry before you've even started.

One who dismisses the scientists who dismissed one's hypotheses by claiming the scientists lie and deceive certainly isn't using a very persuasive tactic. It raises immediate suspicion that one's case was not made and rather than debate the points of contention, one attacks the messenger.

Feel free to attack my preachy post. I'm not mad at anyone, even the annoying Hamme.

 

[The Atheist]

Feel free to attack my preachy post. I'm not mad at anyone, even the annoying Hamme.

Doubt anyone's going to attack it, a model of clarity and calmness and hardly arguable.

I'll take your word on evolutionary theory, with just one question. John, as I understand it, posits that there are insufficient changes in DNA to cope with the knowledge differential between an amoeba and a human. As I don't have 7-10 years spare to study the subject, I'd be interested to know whether you have a view on it.

See how easy things are when we've all been doing our breathing exercises?

Cheers.

 

[John Hewitt]

John, your web site is quite revealing. You are angry before you've even started.

One who dismisses the scientists who dismissed one's hypotheses by claiming the scientists lie and deceive certainly isn't using a very persuasive tactic. It raises immediate suspicion that one's case was not made and rather than debate the points of contention, one attacks the messenger.

Feel free to attack my preachy post. I'm not mad at anyone, even the annoying Hamme.

I have no wish to attack you but I do want to make it clear that my work, as described in "A Habit of Lies" is one thing and my work as described in "Sex and Philosophy" is another.

So far as the former is concerned - that is not the topic I discuss on this thread but neither does accusing me of anger reply to or invalidate the points I make. Reporting three as two in the scientific literature is false reporting - it is not the expression of an opinion that is worthy of discussion. Continuing to so report the field into the teeth of protest is deliberate lying. I began by trying to be persuasive with such people but I stopped some time ago. I now just think that lying is an endemic fact of scientific life and that it should be acknowledged and recognized for what it is.

So far as my work on evolution is concerned, I have never accused anyone of lying in that field. I do think there are some exaggerated reputations around and a lot of claims that do not stand up to even a simple examination - such as the RNA world.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Evidence for de novo production of self-replicating and environmentally adapted RNA structures by bacteriophage Qbeta replicase.

Template-free generation of RNA species that replicate with bacteriophage T7 RNA polymerase.

Template-free RNA synthesis by Q beta replicase

De novo DNA synthesis by yeast DNA polymerase I associated with primase activity.

De Novo synthesis of DNA-like molecules by polynucleotide phosphorylase in vitro

De Novo Initiation of RNA Synthesis by the RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase (NS5B) of Hepatitis C Virus

Template-free generation of RNA species that replicate with bacteriophage T7 RNA polymerase

De novo RNA synthesis by a recombinant classical swine fever virus RNA-dependent RNA polymerase

De novo RNA synthesis catalyzed by HCV RNA-dependent RNA polymerase

Template-free, polymerase-free DNA polymerization

Template-Free Primer-Independent DNA Synthesis by Bacterial DNA Polymerases I Using the DnaB Protein from Escherichia coli

 

[articulett]

That's why I added the last half of the post, thought I'd try a different approach.

My guess is k will fade away when the arguments are too difficult to face up to, based on what other people do when they can't shift their paradigms back into sync with reality. My hope is he/she takes a look at the wedge strategy and recognizes the difference between wishful thinking the evidence supports Biblical myths and the reality the evidence does not.

You're too nice. He won't take any look. I was suckered in earlier in the thread. He is not a one of the duped--he is one of the dupers. And I have never seen a creationist change their stripes. They are the only people whose thinking just never evolves--at least not the ones all invested in their alternate theories. They just pretend that the scientists are afraid of them or can't understand their fabulous and depthful analogies. Your explanation was very good--but the creationists only insult--they have no interest in learning that their "intelligent designer" may be an illusion.

At least Hewitt is less insulting. Check out his links--Talking to Kleinman is like talking to Kurious Kathy--nothing gets beyond their impermeable god shield. It must suck when your intelligent designer doesn't conform to the evidence. Kleinman just trolls waiting for new people to come along and engage him, and when they give up, he feels like he has won a point for his "side". Hammy's worse--totally tangential and off on his philosophy rant as soon as he feels the need to interject a big word rather than silly winking emoticons and acronyms. Hewitt and Von Neumann are at least more intelligent to engage--but they are creationists too. They have big problems with evolution, but it's hard to really get them to state what they are--and they pretend to have alternating theories, but no one seems clear as to what they are talking about or whether their theories have any evidence in support of them or can be falsified. They disappear for a while and then come back to try and engage people who haven't wearied of their not so intelligently designed arguments.

On the other hand, you've got to admire Paul...he starts a thread called "annoying creationist" and they flock-- I guess they've already duped their fellow believers and they are trying to hone their sciency sounding theories at a more challenging site.