Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The Making of the Fittest

Expand Messages
  • David
    ... David Williams: If creationism was a real science, it would be taught at mainline universities. Real scientists would cite creation scientist s work in
    Message 1 of 12 , Oct 31, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: gluadys
      > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 4:25 AM
      > Subject: [OriginsTalk] The Making of the Fittest
      >
      >
      >
      > I have just been reading this book by Sean B. Carroll, also author of Endless Forms Most Beautiful.
      >
      > In the Prologue he notes that he book has three main parts and says:
      >
      > "I would like to think of them as being like the three parts of a good and memorable meal--a little bit of preparation, plenty of food, and some meaningful conversation."
      >
      > I have finished the "preparation"--some info on the mathematics of evolution, and the "food"--six chapters of fascinating empirical evidence and am about to begin the "meaningful conversation" --why do people continue to doubt and deny evolution?
      >
      > Here is how Carroll sums up the situation before diving into that question.
      >
      > "Today the body of facts concerning evolution continues to expand in all dimensions. . . . It is hard to imagine how anyone in command of these facts could harbour any reasonable doubt. . . . Yet in the face of all of the evidence, there remains much doubt and outright denial of the reality of biological evolution. To understand this doubt and denial, we'll leave the realm of scientific evidence, because the reasons for such doubt could not be, and are not, scientific."
      >
      >
      > LA> On the other hand various evolutionists have admitted at various times and in various ways that the Creation scientists regularly "routed" their evolutionary opponents in a decade of hundreds of open, public, debates on the scientific questions! For example noted evolutionist, Niles Eldredge wrote the following;
      >
      > --------------------------------
      > "Creationists travel all over the United States,
      > visiting college campuses (*) and staging "debates" with
      > biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
      > creationists nearly always win."
      >
      > "The audience is frequently loaded with the already
      > converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently
      > have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what
      > awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated,
      > Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady
      > onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific
      > topics."
      >
      > "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
      > relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
      > geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
      > the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
      > intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
      > their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
      > than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
      > bewildered state of incoherence."
      >
      > (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
      > (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
      > debates are mostly NOT on College campuses!)
      >
      > =================
      >
      >
      >
      > Laurie
      >
      > "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed
      > to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate
      > creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.
      > (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted astronomer and ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)
      >


      David Williams: If creationism was a real science, it would be taught at mainline universities. Real scientists would cite creation scientist's work in their scientific papers. Such is not the case. Creationism and its offshoot, Intelligent Design have little or no impact on real science.

      Back in the 1970s, I went to one of those sham debates. The evolutionist was not prepared for the debate tricks used on him. Also, I myself was able to refute all of the creationist arguments because I had access to a university library. Scientists who know much more than me have also refuted the creationist's arguments. Creationists keep using most of those failed arguments. That is ok with me. It just shows that creationism is still a flop.

      In USA courtrooms where evidence counts, creationists have never been able to persuade most judges that creationism is a real science and thus eligible to be taught in USA public school science classes. Intelligent Design flopped as a science in Kitzmiller vs Dover in 2005.
    • Laurie Appleton
      ... From: David To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 11:46 AM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: The Making of the Fittest ... GLU:
      Message 2 of 12 , Oct 31, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: David
        To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 11:46 AM
        Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: The Making of the Fittest





        >
        GLU: > Here is how Carroll sums up the situation before diving into that question.
        >
        > "Today the body of facts concerning evolution continues to expand in all dimensions. . . . It is hard to imagine how anyone in command of these facts could harbour any reasonable doubt. . . . Yet in the face of all of the evidence, there remains much doubt and outright denial of the reality of biological evolution. To understand this doubt and denial, we'll leave the realm of scientific evidence, because the reasons for such doubt could not be, and are not, scientific."
        >
        >
        > LA> On the other hand various evolutionists have admitted at various times and in various ways that the Creation scientists regularly "routed" their evolutionary opponents in a decade of hundreds of open, public, debates on the scientific questions! For example noted evolutionist, Niles Eldredge wrote the following;
        >
        > --------------------------------
        > "Creationists travel all over the United States,
        > visiting college campuses (*) and staging "debates" with
        > biologists, geologists, and anthropologists. The
        > creationists nearly always win."
        >
        > "The audience is frequently loaded with the already
        > converted and the faithful. And scientists, until recently
        > have been showing up at the debates ill-prepared for what
        > awaits them. Thinking the creationists are uneducated,
        > Bible-thumping clods, they are soon routed by a steady
        > onslaught of direct attacks on a wide variety of scientific
        > topics."
        >
        > "No scientist has an expert's grasp of all the
        > relevant points of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology,
        > geology, and anthropology. Creationists today - at least
        > the majority of their spokesmen - are highly educated,
        > intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always done
        > their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed
        > than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a
        > bewildered state of incoherence."
        >
        > (The Monkey Business, Niles Eldredge, 1982, p. 17)
        > (*) elsewhere some evolutionists try to pretend that the
        > debates are mostly NOT on College campuses!)
        >
        > =================
        >
        >
        David Williams: If creationism was a real science, it would be taught at mainline universities. Real scientists would cite creation scientist's work in their scientific papers. Such is not the case. Creationism and its offshoot, Intelligent Design have little or no impact on real science.




        LA> Quote true. However, on this question we have American Public education being similar to the bad old days of Joseph Stalin, where only atheism is taugh in schools.



        DW: In USA courtrooms where evidence counts, creationists have never been able to persuade most judges that creationism is a real science and thus eligible to be taught in USA public school science classes.



        LA> You make a strong case for the dreadful state of the Judicial system, where most Judges are probably themselves evolutionists and perhaps should have disqualified themselves. Even then, most cases result in a divided "opinion" among the judges anyway, and this shows that their judgemenmts are questionable at best.



        Laurie.

        Evidence from the fossil record now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school; (Newsweek, November, 1980)

        ...




        No virus found in this message.
        Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        Version: 2013.0.2742 / Virus Database: 2617/5865 - Release Date: 10/31/12


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Laurie Appleton
        ... From: Charles Palm To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 10:55 AM Subject: [OriginsTalk] The Making of the Fittest Gluadys: I
        Message 3 of 12 , Oct 31, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Charles Palm
          To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 10:55 AM
          Subject: [OriginsTalk] The Making of the Fittest



          Gluadys: I have just been reading this book by Sean B. Carroll, also
          author of Endless Forms Most Beautiful.

          Charles P: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5658057n I got the DVD
          by Sean B Carroll. His research is very valuable. He has been one of my
          heroes even before he was on CBS.

          http://seanbcarroll.com/

          James A Shapiro, "Evolution: A View From The 21st Century", p.116: Descent
          with modification provides the overall context for this book, whose main
          theme is to illustrate how many exciting facts we have learned about the
          processes that lead to evolutionary inventions. Analyzing the fossil
          record is somewhat outside the scope of this book, but the correlation
          of paleontological novelties and genome organization is a fascinating
          question addressed by the branch of science now called Evo-Devo, the study
          of the evolutionary basis of morphogenetic processes.

          ********************************************************************************

          Laurie Appleton: On the other hand various evolutionists have admitted at
          various times... etc.etc.etc.

          Charles P: http://creationwiki.org/Evolution Creationists also believe in
          evolution. The material that you have quoted might sound very impressive
          in church or a political campaign, but unless there is empirical and
          verifiable evidence contrary to what Sean B Carroll is describing or
          contrary to the descriptions for the diversity of life concluded from
          evo-devo research, Laurie, your quoted material is unscientific.



          LA> Yes Charles. However a number of evolutionists have clearly stated in their writings that it was on the scientific questions that the Creation scientists regularly routed their evolutionary opponents. Besides that the facts of the matter is that the Evolutionist debaters insisted that ONLY scientific arguments were to be debated anyway, and this was what was adhered to. The following is another example of an evolutionary Biologist's written statement;

          -----------------------

          "Why do creationists seem to be the consistent
          winners in public debates with evolutionists? . . .
          We biologists are our own worst enemies in the
          creationist-evolutionist controversies."

          "We must no longer duck this and other issues
          related to biology and human affairs, and when we do
          face them we must think clearly and express ourselves
          accordingly. We may still not be consistent winners in
          the creationist- evolutionist debates, but let the
          losses that occur be attributable to other than lapses
          in professional standards.

          ("Evolution/Creation Debate," Bioscience, Vol.30, January 1980, p. 4)

          =====================

          Laurie.

          "We used to have an open mind, now we realise that the only logical answer to life is creation -- not accidental random shuffling." (Chandra Wickramasinghe, ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)

          ..





          No virus found in this message.
          Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
          Version: 2013.0.2742 / Virus Database: 2617/5865 - Release Date: 10/31/12


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Charles Palm
          David Williams: If creationism was a real science, it would be taught at mainline universities. Real scientists would cite creation scientist s work in their
          Message 4 of 12 , Oct 31, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            David Williams: If creationism was a real science, it would be taught at
            mainline universities. Real scientists would cite creation scientist's work
            in their scientific papers. Such is not the case. Creationism and its
            offshoot, Intelligent Design have little or no impact on real science.

            Charles P: I suggest that we all try to realize that the vast majority of
            people, regardless of their religion or non-religion, are intelligent and
            reasonable people. It is the arrogant extremists who make all of the
            unreasonable claims that cause the rest of us to take sides on a ridiculous
            debate that can never be resolved based upon philosophies alone.

            Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENCODE The ENCODE project has
            clarified much confusion about biology as an information science. It would
            be wise for all of us to read as much as possible about the sciences of
            molecular biology, evo-devo, etc. that are answering the profound questions
            about the origin and diversity of life.

            Charles P: http://www.nnu.edu/academics/academic-departments/biology
            Northwest
            Nazarene University, here in Nampa, Idaho, offers a Bachelor of Science
            Degree in Biology. Real scientists are just like the rest of the
            population. They do not all think alike. Real scientists deserve our
            respect and should not be blamed for the unscientific writings by
            scientific writers with a distorted agenda of trying to impose their
            philosophies in science classes.

            Charles P: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php It is also a
            wise idea to keep in mind that Intelligent Design is not the same as
            creationism. Unless critics have empirical and verifiable evidence that
            contradicts Intelligent Design, their criticism is unscientific.

            Charles P: http://creationwiki.org/Evolution It is also a wise idea to
            keep in mind that creationists also believe in evolution. The empirical
            and verifiable scientific evidence is the same for everyone. It is OK that
            we have different interpretations of that evidence.

            Science: http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position1.htm Science, by
            definition, is a method of learning about the natural universe by asking
            questions in such a way that they can be answered empirically and
            verifiably. If a question cannot be framed so that the answer can be
            tested, and the test results can be reproduced by others, then it is not
            science.

            Charles P: David, I share the same criticism that you do of the arrogant
            extremists who make all of the unscientific claims that are neither
            empirical nor verifiable.


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • gluadys
            ... Unless IDists have empirical and verifiable evidence that supports Intelligent Design, it is not possible to offer a scientific criticism of it. What is
            Message 5 of 12 , Nov 1, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              > Charles P: http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php It is also a
              > wise idea to keep in mind that Intelligent Design is not the same as
              > creationism. Unless critics have empirical and verifiable evidence that
              > contradicts Intelligent Design, their criticism is unscientific.
              >


              Unless IDists have empirical and verifiable evidence that supports Intelligent Design, it is not possible to offer a scientific criticism of it. What is empirically observable is that ID uses the same oratorical strategies & tactics, often even the same arguments, as evolution-denying creationists. So, the observation that it is a repackaging of creationism seems to be borne out by the evidence.


              > Charles P: http://creationwiki.org/Evolution It is also a wise idea to
              > keep in mind that creationists also believe in evolution. The empirical
              > and verifiable scientific evidence is the same for everyone. It is OK that
              > we have different interpretations of that evidence.
              >


              It is not OK to have false interpretations of the evidence, or to treat false interpretations as justifiable "differences of opinion". It is also not OK to cherry-pick evidence (as much evolution-denying literature does) to give a false impression of supportive evidence when the more complete picture is clearly in favour of evolution.
            • Joe Martin
              From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurie Appleton Sent: October-31-12 9:22 PM To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
              Message 6 of 12 , Nov 1, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                Behalf Of Laurie Appleton
                Sent: October-31-12 9:22 PM
                To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [OriginsTalk] The Making of the Fittest






                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Charles Palm
                To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:OriginsTalk%40yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 10:55 AM
                Subject: [OriginsTalk] The Making of the Fittest

                Gluadys: I have just been reading this book by Sean B. Carroll, also
                author of Endless Forms Most Beautiful.

                Charles P: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5658057n I got the DVD
                by Sean B Carroll. His research is very valuable. He has been one of my
                heroes even before he was on CBS.

                http://seanbcarroll.com/

                James A Shapiro, "Evolution: A View From The 21st Century", p.116: Descent
                with modification provides the overall context for this book, whose main
                theme is to illustrate how many exciting facts we have learned about the
                processes that lead to evolutionary inventions. Analyzing the fossil
                record is somewhat outside the scope of this book, but the correlation
                of paleontological novelties and genome organization is a fascinating
                question addressed by the branch of science now called Evo-Devo, the study
                of the evolutionary basis of morphogenetic processes.

                ****************************************************************************
                ****

                Laurie Appleton: On the other hand various evolutionists have admitted at
                various times... etc.etc.etc.

                Charles P: http://creationwiki.org/Evolution Creationists also believe in
                evolution. The material that you have quoted might sound very impressive
                in church or a political campaign, but unless there is empirical and
                verifiable evidence contrary to what Sean B Carroll is describing or
                contrary to the descriptions for the diversity of life concluded from
                evo-devo research, Laurie, your quoted material is unscientific.

                LA> Yes Charles. However a number of evolutionists have clearly stated in
                their writings that it was on the scientific questions that the Creation
                scientists regularly routed their evolutionary opponents. Besides that the
                facts of the matter is that the Evolutionist debaters insisted that ONLY
                scientific arguments were to be debated anyway, and this was what was
                adhered to. The following is another example of an evolutionary Biologist's
                written statement;

                -----------------------

                "Why do creationists seem to be the consistent
                winners in public debates

                JM> not scientific debates. YECs have never HAD a scientific debate where
                the merits, theories and hypotheses of the science of creation has been
                presented for scientific scutiny... WHY?? Because YEC has no scientific
                evidence to support any of the wild notions proposed by YEC science(sic).
                Public debating games are not science.



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Charles Palm
                Gluadys: I have just been reading this book by Sean B. Carroll, also author of Endless Forms Most Beautiful. Charles P:
                Message 7 of 12 , Nov 1, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Gluadys: I have just been reading this book by Sean B. Carroll, also
                  author of Endless Forms Most Beautiful.

                  Charles P: http://www.hhmi.org/news/mesozoic20121026.html This is some of
                  what Sean B Carroll is doing nowadays.

                  Sean B. Carroll, HHMI vice president for science education and the film�s
                  executive producer, will introduce the story to teachers on October 31
                  during the second annual HHMI Night at the Movies at the NABT conference in
                  Dallas, Texas. Following the film, Carroll will host a panel discussion
                  with teachers attending the conference.

                  http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/shortfilms/ The Day the Mesozoic Died.
                  33 minutes 43 seconds. Watch The Day the Mesozoic Died (720p HD, 2Mbps)

                  ********************************************************************************
                  Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/28214 You
                  will probably remember some of the 19 messages we discussed here on Origins
                  Talk in April about stickleback fish research done by evo-devo researchers.

                  Charles P: http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/shortfilms/ The Making of
                  the Fittest: Evolving Switches, Evolving Bodies 15 minutes 27 seconds.
                  Watch Evolving Switches, Evolving Bodies(720p HD, 2Mbps). Here is a new
                  updated video with some new evidence that describes the diversity of life
                  similarly to the way James A Shapiro does. The name Mike Shapiro appears
                  on some stickleback slides.

                  http://edenrcn.com/steering/shapiro.html Genetic architecture of
                  evolutionary change. Sticklebacks are ideal model organisms for genetic and
                  developmental studies of natural populations because different populations
                  of these fish vary dramatically in skeletal structures, yet fish from
                  throughout the Northern Hemisphere can be readily crossed in the laboratory
                  for genetic mapping experiments. Previous work determined that cis-acting
                  regulatory changes in the Pitx1 locus are responsible for hind fin (pelvis)
                  loss in a population of threespine sticklebacks (Shapiro et al., 2004,
                  Nature). More recently, we showed that both similar and different genetic
                  changes control pelvic reduction in ninespine sticklebacks (Shapiro et al.
                  2006, PNAS; Shapiro et al., 2009, Current Biology), a different genus of
                  fish that last shared a common ancestor with threespine sticklebacks over
                  10 million years ago. By comparing the genetic basis of other traits
                  between the two different types of fish, we can critically test whether
                  similar genetic mechanisms repeatedly underlie similar adaptive phenotypes,
                  a topic of enduring interest to geneticists and evolutionary biologists.


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.