fodder for the list
Hi gang, Some information came across my desk a couple days ago, thought it might be of interest. This Monday Weber State University will have a series of talks to be given by Dr. Jason Lisle, an astrophysicist from U. of Colorado at Boulder. He will address cosmological issues from the Intelligent Design model. He packs some fairly impressive credentials so it should be somewhat interesting. There will be two Q&A sessions and those usually reveal how much meat is on the bone. Afterwards we should have some things to discuss on the list. (someone send an APB out for Chuck). Below is a short bio on the speaker: Dr.Lisle graduated summa cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan University where he double-majored in physics and astronomy, and minored in mathematics. He did graduate work at the University of Colorado where he earned a Master's degree and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics. While there, Dr Lisle used the SOHO spacecraft to investigate motions on the surface of the sun as well as solar magnetism and subsurface weather. His thesis was entitled "Probing the Dynamics of Solar Supergranulation and its Interaction with Magnetism." At the university level, Jason discovered that an important element in scientific study and the drawing of conclusions was this: that scientists usually are not aware of their presuppositions (i.e. they interpret scientific evidence in light of their existing worldview). It thus made it easier for him to see that intelligent scientists, many who were his professors, can disagree on what the evidence really means, for they have different starting points. So as he read intelligent-design materials, he could see that when the evidence was properly interpreted, it always supported the Biblical account of creation (even with the thorny question of starlight and time). [In graduate school, Dr. Lisle specialized in solar astrophysics. His areas of interest in creation studies are in developing models of cosmology and stellar aging.] Here is the schedule for Monday 7 March 2005 Monday Presentations 10:00 a.m. Relevance of Genesis Weber State University Wildcat Theatre 3750 Harrison Boulevard Ogden UT 84408 (The Wildcat Theatre is located in the Student Union.) 11:00 a.m. Question/Answer 2:00 p.m. Creation Astronomy: Viewing the Universe through Biblical Glasses 6:00 p.m. Big Problems with the Big Bang 7:30 p.m. Astronomy: What do we Really Know 8:30 p.m. Question/Answer Ron Vanderhule
The attached web page appears to be supportive of Dr. Lisle's worldview, and calls him "USA's newest scientist." http://www.daveabbey.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1 Bob Grant ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Vanderhule" <nitesite@lgcy.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 8:09 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] fodder for the list
Hi gang,
Some information came across my desk a couple days ago, thought it might be of interest. This Monday Weber State University will have a series of talks to be given by Dr. Jason Lisle, an astrophysicist from U. of Colorado at Boulder. He will address cosmological issues from the Intelligent Design model. He packs some fairly impressive credentials so it should be somewhat interesting. There will be two Q&A sessions and those usually reveal how much meat is on the bone. Afterwards we should have some things to discuss on the list. (someone send an APB out for Chuck). Below is a short bio on the speaker:
Dr.Lisle graduated summa cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan University where he double-majored in physics and astronomy, and minored in mathematics. He did graduate work at the University of Colorado where he earned a Master's degree and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics. While there, Dr Lisle used the SOHO spacecraft to investigate motions on the surface of the sun as well as solar magnetism and subsurface weather. His thesis was entitled "Probing the Dynamics of Solar Supergranulation and its Interaction with Magnetism."
At the university level, Jason discovered that an important element in scientific study and the drawing of conclusions was this: that scientists usually are not aware of their presuppositions (i.e. they interpret scientific evidence in light of their existing worldview). It thus made it easier for him to see that intelligent scientists, many who were his professors, can disagree on what the evidence really means, for they have different starting points. So as he read intelligent-design materials, he could see that when the evidence was properly interpreted, it always supported the Biblical account of creation (even with the thorny question of starlight and time). [In graduate school, Dr. Lisle specialized in solar astrophysics. His areas of interest in creation studies are in developing models of cosmology and stellar aging.] Here is the schedule for Monday
7 March 2005 Monday Presentations 10:00 a.m. Relevance of Genesis Weber State University Wildcat Theatre 3750 Harrison Boulevard Ogden UT 84408 (The Wildcat Theatre is located in the Student Union.) 11:00 a.m. Question/Answer 2:00 p.m. Creation Astronomy: Viewing the Universe through Biblical Glasses 6:00 p.m. Big Problems with the Big Bang 7:30 p.m. Astronomy: What do we Really Know 8:30 p.m. Question/Answer
Ron Vanderhule
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Very interesting article. The introduction to the transcript indicates that Lisle won the debate in the eyes of the writer, and yet the transcript seems to indicate the opposite is what actually happened..... Should be an interesting give and take at the lecture. Jo At 09:07 PM 3/3/2005 -0700, you wrote:
The attached web page appears to be supportive of Dr. Lisle's worldview, and calls him "USA's newest scientist."
http://www.daveabbey.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1
Bob Grant
There are several viewpoints about intelligent design including those of Phillip Johnson and microbiologist Michael Behe. Johnson and Behe believe that intelligent design (God) in some manner placed life on earth over geological time frames. I recently responded to Rick Fienberg's editorial in the March, Sky and Telescope, as shown below. It will be interesting to see if they publish it. I hope this isn't too controversial for the list. Working with several geologists and drilling wells to depths of over 16,000 feet we have never seen any transitional species in well cutting to support a gradualistic theory of evolution. The facts are the fossil record does not support it. What you see are new species arising during each time period as Steven J. Gould has said "almost as if they have been planted". I will be glad to email a copy of Berlinski's article to anyone who wants it. In response to: Evolution: We Can't Sit Idly By I hate to see Rick Fienberg fall into the trap of using the old whipping boy of the 6,000-year-old earth as the only alternative to evolution. Proponents of macroevolution have been fooled many times by such frauds as the Piltdown man, Nebraska man and most recently evolution frauds committed in China and published in 1999 in National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999. Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate. The reason proponents of macroevolution are fooled so easily is they are as guilty of gullibility as are the Christian fundamentalists they criticize. The most prominent and credible opponents of macroevolution such as Phillip Johnson, David Berlinski and microbiologist Michael Behe do not have problems with geological timeframes. Some like Johnson and Behe believe that intelligent design (God) brought about life on earth over a long period of time. Others like Berlinski don't take a stand they just point out the main problems with the theory. David Berlinski in the June 1996 issue of Commentary Magazine described in his article "The Deniable Darwin" the many flaws in macroevolution that are glossed over. As he states: "The facts in favor of evolution are often held to be incontrovertible; prominent biologists shake their heads at the obduracy of those who would dispute them. Those facts, however, have been rather less forthcoming than evolutionary biologists might have hoped. If life progressed by an accumulation of small changes, as they say it has, the fossil record should reflect its flow, the dead stacked up in barely separated strata. But for well over 150 years, the dead have been remarkably diffident about confirming Darwin's theory. Their bones lie suspended in the sands of time-theromorphs and therapsids and things that must have gibbered and then squeaked; but there are gaps in the graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms but where there is nothing whatsoever instead." This is why Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge developed the theory of punctuated evolution because as Stephen Gould observed with respect to the Cambrian explosion "it is almost as if the species were planted there". "The known fossil record," Steven Stanley observes, "fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." As briefly described above, there are many problems with macroevolution and it ought to be taught as a theory not fact. It has no predictive power like Einstein's theories, it is just a flawed historical hypothesis. Clear Skies Don J. Colton
Don J. Colton wrote:
There are several viewpoints about intelligent design including those of Phillip Johnson and microbiologist Michael Behe. Johnson and Behe believe that intelligent design (God) in some manner placed life on earth over geological time frames.
But did it really have to be a deity? Could we (some/most/all) life forms on Earth be here because we were seeded, intentionally or accidentally, by some other civilization? I always grin when I contemplate we could be here because some explorers visited early Earth and left their garbage behind. Those who don't like the idea that humans might have evolved from apes might really get irritated at the notion we evolved from alien "droppings". Patrick
Don: I don't think the quote from Gould is an argument against evolution. Gould spent his professional life studying evolution in land snails and found many examples of evolution. Gould believed and studied punctuated evolution as a way to understand life not to prove or disprove evolution. His popular publications all discuss evolution and cite many examples of evolution. Read his popular works and his professional works. Disagreements between scientists about the rate and mechanics of evolution do not discredit evolution but are an inevitable part of the process of coming to a deeper understanding of evolution. Geology provides a very imperfect record of life as it does of time. There are few environments where deposition occurs at a steady rate over a long time, and those that do (ocean floors) for example are hard to study, are poor environments for preservation of macro fossils and are recycled by continental drift. Is there a geologic cross section that records a continuous record from the Cambrian to the present? Despite this there are examples of 'intermediate' species in the geologic record. Yes, scientists have been fooled on occasion; but it was scientific inquiry that exposed the fakes. The Piltdown Man does not disprove the long record of evolution of australopithicene and homo species that has been found in east Africa. Instead it shows the fallability of scientists that start with a presumption (England is more advanced than Africa so modern man must have evolved in England) are prone to errors of judgement. Science is open to all evidence and scrutinizes that evidence to reach conclusions that further our understanding of this marvelous world. 'Intelligent Design' starts with a foregone conclusion and searches for evidence that supports the initial conclusion. It does not stand up to scientific scrutiny; not because of prejudices or financial concerns of the scientific community, but because the overwhelming evidence is for evolution. The genesis of life does not require intelligent design. Billions of years and uncountable miniscule changes in life have produced the diversity we see now. Read Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker. We haven't created life in the laboratory because we haven't had billions of years to run the experiment nor a lab the size of the earth powered by a dynamo as powerful as the sun. You have never seen an intermediate species, neither have I, and we never will find 'intermediate species.' The term is an oxymoron. There are no cars intermediate between Chevrolet and Toyota, but both have 'evolved' from the horseless carriages. The designs between the two are not 'intermediate' cars but were cars, complete and running. Mechanical objects are a bad analogy for biology but I hope you see my point: there is no species intermediate between dogs and horses so we will never find it. But dogs and horses do share a common ancestor somewhere between the Permian and the Paleocene. And from the Permian to the Paleocene it was not a linear progression but a many branched progression through time, all of the branches and leaves were species, not one was intermediate between dog and a horse. There are differing viewpoints about many things. Einstein did not believe in quantum mechanics, but turn on your green laser and you can see quantum mechanics at work in spite of Einstein's disbelief. Science reaches conclusions by examining facts and reaching conclusions that can explain the facts, not by starting with a conclusion and looking for evidence that might support the supposition. Can I disprove intelligent design? No. Throwing a pair of dice and getting a pair of sixes is a rare event. If it happens to me is it because that's what someone with metaphysical control of the dice wanted or is it just a random event? I can't tell just by looking at the dice. No. Does intelligent design explain life on earth better than random events? I think not, you think so. Can we resolve our differences on this? Probably not so let's make a deal, let's enjoy the clear dark nights on the Cretaceous at The Wedge and save the belief discussions for the cloudy nights out there. Clear skies, Bill B. On Mar 4, 2005, at 10:23 AM, Don J. Colton wrote:
There are several viewpoints about intelligent design including those of Phillip Johnson and microbiologist Michael Behe. Johnson and Behe believe that intelligent design (God) in some manner placed life on earth over geological time frames. I recently responded to Rick Fienberg's editorial in the March, Sky and Telescope, as shown below. It will be interesting to see if they publish it. I hope this isn't too controversial for the list.
Working with several geologists and drilling wells to depths of over 16,000 feet we have never seen any transitional species in well cutting to support a gradualistic theory of evolution. The facts are the fossil record does not support it. What you see are new species arising during each time period as Steven J. Gould has said "almost as if they have been planted". I will be glad to email a copy of Berlinski's article to anyone who wants it.
In response to: Evolution: We Can't Sit Idly By
I hate to see Rick Fienberg fall into the trap of using the old whipping boy of the 6,000-year-old earth as the only alternative to evolution.
Proponents of macroevolution have been fooled many times by such frauds as the Piltdown man, Nebraska man and most recently evolution frauds committed in China and published in 1999 in National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999. Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate. The reason proponents of macroevolution are fooled so easily is they are as guilty of gullibility as are the Christian fundamentalists they criticize.
The most prominent and credible opponents of macroevolution such as Phillip Johnson, David Berlinski and microbiologist Michael Behe do not have problems with geological timeframes. Some like Johnson and Behe believe that intelligent design (God) brought about life on earth over a long period of time. Others like Berlinski don't take a stand they just point out the main problems with the theory.
David Berlinski in the June 1996 issue of Commentary Magazine described in his article "The Deniable Darwin" the many flaws in macroevolution that are glossed over. As he states: "The facts in favor of evolution are often held to be incontrovertible; prominent biologists shake their heads at the obduracy of those who would dispute them. Those facts, however, have been rather less forthcoming than evolutionary biologists might have hoped. If life progressed by an accumulation of small changes, as they say it has, the fossil record should reflect its flow, the dead stacked up in barely separated strata. But for well over 150 years, the dead have been remarkably diffident about confirming Darwin's theory. Their bones lie suspended in the sands of time-theromorphs and therapsids and things that must have gibbered and then squeaked; but there are gaps in the graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms but where there is nothing whatsoever instead." This is why Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge developed the theory of punctuated evolution because as Stephen Gould observed with respect to the Cambrian explosion "it is almost as if the species were planted there". "The known fossil record," Steven Stanley observes, "fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."
As briefly described above, there are many problems with macroevolution and it ought to be taught as a theory not fact. It has no predictive power like Einstein's theories, it is just a flawed historical hypothesis.
Clear Skies Don J. Colton
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Bill, Perfectly stated, much better than I could have formulated the very same thoughts in my head, so thank you! Don, while I may be the first to agree with you that [I believe] there is a Creator behind all of this, nobody has to abandon that belief when it comes to evolutionary science. What do we replace it with, hocus pocus? Is it more plausible to picture God waving a magic wand, or sprinkling a lump of clay with pixie dust, than the possible idea that (s)he set in motion the complex algorithm of evolutionary creation? But all that aside, I whole-heartedly agree with Mr. Fienberg's assessment of the problem; religious belief has NO place in a science textbook. Don, I think you missed Rick's point completely -- gaps in our knowledge on ANY topic do not call for God to jump in as the filler. As he so aptly stated in his article, "If God exists only in the gaps, then God is diminished, rather than glorified, with each new discovery -- hardly satisfying for people of faith." Amen to that! Science is all about building models to explain the data we find, and of course it's ALL theory -- we still often wildly conjecture about the actual structure of atomic and sub-atomic particles, since we cannot directly observe them yet. But our models seem to fit the data, usually quite well and quite predictably, until we discover something new that requires us to refine the model. Newtonian Physics was "fact" for a long long time, until we realized that it wasn't quite able to explain all the things that we observed, and so the model was refined, enlarged, to include relativity and quantum mechanics, and... There is overwhelming evidence to support an evolutionary model across virtually every scientific discipline, from geology to every facet of biology to genetics (we now know, many decades after Darwin, that we share 98% of our DNA with Chimps for example) to chemistry to physics, sociology and the behavioral sciences to anthropology, etc. And mutational evolution IS an observed fact; as a microbiologist explained to me recently, it's one of the reasons we are losing the war against microbes (AIDS, etc.) -- they are mutating so quickly we can't keep up with them in our search to find drug therapies to effectively combat them. I do not see evolution as any kind of threat to my belief system, active High Priest that I am. If anything, the compelling beauty of evolutionary processes only strengthens it. I'm saddened to see so many folks still trying to vilify Darwin's work, when instead we should be grateful for his brilliant insight so long ago... My 2 cents, Rich __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I always thought of the relationship between Science and Religion as not so much a battle for proof and acceptance, but more as two aspects of the same coin. Science is the how. How did we evolve? How are stars born? Religion is why. Why did we evolve? Why are we here? Why do stars exist? It seems natural to me that they are both needed for a modern understanding of our world. The how is hollow without the why, and the why is meaningless without the how. Just my opinion, ~Jon
From: Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> Reply-To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: [Utah-astronomy] stirring the pot [was: fodder for the list] Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 22:21:51 -0800 (PST)
Bill,
Perfectly stated, much better than I could have formulated the very same thoughts in my head, so thank you!
Don, while I may be the first to agree with you that [I believe] there is a Creator behind all of this, nobody has to abandon that belief when it comes to evolutionary science. What do we replace it with, hocus pocus? Is it more plausible to picture God waving a magic wand, or sprinkling a lump of clay with pixie dust, than the possible idea that (s)he set in motion the complex algorithm of evolutionary creation? But all that aside, I whole-heartedly agree with Mr. Fienberg's assessment of the problem; religious belief has NO place in a science textbook.
Don, I think you missed Rick's point completely -- gaps in our knowledge on ANY topic do not call for God to jump in as the filler. As he so aptly stated in his article, "If God exists only in the gaps, then God is diminished, rather than glorified, with each new discovery -- hardly satisfying for people of faith."
Amen to that!
Science is all about building models to explain the data we find, and of course it's ALL theory -- we still often wildly conjecture about the actual structure of atomic and sub-atomic particles, since we cannot directly observe them yet. But our models seem to fit the data, usually quite well and quite predictably, until we discover something new that requires us to refine the model. Newtonian Physics was "fact" for a long long time, until we realized that it wasn't quite able to explain all the things that we observed, and so the model was refined, enlarged, to include relativity and quantum mechanics, and...
There is overwhelming evidence to support an evolutionary model across virtually every scientific discipline, from geology to every facet of biology to genetics (we now know, many decades after Darwin, that we share 98% of our DNA with Chimps for example) to chemistry to physics, sociology and the behavioral sciences to anthropology, etc. And mutational evolution IS an observed fact; as a microbiologist explained to me recently, it's one of the reasons we are losing the war against microbes (AIDS, etc.) -- they are mutating so quickly we can't keep up with them in our search to find drug therapies to effectively combat them.
I do not see evolution as any kind of threat to my belief system, active High Priest that I am. If anything, the compelling beauty of evolutionary processes only strengthens it.
I'm saddened to see so many folks still trying to vilify Darwin's work, when instead we should be grateful for his brilliant insight so long ago...
My 2 cents, Rich
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Rich I will send you the same articles I sent Bill. Its pretty heavy reading, particularly the letters to the editor and Berlinski's response. Clear Skies Don Colton -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Richard Tenney Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 11:22 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] stirring the pot [was: fodder for the list] Bill, Perfectly stated, much better than I could have formulated the very same thoughts in my head, so thank you! Don, while I may be the first to agree with you that [I believe] there is a Creator behind all of this, nobody has to abandon that belief when it comes to evolutionary science. What do we replace it with, hocus pocus? Is it more plausible to picture God waving a magic wand, or sprinkling a lump of clay with pixie dust, than the possible idea that (s)he set in motion the complex algorithm of evolutionary creation? But all that aside, I whole-heartedly agree with Mr. Fienberg's assessment of the problem; religious belief has NO place in a science textbook. Don, I think you missed Rick's point completely -- gaps in our knowledge on ANY topic do not call for God to jump in as the filler. As he so aptly stated in his article, "If God exists only in the gaps, then God is diminished, rather than glorified, with each new discovery -- hardly satisfying for people of faith." Amen to that! Science is all about building models to explain the data we find, and of course it's ALL theory -- we still often wildly conjecture about the actual structure of atomic and sub-atomic particles, since we cannot directly observe them yet. But our models seem to fit the data, usually quite well and quite predictably, until we discover something new that requires us to refine the model. Newtonian Physics was "fact" for a long long time, until we realized that it wasn't quite able to explain all the things that we observed, and so the model was refined, enlarged, to include relativity and quantum mechanics, and... There is overwhelming evidence to support an evolutionary model across virtually every scientific discipline, from geology to every facet of biology to genetics (we now know, many decades after Darwin, that we share 98% of our DNA with Chimps for example) to chemistry to physics, sociology and the behavioral sciences to anthropology, etc. And mutational evolution IS an observed fact; as a microbiologist explained to me recently, it's one of the reasons we are losing the war against microbes (AIDS, etc.) -- they are mutating so quickly we can't keep up with them in our search to find drug therapies to effectively combat them. I do not see evolution as any kind of threat to my belief system, active High Priest that I am. If anything, the compelling beauty of evolutionary processes only strengthens it. I'm saddened to see so many folks still trying to vilify Darwin's work, when instead we should be grateful for his brilliant insight so long ago... My 2 cents, Rich __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
On Mar 4, 2005, at 8:29 PM, William Biesele wrote:
You have never seen an intermediate species, neither have I, and we never will find 'intermediate species.' The term is an oxymoron. There are no cars intermediate between Chevrolet and Toyota, but both have 'evolved' from the horseless carriages. The designs between the two are not 'intermediate' cars but were cars, complete and running. Mechanical objects are a bad analogy for biology but I hope you see my point: there is no species intermediate between dogs and horses so we will never find it. But dogs and horses do share a common ancestor somewhere between the Permian and the Paleocene. And from the Permian to the Paleocene it was not a linear progression but a many branched progression through time, all of the branches and leaves were species, not one was intermediate between dog and a horse.
This is a poor example. Cars are designed, and some of them, I contend, are even intelligently designed. Darwin certainly expected to find intermediate species, and said that incompleteness in the exploration of the fossil record accounted for the then current lack of evidence. In fact, Darwin said that if the evidence failed to come forth with subsequent exploration of that record, that was evidence that evolution was false. Gould came up with the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis as a way to say, "Evidence? EVIDENCE?!? We don't need to show you any stinkin' evidence!!"
There are differing viewpoints about many things. Einstein did not believe in quantum mechanics, but turn on your green laser and you can see quantum mechanics at work in spite of Einstein's disbelief. Science reaches conclusions by examining facts and reaching conclusions that can explain the facts, not by starting with a conclusion and looking for evidence that might support the supposition.
Ahem, Einstein *predicted* lasers. One of his seminal papers we're celebrating this year concerned the photoelectric effect. In fact, that was the work cited by the Nobel committee in 1921 because General Relativity was too recent to yet have the confidence of the scientific community. Jim Cobb james@cobb.name ---- I have never seen a watch designed by a blind watchmaker that kept decent time. ---- Fossil sells watches, but I don't think that can be taken as evidence for the evolutionary hypothesis.
Bill You raise some good points. I will email you Berlinski's entire article to your email address listed on the SLAS website. He addresses many of the issues you raise as well as Dawkins writings. The second attachment will be Berlinski's response to critical letters by a host of prominent scientists and biologists including Richard Dawkins. My main point is that evolution is far from being a confirmed fact and it should be taught as a theory not as incontrovertible. Gould had major problems with the gradualistic model (because of the lack of fossil evidence) that is why he developed the theory of punctuated evolution. Clear Skies Don Colton -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com]On Behalf Of William Biesele Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 8:30 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] fodder for the list Don: I don't think the quote from Gould is an argument against evolution. Gould spent his professional life studying evolution in land snails and found many examples of evolution. Gould believed and studied punctuated evolution as a way to understand life not to prove or disprove evolution. His popular publications all discuss evolution and cite many examples of evolution. Read his popular works and his professional works. Disagreements between scientists about the rate and mechanics of evolution do not discredit evolution but are an inevitable part of the process of coming to a deeper understanding of evolution. Geology provides a very imperfect record of life as it does of time. There are few environments where deposition occurs at a steady rate over a long time, and those that do (ocean floors) for example are hard to study, are poor environments for preservation of macro fossils and are recycled by continental drift. Is there a geologic cross section that records a continuous record from the Cambrian to the present? Despite this there are examples of 'intermediate' species in the geologic record. Yes, scientists have been fooled on occasion; but it was scientific inquiry that exposed the fakes. The Piltdown Man does not disprove the long record of evolution of australopithicene and homo species that has been found in east Africa. Instead it shows the fallability of scientists that start with a presumption (England is more advanced than Africa so modern man must have evolved in England) are prone to errors of judgement. Science is open to all evidence and scrutinizes that evidence to reach conclusions that further our understanding of this marvelous world. 'Intelligent Design' starts with a foregone conclusion and searches for evidence that supports the initial conclusion. It does not stand up to scientific scrutiny; not because of prejudices or financial concerns of the scientific community, but because the overwhelming evidence is for evolution. The genesis of life does not require intelligent design. Billions of years and uncountable miniscule changes in life have produced the diversity we see now. Read Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker. We haven't created life in the laboratory because we haven't had billions of years to run the experiment nor a lab the size of the earth powered by a dynamo as powerful as the sun. You have never seen an intermediate species, neither have I, and we never will find 'intermediate species.' The term is an oxymoron. There are no cars intermediate between Chevrolet and Toyota, but both have 'evolved' from the horseless carriages. The designs between the two are not 'intermediate' cars but were cars, complete and running. Mechanical objects are a bad analogy for biology but I hope you see my point: there is no species intermediate between dogs and horses so we will never find it. But dogs and horses do share a common ancestor somewhere between the Permian and the Paleocene. And from the Permian to the Paleocene it was not a linear progression but a many branched progression through time, all of the branches and leaves were species, not one was intermediate between dog and a horse. There are differing viewpoints about many things. Einstein did not believe in quantum mechanics, but turn on your green laser and you can see quantum mechanics at work in spite of Einstein's disbelief. Science reaches conclusions by examining facts and reaching conclusions that can explain the facts, not by starting with a conclusion and looking for evidence that might support the supposition. Can I disprove intelligent design? No. Throwing a pair of dice and getting a pair of sixes is a rare event. If it happens to me is it because that's what someone with metaphysical control of the dice wanted or is it just a random event? I can't tell just by looking at the dice. No. Does intelligent design explain life on earth better than random events? I think not, you think so. Can we resolve our differences on this? Probably not so let's make a deal, let's enjoy the clear dark nights on the Cretaceous at The Wedge and save the belief discussions for the cloudy nights out there. Clear skies, Bill B. On Mar 4, 2005, at 10:23 AM, Don J. Colton wrote:
There are several viewpoints about intelligent design including those of Phillip Johnson and microbiologist Michael Behe. Johnson and Behe believe that intelligent design (God) in some manner placed life on earth over geological time frames. I recently responded to Rick Fienberg's editorial in the March, Sky and Telescope, as shown below. It will be interesting to see if they publish it. I hope this isn't too controversial for the list.
Working with several geologists and drilling wells to depths of over 16,000 feet we have never seen any transitional species in well cutting to support a gradualistic theory of evolution. The facts are the fossil record does not support it. What you see are new species arising during each time period as Steven J. Gould has said "almost as if they have been planted". I will be glad to email a copy of Berlinski's article to anyone who wants it.
In response to: Evolution: We Can't Sit Idly By
I hate to see Rick Fienberg fall into the trap of using the old whipping boy of the 6,000-year-old earth as the only alternative to evolution.
Proponents of macroevolution have been fooled many times by such frauds as the Piltdown man, Nebraska man and most recently evolution frauds committed in China and published in 1999 in National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999. Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate. The reason proponents of macroevolution are fooled so easily is they are as guilty of gullibility as are the Christian fundamentalists they criticize.
The most prominent and credible opponents of macroevolution such as Phillip Johnson, David Berlinski and microbiologist Michael Behe do not have problems with geological timeframes. Some like Johnson and Behe believe that intelligent design (God) brought about life on earth over a long period of time. Others like Berlinski don't take a stand they just point out the main problems with the theory.
David Berlinski in the June 1996 issue of Commentary Magazine described in his article "The Deniable Darwin" the many flaws in macroevolution that are glossed over. As he states: "The facts in favor of evolution are often held to be incontrovertible; prominent biologists shake their heads at the obduracy of those who would dispute them. Those facts, however, have been rather less forthcoming than evolutionary biologists might have hoped. If life progressed by an accumulation of small changes, as they say it has, the fossil record should reflect its flow, the dead stacked up in barely separated strata. But for well over 150 years, the dead have been remarkably diffident about confirming Darwin's theory. Their bones lie suspended in the sands of time-theromorphs and therapsids and things that must have gibbered and then squeaked; but there are gaps in the graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms but where there is nothing whatsoever instead." This is why Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge developed the theory of punctuated evolution because as Stephen Gould observed with respect to the Cambrian explosion "it is almost as if the species were planted there". "The known fossil record," Steven Stanley observes, "fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."
As briefly described above, there are many problems with macroevolution and it ought to be taught as a theory not fact. It has no predictive power like Einstein's theories, it is just a flawed historical hypothesis.
Clear Skies Don J. Colton
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Don: One of the many things that evolution, or intelligent design, has given us is tremendous skill at problem solving and deductive logic. Given something that we don't understand, each of us is capable of coming up with an intelligent argument explaining what we see.. So given a situation we don't understand, how do we pick among the many intelligent possible solutions? Scientists have accepted a system publication of data and conclusions in peer reviewed journals. Publishing to spread knowledge, peer review to ensure that the data supports the conclusion. So, after reading the articles, I checked the website of Commentary to see who peer reviewed the article. Although I didn't find the article you sent, I did check who peer reviewed a couple of articles on the front page. "Free Speech for Terrorists" did not mention a peer review. Nor did "The Settler's Crisis" , or "Social Security, Then and Now." So on to their 'About Us' page: "The magazine is primarily known as the intellectual home of the neoconservative movement." Bottom line, I'd be more impressed with an article from a scientific journal, not a magazine with a political ax to grind. Bill B. On Mar 7, 2005, at 10:08 AM, Don J. Colton wrote:
Bill
You raise some good points. I will email you Berlinski's entire article to your email address listed on the SLAS website. He addresses many of the issues you raise as well as Dawkins writings. The second attachment will be Berlinski's response to critical letters by a host of prominent scientists and biologists including Richard Dawkins.
My main point is that evolution is far from being a confirmed fact and it should be taught as a theory not as incontrovertible. Gould had major problems with the gradualistic model (because of the lack of fossil evidence) that is why he developed the theory of punctuated evolution.
Clear Skies Don Colton
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy- bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com]On Behalf Of William Biesele Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 8:30 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] fodder for the list
Don:
I don't think the quote from Gould is an argument against evolution. Gould spent his professional life studying evolution in land snails and found many examples of evolution. Gould believed and studied punctuated evolution as a way to understand life not to prove or disprove evolution. His popular publications all discuss evolution and cite many examples of evolution. Read his popular works and his professional works. Disagreements between scientists about the rate and mechanics of evolution do not discredit evolution but are an inevitable part of the process of coming to a deeper understanding of evolution.
Geology provides a very imperfect record of life as it does of time. There are few environments where deposition occurs at a steady rate over a long time, and those that do (ocean floors) for example are hard to study, are poor environments for preservation of macro fossils and are recycled by continental drift. Is there a geologic cross section that records a continuous record from the Cambrian to the present? Despite this there are examples of 'intermediate' species in the geologic record.
Yes, scientists have been fooled on occasion; but it was scientific inquiry that exposed the fakes. The Piltdown Man does not disprove the long record of evolution of australopithicene and homo species that has been found in east Africa. Instead it shows the fallability of scientists that start with a presumption (England is more advanced than Africa so modern man must have evolved in England) are prone to errors of judgement. Science is open to all evidence and scrutinizes that evidence to reach conclusions that further our understanding of this marvelous world. 'Intelligent Design' starts with a foregone conclusion and searches for evidence that supports the initial conclusion. It does not stand up to scientific scrutiny; not because of prejudices or financial concerns of the scientific community, but because the overwhelming evidence is for evolution.
The genesis of life does not require intelligent design. Billions of years and uncountable miniscule changes in life have produced the diversity we see now. Read Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker. We haven't created life in the laboratory because we haven't had billions of years to run the experiment nor a lab the size of the earth powered by a dynamo as powerful as the sun.
You have never seen an intermediate species, neither have I, and we never will find 'intermediate species.' The term is an oxymoron. There are no cars intermediate between Chevrolet and Toyota, but both have 'evolved' from the horseless carriages. The designs between the two are not 'intermediate' cars but were cars, complete and running. Mechanical objects are a bad analogy for biology but I hope you see my point: there is no species intermediate between dogs and horses so we will never find it. But dogs and horses do share a common ancestor somewhere between the Permian and the Paleocene. And from the Permian to the Paleocene it was not a linear progression but a many branched progression through time, all of the branches and leaves were species, not one was intermediate between dog and a horse.
There are differing viewpoints about many things. Einstein did not believe in quantum mechanics, but turn on your green laser and you can see quantum mechanics at work in spite of Einstein's disbelief. Science reaches conclusions by examining facts and reaching conclusions that can explain the facts, not by starting with a conclusion and looking for evidence that might support the supposition.
Can I disprove intelligent design? No. Throwing a pair of dice and getting a pair of sixes is a rare event. If it happens to me is it because that's what someone with metaphysical control of the dice wanted or is it just a random event? I can't tell just by looking at the dice. No. Does intelligent design explain life on earth better than random events? I think not, you think so. Can we resolve our differences on this? Probably not so let's make a deal, let's enjoy the clear dark nights on the Cretaceous at The Wedge and save the belief discussions for the cloudy nights out there.
Clear skies,
Bill B.
On Mar 4, 2005, at 10:23 AM, Don J. Colton wrote:
There are several viewpoints about intelligent design including those of Phillip Johnson and microbiologist Michael Behe. Johnson and Behe believe that intelligent design (God) in some manner placed life on earth over geological time frames. I recently responded to Rick Fienberg's editorial in the March, Sky and Telescope, as shown below. It will be interesting to see if they publish it. I hope this isn't too controversial for the list.
Working with several geologists and drilling wells to depths of over 16,000 feet we have never seen any transitional species in well cutting to support a gradualistic theory of evolution. The facts are the fossil record does not support it. What you see are new species arising during each time period as Steven J. Gould has said "almost as if they have been planted". I will be glad to email a copy of Berlinski's article to anyone who wants it.
In response to: Evolution: We Can't Sit Idly By
I hate to see Rick Fienberg fall into the trap of using the old whipping boy of the 6,000-year-old earth as the only alternative to evolution.
Proponents of macroevolution have been fooled many times by such frauds as the Piltdown man, Nebraska man and most recently evolution frauds committed in China and published in 1999 in National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999. Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate. The reason proponents of macroevolution are fooled so easily is they are as guilty of gullibility as are the Christian fundamentalists they criticize.
The most prominent and credible opponents of macroevolution such as Phillip Johnson, David Berlinski and microbiologist Michael Behe do not have problems with geological timeframes. Some like Johnson and Behe believe that intelligent design (God) brought about life on earth over a long period of time. Others like Berlinski don't take a stand they just point out the main problems with the theory.
David Berlinski in the June 1996 issue of Commentary Magazine described in his article "The Deniable Darwin" the many flaws in macroevolution that are glossed over. As he states: "The facts in favor of evolution are often held to be incontrovertible; prominent biologists shake their heads at the obduracy of those who would dispute them. Those facts, however, have been rather less forthcoming than evolutionary biologists might have hoped. If life progressed by an accumulation of small changes, as they say it has, the fossil record should reflect its flow, the dead stacked up in barely separated strata. But for well over 150 years, the dead have been remarkably diffident about confirming Darwin's theory. Their bones lie suspended in the sands of time-theromorphs and therapsids and things that must have gibbered and then squeaked; but there are gaps in the graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms but where there is nothing whatsoever instead." This is why Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge developed the theory of punctuated evolution because as Stephen Gould observed with respect to the Cambrian explosion "it is almost as if the species were planted there". "The known fossil record," Steven Stanley observes, "fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."
As briefly described above, there are many problems with macroevolution and it ought to be taught as a theory not fact. It has no predictive power like Einstein's theories, it is just a flawed historical hypothesis.
Clear Skies Don J. Colton
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Not to beat a dead horse to death. But it is difficult to get peer review acceptance of any article that attempts to discredit a current popularly accepted theory. Galileo and Copernicus found that out. A modern example is Halton Arp, who's book "Seeing Red" details how he was black listed, fired and had extreme difficulty publishing any of his articles that questioned the Big Bang Theory. And he was a prominent astronomer. The same was true for the late Fred Hoyle. Hoyle, by the way, believed the earth was seeded by extraterrestrial life. Arp has never indicated any religious beliefs but believes (rightly or wrongly) that the observational evidence does not support the Big Bang. Arp mentions in his book he talked to more than one graduate student who supported his ideas, but they said they couldn't get employment if the didn't support the Big Bang. I think the same is true with respect to David Berlinski trying to get his articles published in a peer reviewed biology journal. Berlinski does not believe in intelligent design or Darwinism as noted in a December 2002 article. He just thinks that macroevolution is flawed (he doesn't have a problem with microevolution). He believes that natural selection and genetic mutation does not work mathematically and their must be some other mechanism that explains nature. I had an interesting experience in graduate school with respect to the cluster NGC 2264. My professor did not believe in circumstellar shells around stars and wanted me to disprove it by measuring stars in the NGC 2264 cluster and proving the extinction, which was the basis for the circumstellar shell theory, was faulty observation evidence and was due to reddening of background stars. He had made up his mind before we even did the research. The data I felt was indeterminate and I didn't feel comfortable writing a paper. That and the low prospects for employment are some of the reasons I did not become a professional astronomer. By the way, the circumstellar shell theory is now accepted. Finally I work in the oil and gas exploration industry. Geologists were adamant that the central Utah Overthrust was devoid of oil because of the lack of source rock. A small company called Wolverine Gas and Oil tried to sell a deal in the central Utah Overthrust for over four years but no "respectable" oil company was interested. He then sold his deal to doctors and dentists and other small investors who didn't know better. He drilled the well and found the biggest oil discovery in the Rockies in the last 20 years just northeast of Richfield, Utah. By the way, I have been talking to the Richfield city government about putting in a lighting ordinance before it is too late. Clear Skies Don Colton -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com]On Behalf Of William Biesele Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 7:54 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] fodder for the list Don: One of the many things that evolution, or intelligent design, has given us is tremendous skill at problem solving and deductive logic. Given something that we don't understand, each of us is capable of coming up with an intelligent argument explaining what we see.. So given a situation we don't understand, how do we pick among the many intelligent possible solutions? Scientists have accepted a system publication of data and conclusions in peer reviewed journals. Publishing to spread knowledge, peer review to ensure that the data supports the conclusion. So, after reading the articles, I checked the website of Commentary to see who peer reviewed the article. Although I didn't find the article you sent, I did check who peer reviewed a couple of articles on the front page. "Free Speech for Terrorists" did not mention a peer review. Nor did "The Settler's Crisis" , or "Social Security, Then and Now." So on to their 'About Us' page: "The magazine is primarily known as the intellectual home of the neoconservative movement." Bottom line, I'd be more impressed with an article from a scientific journal, not a magazine with a political ax to grind. Bill B. On Mar 7, 2005, at 10:08 AM, Don J. Colton wrote:
Bill
You raise some good points. I will email you Berlinski's entire article to your email address listed on the SLAS website. He addresses many of the issues you raise as well as Dawkins writings. The second attachment will be Berlinski's response to critical letters by a host of prominent scientists and biologists including Richard Dawkins.
My main point is that evolution is far from being a confirmed fact and it should be taught as a theory not as incontrovertible. Gould had major problems with the gradualistic model (because of the lack of fossil evidence) that is why he developed the theory of punctuated evolution.
Clear Skies Don Colton
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy- bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com]On Behalf Of William Biesele Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 8:30 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] fodder for the list
Don:
I don't think the quote from Gould is an argument against evolution. Gould spent his professional life studying evolution in land snails and found many examples of evolution. Gould believed and studied punctuated evolution as a way to understand life not to prove or disprove evolution. His popular publications all discuss evolution and cite many examples of evolution. Read his popular works and his professional works. Disagreements between scientists about the rate and mechanics of evolution do not discredit evolution but are an inevitable part of the process of coming to a deeper understanding of evolution.
Geology provides a very imperfect record of life as it does of time. There are few environments where deposition occurs at a steady rate over a long time, and those that do (ocean floors) for example are hard to study, are poor environments for preservation of macro fossils and are recycled by continental drift. Is there a geologic cross section that records a continuous record from the Cambrian to the present? Despite this there are examples of 'intermediate' species in the geologic record.
Yes, scientists have been fooled on occasion; but it was scientific inquiry that exposed the fakes. The Piltdown Man does not disprove the long record of evolution of australopithicene and homo species that has been found in east Africa. Instead it shows the fallability of scientists that start with a presumption (England is more advanced than Africa so modern man must have evolved in England) are prone to errors of judgement. Science is open to all evidence and scrutinizes that evidence to reach conclusions that further our understanding of this marvelous world. 'Intelligent Design' starts with a foregone conclusion and searches for evidence that supports the initial conclusion. It does not stand up to scientific scrutiny; not because of prejudices or financial concerns of the scientific community, but because the overwhelming evidence is for evolution.
The genesis of life does not require intelligent design. Billions of years and uncountable miniscule changes in life have produced the diversity we see now. Read Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker. We haven't created life in the laboratory because we haven't had billions of years to run the experiment nor a lab the size of the earth powered by a dynamo as powerful as the sun.
You have never seen an intermediate species, neither have I, and we never will find 'intermediate species.' The term is an oxymoron. There are no cars intermediate between Chevrolet and Toyota, but both have 'evolved' from the horseless carriages. The designs between the two are not 'intermediate' cars but were cars, complete and running. Mechanical objects are a bad analogy for biology but I hope you see my point: there is no species intermediate between dogs and horses so we will never find it. But dogs and horses do share a common ancestor somewhere between the Permian and the Paleocene. And from the Permian to the Paleocene it was not a linear progression but a many branched progression through time, all of the branches and leaves were species, not one was intermediate between dog and a horse.
There are differing viewpoints about many things. Einstein did not believe in quantum mechanics, but turn on your green laser and you can see quantum mechanics at work in spite of Einstein's disbelief. Science reaches conclusions by examining facts and reaching conclusions that can explain the facts, not by starting with a conclusion and looking for evidence that might support the supposition.
Can I disprove intelligent design? No. Throwing a pair of dice and getting a pair of sixes is a rare event. If it happens to me is it because that's what someone with metaphysical control of the dice wanted or is it just a random event? I can't tell just by looking at the dice. No. Does intelligent design explain life on earth better than random events? I think not, you think so. Can we resolve our differences on this? Probably not so let's make a deal, let's enjoy the clear dark nights on the Cretaceous at The Wedge and save the belief discussions for the cloudy nights out there.
Clear skies,
Bill B.
On Mar 4, 2005, at 10:23 AM, Don J. Colton wrote:
There are several viewpoints about intelligent design including those of Phillip Johnson and microbiologist Michael Behe. Johnson and Behe believe that intelligent design (God) in some manner placed life on earth over geological time frames. I recently responded to Rick Fienberg's editorial in the March, Sky and Telescope, as shown below. It will be interesting to see if they publish it. I hope this isn't too controversial for the list.
Working with several geologists and drilling wells to depths of over 16,000 feet we have never seen any transitional species in well cutting to support a gradualistic theory of evolution. The facts are the fossil record does not support it. What you see are new species arising during each time period as Steven J. Gould has said "almost as if they have been planted". I will be glad to email a copy of Berlinski's article to anyone who wants it.
In response to: Evolution: We Can't Sit Idly By
I hate to see Rick Fienberg fall into the trap of using the old whipping boy of the 6,000-year-old earth as the only alternative to evolution.
Proponents of macroevolution have been fooled many times by such frauds as the Piltdown man, Nebraska man and most recently evolution frauds committed in China and published in 1999 in National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999. Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate. The reason proponents of macroevolution are fooled so easily is they are as guilty of gullibility as are the Christian fundamentalists they criticize.
The most prominent and credible opponents of macroevolution such as Phillip Johnson, David Berlinski and microbiologist Michael Behe do not have problems with geological timeframes. Some like Johnson and Behe believe that intelligent design (God) brought about life on earth over a long period of time. Others like Berlinski don't take a stand they just point out the main problems with the theory.
David Berlinski in the June 1996 issue of Commentary Magazine described in his article "The Deniable Darwin" the many flaws in macroevolution that are glossed over. As he states: "The facts in favor of evolution are often held to be incontrovertible; prominent biologists shake their heads at the obduracy of those who would dispute them. Those facts, however, have been rather less forthcoming than evolutionary biologists might have hoped. If life progressed by an accumulation of small changes, as they say it has, the fossil record should reflect its flow, the dead stacked up in barely separated strata. But for well over 150 years, the dead have been remarkably diffident about confirming Darwin's theory. Their bones lie suspended in the sands of time-theromorphs and therapsids and things that must have gibbered and then squeaked; but there are gaps in the graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms but where there is nothing whatsoever instead." This is why Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge developed the theory of punctuated evolution because as Stephen Gould observed with respect to the Cambrian explosion "it is almost as if the species were planted there". "The known fossil record," Steven Stanley observes, "fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."
As briefly described above, there are many problems with macroevolution and it ought to be taught as a theory not fact. It has no predictive power like Einstein's theories, it is just a flawed historical hypothesis.
Clear Skies Don J. Colton
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
David Berlinski is not pushing religion and clearly states in the letters to the editor. He just doesn't believe evolution holds water rationally and statistically. He is a prominent mathematician. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com]On Behalf Of William Biesele Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 8:30 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] fodder for the list Don: I don't think the quote from Gould is an argument against evolution. Gould spent his professional life studying evolution in land snails and found many examples of evolution. Gould believed and studied punctuated evolution as a way to understand life not to prove or disprove evolution. His popular publications all discuss evolution and cite many examples of evolution. Read his popular works and his professional works. Disagreements between scientists about the rate and mechanics of evolution do not discredit evolution but are an inevitable part of the process of coming to a deeper understanding of evolution. Geology provides a very imperfect record of life as it does of time. There are few environments where deposition occurs at a steady rate over a long time, and those that do (ocean floors) for example are hard to study, are poor environments for preservation of macro fossils and are recycled by continental drift. Is there a geologic cross section that records a continuous record from the Cambrian to the present? Despite this there are examples of 'intermediate' species in the geologic record. Yes, scientists have been fooled on occasion; but it was scientific inquiry that exposed the fakes. The Piltdown Man does not disprove the long record of evolution of australopithicene and homo species that has been found in east Africa. Instead it shows the fallability of scientists that start with a presumption (England is more advanced than Africa so modern man must have evolved in England) are prone to errors of judgement. Science is open to all evidence and scrutinizes that evidence to reach conclusions that further our understanding of this marvelous world. 'Intelligent Design' starts with a foregone conclusion and searches for evidence that supports the initial conclusion. It does not stand up to scientific scrutiny; not because of prejudices or financial concerns of the scientific community, but because the overwhelming evidence is for evolution. The genesis of life does not require intelligent design. Billions of years and uncountable miniscule changes in life have produced the diversity we see now. Read Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker. We haven't created life in the laboratory because we haven't had billions of years to run the experiment nor a lab the size of the earth powered by a dynamo as powerful as the sun. You have never seen an intermediate species, neither have I, and we never will find 'intermediate species.' The term is an oxymoron. There are no cars intermediate between Chevrolet and Toyota, but both have 'evolved' from the horseless carriages. The designs between the two are not 'intermediate' cars but were cars, complete and running. Mechanical objects are a bad analogy for biology but I hope you see my point: there is no species intermediate between dogs and horses so we will never find it. But dogs and horses do share a common ancestor somewhere between the Permian and the Paleocene. And from the Permian to the Paleocene it was not a linear progression but a many branched progression through time, all of the branches and leaves were species, not one was intermediate between dog and a horse. There are differing viewpoints about many things. Einstein did not believe in quantum mechanics, but turn on your green laser and you can see quantum mechanics at work in spite of Einstein's disbelief. Science reaches conclusions by examining facts and reaching conclusions that can explain the facts, not by starting with a conclusion and looking for evidence that might support the supposition. Can I disprove intelligent design? No. Throwing a pair of dice and getting a pair of sixes is a rare event. If it happens to me is it because that's what someone with metaphysical control of the dice wanted or is it just a random event? I can't tell just by looking at the dice. No. Does intelligent design explain life on earth better than random events? I think not, you think so. Can we resolve our differences on this? Probably not so let's make a deal, let's enjoy the clear dark nights on the Cretaceous at The Wedge and save the belief discussions for the cloudy nights out there. Clear skies, Bill B. On Mar 4, 2005, at 10:23 AM, Don J. Colton wrote:
There are several viewpoints about intelligent design including those of Phillip Johnson and microbiologist Michael Behe. Johnson and Behe believe that intelligent design (God) in some manner placed life on earth over geological time frames. I recently responded to Rick Fienberg's editorial in the March, Sky and Telescope, as shown below. It will be interesting to see if they publish it. I hope this isn't too controversial for the list.
Working with several geologists and drilling wells to depths of over 16,000 feet we have never seen any transitional species in well cutting to support a gradualistic theory of evolution. The facts are the fossil record does not support it. What you see are new species arising during each time period as Steven J. Gould has said "almost as if they have been planted". I will be glad to email a copy of Berlinski's article to anyone who wants it.
In response to: Evolution: We Can't Sit Idly By
I hate to see Rick Fienberg fall into the trap of using the old whipping boy of the 6,000-year-old earth as the only alternative to evolution.
Proponents of macroevolution have been fooled many times by such frauds as the Piltdown man, Nebraska man and most recently evolution frauds committed in China and published in 1999 in National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999. Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate. The reason proponents of macroevolution are fooled so easily is they are as guilty of gullibility as are the Christian fundamentalists they criticize.
The most prominent and credible opponents of macroevolution such as Phillip Johnson, David Berlinski and microbiologist Michael Behe do not have problems with geological timeframes. Some like Johnson and Behe believe that intelligent design (God) brought about life on earth over a long period of time. Others like Berlinski don't take a stand they just point out the main problems with the theory.
David Berlinski in the June 1996 issue of Commentary Magazine described in his article "The Deniable Darwin" the many flaws in macroevolution that are glossed over. As he states: "The facts in favor of evolution are often held to be incontrovertible; prominent biologists shake their heads at the obduracy of those who would dispute them. Those facts, however, have been rather less forthcoming than evolutionary biologists might have hoped. If life progressed by an accumulation of small changes, as they say it has, the fossil record should reflect its flow, the dead stacked up in barely separated strata. But for well over 150 years, the dead have been remarkably diffident about confirming Darwin's theory. Their bones lie suspended in the sands of time-theromorphs and therapsids and things that must have gibbered and then squeaked; but there are gaps in the graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms but where there is nothing whatsoever instead." This is why Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge developed the theory of punctuated evolution because as Stephen Gould observed with respect to the Cambrian explosion "it is almost as if the species were planted there". "The known fossil record," Steven Stanley observes, "fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."
As briefly described above, there are many problems with macroevolution and it ought to be taught as a theory not fact. It has no predictive power like Einstein's theories, it is just a flawed historical hypothesis.
Clear Skies Don J. Colton
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
One final thought for those who don't want to read the Berlinski article. His major thesis is that natural selection without intelligent input is just pure dumb luck. The species that succeed are those with the most fertile offspring. His criticism of Dawkins, Denton and others is that they have essentially given natural selection intelligence; i.e. they don't realize it but they are using intelligent design to prove their point. The Dawkins monkey analogy is a great example. Berlinski is quoted below: IT IS Richard Dawkins's grand intention in The Blind Watchmaker to demonstrate, as one reviewer enthusiastically remarked, "how natural selection allows biologists to dispense with such notions as purpose and design." This he does by exhibiting a process in which the random exploration of certain possibilities, a blind stab here, another there, is followed by the filtering effects of natural selection, some of those stabs saved, others discarded. But could a process so conceived -- a Darwinian process -- discover a simple English sentence: a target, say, chosen from Shakespeare? The question is by no means academic. If natural selection cannot discern a simple English sentence, what chance is there that it might have discovered the mammalian eye or the system by which glucose is regulated by the liver? A thought experiment in The Blind Watchmaker now follows. Randomness in the experiment is conveyed by the metaphor of the monkeys, perennial favorites in the theory of probability. There they sit, simian hands curved over the keyboards of a thousand typewriters, their long agile fingers striking keys at random. It is an image of some poignancy, those otherwise intelligent apes banging away at a machine they cannot fathom; and what makes the poignancy pointed is the fact that the system of rewards by which the apes have been induced to strike the typewriter's keys is from the first rigged against them. The probability that a monkey will strike a given letter is one in 26. The typewriter has 26 keys: the monkey, one working finger. But a letter is not a word. Should Dawkins demand that the monkey get two English letters right, the odds against success rise with terrible inexorability from one in 26 to one in 676. The Shakespearean target chosen by Dawkins -- "Methinks it is like a weasel"-is a six-word sentence containing 28 English letters (including the spaces). It occupies an isolated point in a space of 10,000 million, million, million, million, million, million possibilities. This is a very large number; combinatorial inflation is at work. And these are very long odds. And a six-word sentence consisting of 28 English letters is a very short, very simple English sentence. Such are the fatal facts. The problem confronting the monkeys is, of course, a double one: they must, to be sure, find the right letters, but they cannot lose the right letters once they have found them. A random search in a space of this size is an exercise in irrelevance. This is something the monkeys appear to know. What more, then, is expected; what more required? Cumulative selection, Dawkins argues- the answer offered as well by Stephen Jay Gould, Manfred Eigen, and Daniel Dennett. The experiment now proceeds in stages. The monkeys type randomly. After a time, they are allowed to survey what they have typed in order to choose the result "which however slightly most resembles the target phrase." It is a computer that in Dawkins's experiment performs the crucial assessments, but I prefer to imagine its role assigned to a scrutinizing monkey-the Head Monkey of the experiment. The process under way is one in which stray successes are spotted and then saved. This process is iterated and iterated again. Variations close to the target are conserved because they are close to the target, the Head Monkey equably surveying the scene until, with the appearance of a miracle in progress, randomly derived sentences do begin to converge on the target sentence itself. The contrast between schemes and scenarios is striking. Acting on their own, the monkeys are adrift in fathomless possibilities, any accidental success-a pair of English-like letters-lost at once, those successes seeming like faint untraceable lights flickering over a wine-dark sea. The advent of the Head Monkey changes things entirely. Successes are conserved and then conserved again. The light that formerly flickered uncertainly now stays lit, a beacon burning steadily, a point of illumination. By the light of that light, other lights are lit, until the isolated successes converge, bringing order out of nothingness. The entire exercise is, however, an achievement in self-deception. A target phrase? Iterations that most resemble the target? A Head Monkey that measures the distance between failure and success? If things are sightless, how is the target represented, and how is the distance between randomly generated phrases and the targets assessed? And by whom? And the Head Monkey? What of him? The mechanism of deliberate design, purged by Darwinian theory on the level of the organism, has reappeared in the description of natural selection itself, a vivid example of what Freud meant by the return of the repressed. This is a point that Dawkins accepts without quite acknowledging, rather like a man adroitly separating his doctor's diagnosis from his own disease.(6) The same pattern of intellectual displacement is especially vivid in Daniel Dennett's description of natural selection as a force subordinate to what he calls "the principle of the accumulation of design." Sifting through the debris of chance, natural selection, he writes, occupies itself by "thriftily conserving the design work . . . accomplished at each stage." But there is no such principle. Dennett has simply assumed that a sequence of conserved advantages will converge to an improvement in design; the assumption expresses a non sequitur. Nature presents life with no targets. Life shambles forward, surging here, shuffling there, the small advantages accumulating on their own until something novel appears on the broad evolutionary screen-an arch or an eye, an intricate pattern of behavior, the complexity characteristic of life. May we, then, see this process at work, by seeing it simulated? "Unfortunately," Dawkins writes, "I think it may be beyond my powers as a programmer to set up such a counterfeit world."(7) It is absurdly easy to set up a sentence-searching algorithm obeying purely Darwinian constraints. The result, however, is always the same -- gibberish. This is the authentic voice of contemporary Darwinian theory. What may be illustrated by the theory does not involve a Darwinian mechanism; what involves a Darwinian mechanism cannot be illustrated by the theory. (End Quote) Berlinski is (or was, I am not sure if he has retired) a professor of mathematics at Princeton University. I'll not beat a dead horse, so back to observing. I just wanted to stir up a little interest in the list. Clear Skies Don Colton
A thought popped into my head this morning as I was out pulling weeds (yep, they're up already) in my garden. We indeed already have evidence of transitional species, right under our very noses. It must have been the horse manure in the garden that opened my eyes (and nose apparently). You see, for many years, people have been breeding Horses with Donkeys. They are closely related, but not quite fully -- they are genetically close enough that they can mate; the female horse gives birth to a mule. The offspring however is sterile, which implies that they have genetically diverged enough that the results do not get sustained. All of this argues for evolution -- and a common ancestor. Over time, the two have become separate enough that the differences keep them apart. True also for lions and tigers -- breedable, but the resulting "liger" (calm down, Napoleon!) is also sterile. Again, they apparently had a common ancestor (as do all cats presumably), but we now see a good deal of distinction in size, habitat, and prey. Other evidence -- there are a number of species of fish that display transitional characteristics -- gills AND lungs, fins that act like feet that allow them to crawl over land and exist outside of water for long periods, etc. Is my thinking skewed...? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Quoting Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com>:
You see, for many years, people have been breeding Horses with Donkeys.
True also for lions and tigers -- breedable, but the resulting "liger" Other evidence -- there are a number of species of fish that display transitional characteristics -- gills AND lungs, fins that act like feet that allow them to crawl over land and exist outside of water for long periods, etc.
Is my thinking skewed...?
Nope. It just illustrates the fact that opposites attract. Which also could explain a lot about some of the kids I grew up with. Like that one that had three eyes... ;)
participants (10)
-
diveboss＠xmission.com -
Don J. Colton -
Jim Cobb -
Jon Christensen -
Josephine Grahn -
Marilyn Smith -
Patrick Wiggins -
Richard Tenney -
Ron Vanderhule -
William Biesele