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

Re: Another Retracted Evolutionism Paper

Expand Messages
  • Randy Raymond
    ... ************************************************************************ I found it. Here s the story from sciam.com : Former chemistry professor Homer
    Message 1 of 21 , Nov 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "seekeththee"
      <seekeththee@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Labbbim@ wrote:
      > >
      > > A few days back, NYT had some article on an evolutionist retracting
      > some 50
      > > year old paper, because a Creation scientist had analyzed it. What
      > paper was
      > > that?
      >
      > Thats a good question. What paper was it? Who was the evolutionist?
      > Who was the creation scientist?
      >
      >
      >
      > Truman
      >
      ************************************************************************

      I found it. Here's the story from sciam.com :

      Former chemistry professor Homer Jacobson has requested
      that two passages be retracted from a 1955 paper he
      wrote on the origins of life after discovering that
      creationists were using them to support their arguments.
      The 84-year-old scientist told the New York Times that
      he made the discovery when, on a whim, he decided to
      Google himself and quotes from his paper popped up
      on creationist sites such as Darwinismrefuted. com
      and Evolution-facts. org. To bolster their case, the
      sites zeroed in on his statements that amino acids
      couldn't form spontaneously without energy-Jacobson
      says today that he failed to mention that energy
      sources most surely existed billions of years ago-and
      that life could arise only under very specific conditions,
      which he now calls "a dumb mistake." His retraction
      request appears in the November / December issue of
      American Scientist, which published the original paper.


      It was worse than I remembered. Not only was he not retracting
      anything substantive in his research, but it didn't even have anything
      to do with evolution. It was about abiogenesis.
    • tinroad66
      ... some 50 ... paper was ... longstanding bogus ... Tin: The description may or may not be accurate. Either way it is quite irrelevant to the mountain of
      Message 2 of 21 , Nov 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Labbbim@... wrote:
        >
        > A few days back, NYT had some article on an evolutionist retracting
        some 50
        > year old paper, because a Creation scientist had analyzed it. What
        paper was
        > that? Will they again have to rewrite Science texts where
        longstanding bogus
        > Evolutionism had been taught?


        Tin: The description may or may not be accurate. Either way it is
        quite irrelevant to the mountain of facts supporting evolution and
        deep time.


        The mountain of evidence includes the fossil record, the nested
        hierarchy, biogeography and directly observed evolution.



        Are you up to discussing any of them ?
      • tinroad66
        ... Tin: And why is it that creation scientists almost never make any contribution to science ? When was the last time they made a scientific discovery ?
        Message 3 of 21 , Nov 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "seekeththee"
          <seekeththee@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Labbbim@ wrote:
          > >
          > > A few days back, NYT had some article on an evolutionist retracting
          > some 50
          > > year old paper, because a Creation scientist had analyzed it. What
          > paper was
          > > that?
          >
          > Thats a good question. What paper was it? Who was the evolutionist?
          > Who was the creation scientist?

          Tin: And why is it that creation "scientists" almost never make any
          contribution to science ?


          When was the last time they made a scientific discovery ? OK, stop
          laughing !!
        • Thomas Covenant
          ... some 50 ... paper was ... longstanding bogus ... Well, considering that the paper in question ( Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life in
          Message 4 of 21 , Nov 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Labbbim@... wrote:
            >
            > A few days back, NYT had some article on an evolutionist retracting
            some 50
            > year old paper, because a Creation scientist had analyzed it. What
            paper was
            > that? Will they again have to rewrite Science texts where
            longstanding bogus
            > Evolutionism had been taught?
            > . </HTML>
            >

            Well, considering that the paper in question ("Information,
            Reproduction and the Origin of Life" in American Scientist, 1955) was
            being 1) out-of-context quoted by several creationist sites, and 2)
            the author himself re-read the article and identified at least two
            significant errors/ommissions in it, I don't see where the entire
            edifice of scientific inquiry will have to be rewritten.

            After all, this was a minor paper in a minor journal that very rarely
            cited in any subsequent papers over the next half-century. Note that
            in the retraction letter, Dr. Jacobson specifically points out the
            errors in the paper (some of which were not technically "errors", but
            either unknowns at the time or omissions of detail).

            As to your question of a creationist "analyzing" the paper, that is
            in error. The quotes taken from the article misrepresent what Dr.
            Jacobson meant, and went far beyond the scope and intent of the
            research Jacobson was doing. In other words, the creationists quote-
            mined out-of-context material, selectively cherry-picking the words
            so that it would "appear" to support their claims, when in fact the
            paper, author and science do no such thing.

            Thomas

            Below is the full text of Dr. Jacobson's retraction letter:

            http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/56234

            To the Editors:

            In January 1955, American Scientist published my
            article, "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life" (Vol. 43,
            No. 1). I ask you to honor my request to retract two brief passages,
            as follows:

            On page 121: "Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy
            and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the
            growth sequence, and for the effector mechanisms translating
            instructions into growth—all had to be simultaneously present at that
            moment [of life's birth]."

            On page 125: "From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the
            present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be
            utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin
            of terrestrial life."

            I have several reasons for retracting the statements. For the first
            passage, use of the requirement of simultaneity was a conjecture,
            unsupported by any proof. Separate developments of partial structures
            might well have occurred in an environment of randomly reacting
            molecules, eventually to join into one or more self-reproducing
            structures.

            The second passage refers only to an attempt to calculate the
            probability that a single molecule of a particular amino acid could
            spontaneously form from its components. The calculation was
            irrelevant, as it was based on an endothermic change during an
            imaginary spontaneous conversion of a mixture of component atoms and
            molecules into glycine under adiabatic and standard conditions, with
            no external source of energy. Such changes cannot spontaneously take
            place. Molecules of increased complexity have been found, however,
            when necessary components are available, with the aid of ambient
            energy from natural or experimental systems, e.g. electrical
            discharges, substantial temperature gradients or contiguous compounds
            or elements whose chemical reactions produce free energy. All of
            these could have existed under early Earth conditions, and thus this
            passage is completely inapplicable.

            Retraction this untimely is not normally undertaken, but in this case
            I request it because of continued irresponsible contemporary use by
            creationists who have quoted my not merely out-of-context, but
            incorrect, statements, to support their dubious viewpoint. I am
            deeply embarrassed to have been the originator of such misstatements,
            allowing bad science to have come into the purview of those who use
            it for anti-science ends.

            Homer Jacobson
            Brooklyn College
            The City University of New York
          • Thomas Covenant
            ... retracting ... What ... evolutionist? ... ********************************************************************** * ... the ... a ... Actually, he did
            Message 5 of 21 , Nov 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Raymond"
              <randytoad@...> wrote:
              >
              > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "seekeththee"
              > <seekeththee@> wrote:
              > >
              > > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Labbbim@ wrote:
              > > >
              > > > A few days back, NYT had some article on an evolutionist
              retracting
              > > some 50
              > > > year old paper, because a Creation scientist had analyzed it.
              What
              > > paper was
              > > > that?
              > >
              > > Thats a good question. What paper was it? Who was the
              evolutionist?
              > > Who was the creation scientist?
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Truman
              > >
              >
              **********************************************************************
              *
              > Randy:
              >
              > As usual our evolution denier has it all wrong. I can't remember
              the
              > details, but I'm reasonably certain he is referring to a story from
              a
              > few days ago, where some scientist or science writer had previously
              > written something that was interpreted by some evolution deniers as
              > casting doubt on evolution. What he was retracting were the
              > statements he made that sounded like he didn't accept evolution. He
              > wasn't retracting any actual research.
              >

              Actually, he did retract the full paper, because he re-read it (with
              50 years of further education, research and experience) and realized
              there were errors and omissions that invalidated the major premises
              presented in the paper. Of course, this was a very minor paper
              anyway (which the author doesn't deny), but because it was being
              misused by the creationists, he felt obligated to do a full
              retraction, rather than a correction -- even if it was over a half-
              century later.

              FWIW -- here is the link to the full retraction letter from Dr.
              Jacobson:

              http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/56234

              Thomas
            • Labbbim@wmconnect.com
              ... some 50 ... paper was ... longstanding bogus ... An Evolutionist s longstanding claims so deeply questioned he is forced to retract and we are told that is
              Message 6 of 21 , Nov 1, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                > A few days back, NYT had some article on an evolutionist retracting
                some 50
                > year old paper, because a Creation scientist had analyzed it. What
                paper was
                > that? Will they again have to rewrite Science texts where
                longstanding bogus
                > Evolutionism had been taught?


                tinroad66@... writes:
                >
                > The description may or may not be accurate. Either way it is
                > quite irrelevant to the mountain of facts supporting evolution

                An Evolutionist's longstanding claims so deeply questioned he is forced to
                retract and we are told that is irrelevant. Yes Evolutionism is that. And only
                days later, after taking half a century to be exposed, no Evolutionism believer
                can even remember the NYT article. So long in stark denial followed by
                instant and permanent amnesia. How much chance will school students, then, ever get
                to hear the truth of Evolution and its longstanding war on Science?
                . </HTML>


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • seekeththee
                ... forced to ... that. And only ... Evolutionism believer ... You couldn t seem to remember the article either. So if must not have been that important. Can
                Message 7 of 21 , Nov 1, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Labbbim@... wrote:
                  >
                  > > A few days back, NYT had some article on an evolutionist retracting
                  > some 50
                  > > year old paper, because a Creation scientist had analyzed it. What
                  > paper was
                  > > that? Will they again have to rewrite Science texts where
                  > longstanding bogus
                  > > Evolutionism had been taught?
                  >
                  >
                  > tinroad66@... writes:
                  > >
                  > > The description may or may not be accurate. Either way it is
                  > > quite irrelevant to the mountain of facts supporting evolution
                  >
                  > An Evolutionist's longstanding claims so deeply questioned he is
                  forced to
                  > retract and we are told that is irrelevant. Yes Evolutionism is
                  that. And only
                  > days later, after taking half a century to be exposed, no
                  Evolutionism believer
                  > can even remember the NYT article.

                  You couldn't seem to remember the article either. So if must not have
                  been that important.

                  Can you briefly explain with a little specifics just what was exposed?



                  So long in stark denial followed by
                  > instant and permanent amnesia. How much chance will school students,
                  then, ever get
                  > to hear the truth of Evolution and its longstanding war on Science?


                  Depends. What was the paper? What was in that paper that was exposed?

                  Truman
                • Drew Smith
                  ... Drew: He didn t retract his paper because the claims were deeply questioned , and it s irrelevant because his paper provided no significant foundation for
                  Message 8 of 21 , Nov 1, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Labbbim:
                    > An Evolutionist's longstanding claims so deeply questioned he is forced to
                    > retract and we are told that is irrelevant.

                    Drew: He didn't retract his paper because the claims were "deeply
                    questioned", and it's irrelevant because his paper provided no
                    significant foundation for evolutionary theory.

                    ***

                    Labbbim: And only days later, after taking half a century to be exposed...

                    Drew: There was nothing to be "exposed", so your statement is irrelevant.

                    ***

                    Labbbim: How much chance will school students, then, ever get to hear
                    the truth of Evolution and its longstanding war on Science?

                    Drew: "Evolution" doesn't have a "war" on "Science". The facts and
                    theories of evolution are an integral *part* of modern biological
                    scientific knowledge.
                  • tinroad66
                    ... retracting ... What ... forced to ... that. Tin: BS. You are using a peeble to deny a mountain. The mountain includes major categories of evidence like
                    Message 9 of 21 , Nov 2, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Labbbim@... wrote:
                      >
                      > > A few days back, NYT had some article on an evolutionist
                      retracting
                      > some 50
                      > > year old paper, because a Creation scientist had analyzed it.
                      What
                      > paper was
                      > > that? Will they again have to rewrite Science texts where
                      > longstanding bogus
                      > > Evolutionism had been taught?
                      >
                      >
                      > tinroad66@... writes:
                      > >
                      > > The description may or may not be accurate. Either way it is
                      > > quite irrelevant to the mountain of facts supporting evolution
                      >
                      > An Evolutionist's longstanding claims so deeply questioned he is
                      forced to
                      > retract and we are told that is irrelevant. Yes Evolutionism is
                      that.



                      Tin: BS. You are using a peeble to deny a mountain.


                      The mountain includes major categories of evidence like the
                      fossil record, the nested hierarchy, biogeography and directly
                      observed evolution including the evolution of new species. An
                      overview of the fossil record evidence appears below, merely the tip
                      of the mountain.


                      I'll bet you aren't interested or prepared to talk about the
                      mountain cause you have a peeble that you are interested in.


                      The Fossil Record
                      first bacteria below
                      first multicellular organism below
                      first shelled organisms below
                      first insects below
                      first amphibians below
                      first reptiles below
                      first dinosaurs below
                      first birds below
                      first placental mammals below
                      first first apes below
                      first hominids
                    • tinroad66
                      And only ... Evolutionism believer ... followed by ... Tin: You are clueless. First science goes by falsification. You test ideas by looking at the evidence.
                      Message 10 of 21 , Nov 2, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        And only
                        > days later, after taking half a century to be exposed, no
                        Evolutionism believer
                        > can even remember the NYT article. So long in stark denial
                        followed by
                        > instant and permanent amnesia.


                        Tin: You are clueless.

                        First science goes by falsification. You test ideas by looking at
                        the evidence. By this empirical standard, evolution is one of the
                        most sucessful ideas in the history of science. I've noticed that
                        YOU have FAILED to even attempt to show contradictory evidence.
                        Instead you are appeared forced into this lame shallow grave of
                        vague smear. "Hey one paper might have been retracted so all the
                        papers must be bogus". Do you see how ridiculus this sounds ?
                        That what you sound like.

                        Evolution doesn't rest on this one obscure paper. It rests on a
                        mountain of evidence gathered over 150 years from expert
                        paleontologists, geologists and biologists (among others !). In
                        other words, serious people who know what they are talking about not
                        a bunch of nitwit, scamster, creationists trying to smear modern
                        science and con the uninformed general public.

                        To determine the success of evolutionary thinking all you need to
                        do is open an introductory textbook in those fields. It's clear
                        from the scientific *experts* that evolution is understand to fit
                        and explain the facts.


                        So why should anyone care what a handful of religious nutters
                        think ?
                      • tinroad66
                        ... Tin: They should hear the truth about creationism. They should learn that creationism is a joke. Having no standing whatsoever in the scientific
                        Message 11 of 21 , Nov 2, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- will school students, then, ever get
                          > to hear the truth

                          Tin: They should hear the truth about creationism. They should
                          learn that creationism is a joke. Having no standing whatsoever in
                          the scientific community. Creationism doesn't lead to any peer
                          reviewed science, scientific discoveries nor in any contribution to
                          science whatsoever. It consists almost entirely of articles aimed
                          at the uninformed, unscientific publicy with the intention of
                          tricking and decieving them into mistrusting and disbelieving modern
                          science in disciplines ranging from Astronomy (which shows deep
                          time) to Paleontology (which has much evidence showing evolutionary
                          history of life).


                          Believing in creationism is like believing the moon is made of
                          cheese.



                          Kids should know that.
                        • Randy Raymond
                          American Scientist is not a technical journal. It s a popular magazine a bit like Scientific American (though it s a quarterly and a considerably more
                          Message 12 of 21 , Nov 2, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            American Scientist is not a technical journal. It's a popular
                            magazine a bit like Scientific American (though it's a quarterly and a
                            considerably more technical) put out by the scientific fraternity
                            Sigma Xi. I subscribe to it and recommend it highly.

                            --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Covenant"
                            <averylinden@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Labbbim@ wrote:
                            > >
                            > > A few days back, NYT had some article on an evolutionist retracting
                            > some 50
                            > > year old paper, because a Creation scientist had analyzed it. What
                            > paper was
                            > > that? Will they again have to rewrite Science texts where
                            > longstanding bogus
                            > > Evolutionism had been taught?
                            > > . </HTML>
                            > >
                            >
                            > Well, considering that the paper in question ("Information,
                            > Reproduction and the Origin of Life" in American Scientist, 1955) was
                            > being 1) out-of-context quoted by several creationist sites, and 2)
                            > the author himself re-read the article and identified at least two
                            > significant errors/ommissions in it, I don't see where the entire
                            > edifice of scientific inquiry will have to be rewritten.
                            >
                            > After all, this was a minor paper in a minor journal that very rarely
                            > cited in any subsequent papers over the next half-century. Note that
                            > in the retraction letter, Dr. Jacobson specifically points out the
                            > errors in the paper (some of which were not technically "errors", but
                            > either unknowns at the time or omissions of detail).
                            >
                            > As to your question of a creationist "analyzing" the paper, that is
                            > in error. The quotes taken from the article misrepresent what Dr.
                            > Jacobson meant, and went far beyond the scope and intent of the
                            > research Jacobson was doing. In other words, the creationists quote-
                            > mined out-of-context material, selectively cherry-picking the words
                            > so that it would "appear" to support their claims, when in fact the
                            > paper, author and science do no such thing.
                            >
                            > Thomas
                            >
                            > Below is the full text of Dr. Jacobson's retraction letter:
                            >
                            > http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/56234
                            >
                            > To the Editors:
                            >
                            > In January 1955, American Scientist published my
                            > article, "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life" (Vol. 43,
                            > No. 1). I ask you to honor my request to retract two brief passages,
                            > as follows:
                            >
                            > On page 121: "Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy
                            > and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the
                            > growth sequence, and for the effector mechanisms translating
                            > instructions into growth—all had to be simultaneously present at that
                            > moment [of life's birth]."
                            >
                            > On page 125: "From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the
                            > present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be
                            > utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin
                            > of terrestrial life."
                            >
                            > I have several reasons for retracting the statements. For the first
                            > passage, use of the requirement of simultaneity was a conjecture,
                            > unsupported by any proof. Separate developments of partial structures
                            > might well have occurred in an environment of randomly reacting
                            > molecules, eventually to join into one or more self-reproducing
                            > structures.
                            >
                            > The second passage refers only to an attempt to calculate the
                            > probability that a single molecule of a particular amino acid could
                            > spontaneously form from its components. The calculation was
                            > irrelevant, as it was based on an endothermic change during an
                            > imaginary spontaneous conversion of a mixture of component atoms and
                            > molecules into glycine under adiabatic and standard conditions, with
                            > no external source of energy. Such changes cannot spontaneously take
                            > place. Molecules of increased complexity have been found, however,
                            > when necessary components are available, with the aid of ambient
                            > energy from natural or experimental systems, e.g. electrical
                            > discharges, substantial temperature gradients or contiguous compounds
                            > or elements whose chemical reactions produce free energy. All of
                            > these could have existed under early Earth conditions, and thus this
                            > passage is completely inapplicable.
                            >
                            > Retraction this untimely is not normally undertaken, but in this case
                            > I request it because of continued irresponsible contemporary use by
                            > creationists who have quoted my not merely out-of-context, but
                            > incorrect, statements, to support their dubious viewpoint. I am
                            > deeply embarrassed to have been the originator of such misstatements,
                            > allowing bad science to have come into the purview of those who use
                            > it for anti-science ends.
                            >
                            > Homer Jacobson
                            > Brooklyn College
                            > The City University of New York
                            >
                          • Randy Raymond
                            ... ************************************************************************ Randy: I read the letter in question. It s in this quarter s issue of American
                            Message 13 of 21 , Nov 2, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Covenant"
                              <averylinden@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Raymond"
                              > <randytoad@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "seekeththee"
                              > > <seekeththee@> wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Labbbim@ wrote:
                              > > > >
                              > > > > A few days back, NYT had some article on an evolutionist
                              > retracting
                              > > > some 50
                              > > > > year old paper, because a Creation scientist had analyzed it.
                              > What
                              > > > paper was
                              > > > > that?
                              > > >
                              > > > Thats a good question. What paper was it? Who was the
                              > evolutionist?
                              > > > Who was the creation scientist?
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > Truman
                              > > >
                              > >
                              > **********************************************************************
                              > *
                              > > Randy:
                              > >
                              > > As usual our evolution denier has it all wrong. I can't remember
                              > the
                              > > details, but I'm reasonably certain he is referring to a story from
                              > a
                              > > few days ago, where some scientist or science writer had previously
                              > > written something that was interpreted by some evolution deniers as
                              > > casting doubt on evolution. What he was retracting were the
                              > > statements he made that sounded like he didn't accept evolution. He
                              > > wasn't retracting any actual research.
                              > >
                              >
                              > Actually, he did retract the full paper, because he re-read it (with
                              > 50 years of further education, research and experience) and realized
                              > there were errors and omissions that invalidated the major premises
                              > presented in the paper. Of course, this was a very minor paper
                              > anyway (which the author doesn't deny), but because it was being
                              > misused by the creationists, he felt obligated to do a full
                              > retraction, rather than a correction -- even if it was over a half-
                              > century later.
                              >
                              > FWIW -- here is the link to the full retraction letter from Dr.
                              > Jacobson:
                              >
                              > http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/56234
                              >
                              > Thomas
                              >
                              ************************************************************************
                              Randy:

                              I read the letter in question. It's in this quarter's issue of
                              American Scientist, to which I subscribe. I didn't get the impression
                              that he was retracting the whole article. However I didn't read it
                              very carefully, so you may be right. I'll re-read it.
                            • Thomas Covenant
                              ... retracting ... What ... forced to ... OK, then. Please explain, in detail and with reference to both the original paper and the retraction, what was
                              Message 14 of 21 , Nov 2, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Labbbim@... wrote:
                                >
                                > > A few days back, NYT had some article on an evolutionist
                                retracting
                                > some 50
                                > > year old paper, because a Creation scientist had analyzed it.
                                What
                                > paper was
                                > > that? Will they again have to rewrite Science texts where
                                > longstanding bogus
                                > > Evolutionism had been taught?
                                >
                                >
                                > tinroad66@... writes:
                                > >
                                > > The description may or may not be accurate. Either way it is
                                > > quite irrelevant to the mountain of facts supporting evolution
                                >
                                > An Evolutionist's longstanding claims so deeply questioned he is
                                forced to
                                > retract and we are told that is irrelevant.

                                OK, then. Please explain, in detail and with reference to both the
                                original paper and the retraction, what was significant and important
                                that was in error. I expect a full and complete explanation of how
                                this paper's conclusions were used as full and complete support of
                                the entire scientific foundation of evolutionary biology,
                                biochemistry and abiogenesis, as well and a reasoned explanation as
                                to how the retraction of this paper (along with the identification of
                                the errors/omissions therein) threatens/topples evolutionary theory,
                                abiogenesis and biochemstry.

                                I figure 40-50 pages should be sufficient. Let us know when you
                                complete it.

                                > Yes Evolutionism is that. And only
                                > days later, after taking half a century to be exposed, no
                                Evolutionism believer
                                > can even remember the NYT article.

                                As I posted the full text of the retraction letter, along with the
                                weblink to it, I don't see how you could possibly claim that.

                                Is lying a prerequisite to be in your religion?

                                > So long in stark denial followed by
                                > instant and permanent amnesia. How much chance will school
                                students, then, ever get
                                > to hear the truth of Evolution and its longstanding war on Science?

                                Please give us some details on this "war on Science". What,
                                specifically and with references, is non-scientific about evolution,
                                abiogenesis or biochemistry research (and for bonus points, show how
                                this paper by Dr. Jacobson specifically fits in to your claim).

                                I'm betting you haven't a clue what Dr. Jacobson's paper actually is
                                about, what his original conclusions were, and why he now thinks the
                                paper's conclusions are wrong.

                                Of course, you could prove me wrong quite easily by explaining (in
                                your own words) the details of the Jacobson paper, the retraction,
                                and the evidence/reasons for the retraction.

                                I won't hold my breath that you will ever do that. Somehow,
                                creationists never seem to get into the details -- they just like
                                painting with a broad brush (sort of like my 4 year old does with
                                watercolors).

                                Thomas
                              • Randy Raymond
                                ... from ... previously ... as ... He ... ************************************************************************ *********************************** Randy:
                                Message 15 of 21 , Nov 2, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Raymond"
                                  <randytoad@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Covenant"
                                  > averylinden@ wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Raymond"
                                  > > <randytoad@> wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "seekeththee"
                                  > > > <seekeththee@> wrote:
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Labbbim@ wrote:
                                  > > > > >
                                  > > > > > A few days back, NYT had some article on an evolutionist
                                  > > retracting
                                  > > > > some 50
                                  > > > > > year old paper, because a Creation scientist had analyzed it.
                                  > > What
                                  > > > > paper was
                                  > > > > > that?
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Thats a good question. What paper was it? Who was the
                                  > > evolutionist?
                                  > > > > Who was the creation scientist?
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Truman
                                  > > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  **********************************************************************
                                  > > *
                                  > > > Randy:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > As usual our evolution denier has it all wrong. I can't remember
                                  > > the
                                  > > > details, but I'm reasonably certain he is referring to a story
                                  from
                                  > > a
                                  > > > few days ago, where some scientist or science writer had
                                  previously
                                  > > > written something that was interpreted by some evolution deniers
                                  as
                                  > > > casting doubt on evolution. What he was retracting were the
                                  > > > statements he made that sounded like he didn't accept evolution.
                                  He
                                  > > > wasn't retracting any actual research.
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Actually, he did retract the full paper, because he re-read it (with
                                  > > 50 years of further education, research and experience) and realized
                                  > > there were errors and omissions that invalidated the major premises
                                  > > presented in the paper. Of course, this was a very minor paper
                                  > > anyway (which the author doesn't deny), but because it was being
                                  > > misused by the creationists, he felt obligated to do a full
                                  > > retraction, rather than a correction -- even if it was over a half-
                                  > > century later.
                                  > >
                                  > > FWIW -- here is the link to the full retraction letter from Dr.
                                  > > Jacobson:
                                  > >
                                  > > http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/56234
                                  > >
                                  > > Thomas
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  ************************************************************************
                                  > Randy:
                                  >
                                  > I read the letter in question. It's in this quarter's issue of
                                  > American Scientist, to which I subscribe. I didn't get the impression
                                  > that he was retracting the whole article. However I didn't read it
                                  > very carefully, so you may be right. I'll re-read it.
                                  >

                                  ************************************************************************\
                                  ***********************************
                                  Randy:

                                  Well I re-read the letter and I believe I was correct.

                                  Here is what Dr. Jacobson says (in part):
                                  From American Scientist Volume 25, No.6 (November-December 2007) page
                                  468.

                                  To the Editors:

                                  In January 1955, American Scientist Published my article, "Information,
                                  Reproduction and the Origin of Life" (Vol. 43, No. 1) I ask you to honor
                                  my request to retract two brief passages as follows: [emphasis mine]
                                  <he gives two passages (both single long sentences)from page 121 and 125
                                  and then goes on to say why he wants them retracted>

                                  His retraction has absolutely nothing to do with creationists finding
                                  something wrong with his work. In fact it's just the opposite. HE
                                  found something wrong with his work, that creationists had been quoting
                                  to back up their position. The creationists had assumed that his work
                                  was NOT in error.


                                  Retraction this untimely is not normally undertaken, but in this case I
                                  request it because of continued irresponsible contemporary use by
                                  creationists who have quoted my not merely out-of-context, but
                                  incorrect, statements, to support their dubious viewpoint. I am deeply
                                  embarrassed to been the originator of such misstatements, allowing bad
                                  science to have come into the purview of those who use it for
                                  anti-science ends.

                                  Homer Jacobson
                                  Brooklyn College
                                  The City University of New York


                                  I would have pasted the entire letter, but I am actually typing it from
                                  the physical magazine in my hand.




                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Randy Raymond
                                  ... *********************************************************************** Randy: Whoops! I see that you already posted the entire letter. Wow, all that
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Nov 2, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Covenant"
                                    <averylinden@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, Labbbim@ wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > A few days back, NYT had some article on an evolutionist retracting
                                    > some 50
                                    > > year old paper, because a Creation scientist had analyzed it. What
                                    > paper was
                                    > > that? Will they again have to rewrite Science texts where
                                    > longstanding bogus
                                    > > Evolutionism had been taught?
                                    > > . </HTML>
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > Well, considering that the paper in question ("Information,
                                    > Reproduction and the Origin of Life" in American Scientist, 1955) was
                                    > being 1) out-of-context quoted by several creationist sites, and 2)
                                    > the author himself re-read the article and identified at least two
                                    > significant errors/ommissions in it, I don't see where the entire
                                    > edifice of scientific inquiry will have to be rewritten.
                                    >
                                    > After all, this was a minor paper in a minor journal that very rarely
                                    > cited in any subsequent papers over the next half-century. Note that
                                    > in the retraction letter, Dr. Jacobson specifically points out the
                                    > errors in the paper (some of which were not technically "errors", but
                                    > either unknowns at the time or omissions of detail).
                                    >
                                    > As to your question of a creationist "analyzing" the paper, that is
                                    > in error. The quotes taken from the article misrepresent what Dr.
                                    > Jacobson meant, and went far beyond the scope and intent of the
                                    > research Jacobson was doing. In other words, the creationists quote-
                                    > mined out-of-context material, selectively cherry-picking the words
                                    > so that it would "appear" to support their claims, when in fact the
                                    > paper, author and science do no such thing.
                                    >
                                    > Thomas
                                    >
                                    > Below is the full text of Dr. Jacobson's retraction letter:
                                    >
                                    > http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/56234
                                    >
                                    > To the Editors:
                                    >
                                    > In January 1955, American Scientist published my
                                    > article, "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life" (Vol. 43,
                                    > No. 1). I ask you to honor my request to retract two brief passages,
                                    > as follows:
                                    >
                                    > On page 121: "Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy
                                    > and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the
                                    > growth sequence, and for the effector mechanisms translating
                                    > instructions into growth—all had to be simultaneously present at that
                                    > moment [of life's birth]."
                                    >
                                    > On page 125: "From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the
                                    > present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be
                                    > utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin
                                    > of terrestrial life."
                                    >
                                    > I have several reasons for retracting the statements. For the first
                                    > passage, use of the requirement of simultaneity was a conjecture,
                                    > unsupported by any proof. Separate developments of partial structures
                                    > might well have occurred in an environment of randomly reacting
                                    > molecules, eventually to join into one or more self-reproducing
                                    > structures.
                                    >
                                    > The second passage refers only to an attempt to calculate the
                                    > probability that a single molecule of a particular amino acid could
                                    > spontaneously form from its components. The calculation was
                                    > irrelevant, as it was based on an endothermic change during an
                                    > imaginary spontaneous conversion of a mixture of component atoms and
                                    > molecules into glycine under adiabatic and standard conditions, with
                                    > no external source of energy. Such changes cannot spontaneously take
                                    > place. Molecules of increased complexity have been found, however,
                                    > when necessary components are available, with the aid of ambient
                                    > energy from natural or experimental systems, e.g. electrical
                                    > discharges, substantial temperature gradients or contiguous compounds
                                    > or elements whose chemical reactions produce free energy. All of
                                    > these could have existed under early Earth conditions, and thus this
                                    > passage is completely inapplicable.
                                    >
                                    > Retraction this untimely is not normally undertaken, but in this case
                                    > I request it because of continued irresponsible contemporary use by
                                    > creationists who have quoted my not merely out-of-context, but
                                    > incorrect, statements, to support their dubious viewpoint. I am
                                    > deeply embarrassed to have been the originator of such misstatements,
                                    > allowing bad science to have come into the purview of those who use
                                    > it for anti-science ends.
                                    >
                                    > Homer Jacobson
                                    > Brooklyn College
                                    > The City University of New York
                                    >
                                    ***********************************************************************
                                    Randy:

                                    Whoops! I see that you already posted the entire letter. Wow, all
                                    that typing from copy for nothing.
                                  • PIASAN@aol.com
                                    In a message dated 10/31/2007 11:22:29 P.M. Central Daylight Time, Labbbim@wmconnect.com writes: A few days back, NYT had some article on an evolutionist
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Nov 4, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      In a message dated 10/31/2007 11:22:29 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
                                      Labbbim@... writes:

                                      A few days back, NYT had some article on an evolutionist retracting some 50
                                      year old paper, because a Creation scientist had analyzed it. What paper was

                                      that? Will they again have to rewrite Science texts where longstanding bogus
                                      Evolutionism had been taught?
                                      **********
                                      Pi:
                                      "A few days". "Some article". "Some 50 year old paper." "A Creation
                                      scientist."

                                      When? What article? What paper? What creation scientist? Oh yeah... all
                                      of these have now been produced.... by those on the evolution side. There
                                      are two particularly interesting things at work here. I, our new member, "Lab"
                                      did not produce ANY of the requested information and there was NO creation
                                      scientist who had analyzed the data and "exposed" the error.
                                      ***********



                                      Lab (from another post):
                                      An Evolutionist's longstanding claims so deeply questioned he is forced to
                                      retract and we are told that is irrelevant. Yes Evolutionism is that. And
                                      only
                                      days later, after taking half a century to be exposed, no Evolutionism
                                      believer
                                      can even remember the NYT article. So long in stark denial followed by
                                      instant and permanent amnesia. How much chance will school students, then,
                                      ever get
                                      to hear the truth of Evolution and its longstanding war on Science?
                                      *************
                                      Pi:
                                      How the hell would I "remember the NYT article" if, like over 90% of the
                                      population, I don't get the NYT and YOU don't provide any more specifics than
                                      "a few days back... some article" made a claim. Surely you don't expect me to
                                      run out and start buying stale dated NYT so I can search thru hundreds of
                                      pages of newspaper searching for "some article". It's real easy... I don't
                                      "remember the NYT article" because I never SAW (or heard of) the article.
                                      Further, I wouldn't have had the opportunity to find out more about your
                                      mysterious article if it weren't for the EVOLUTIONISTS on this list. Creationists
                                      certainly didn't provide any help

                                      Since I teach High School science, I would be absolutely delighted to teach
                                      my students the truth about both evolution science and creation "science" and
                                      the "longstanding war" on science... as well as which side is conducting the
                                      war.
                                      ***************


                                      Lab (in response to my comment that the ONLY convicted fraud in this subject
                                      is Kent Hovind):
                                      Stalwart denial won't reverse the convictions of Hwang Woo-Suk, Dr.Haeckel,
                                      > and so many Evolutionism hucksters. The Korean was showered with honors
                                      and
                                      > plaudits until he admitted his work was just more fraud. The very similar
                                      > conditions of Marx and Darwin are what is topical and interesting. Both
                                      given to
                                      > psychological and physical disturbances related to their diseased
                                      conditions.
                                      ***********
                                      Pi:
                                      What conviction? Hovind was convicted of 58 counts of fraud by a United
                                      Stated District Court and is now serving 10 years in federal prison for his
                                      actions. Woo-Suk's fraud was discovered by evolutionists and exposed by them.
                                      He has not been convicted, since he has not been tried. Nor was Haeckel ever
                                      tried or convicted in a court of law.

                                      I stand by my original comment that Kent Hovind, creationist founder of
                                      "Dr.Dino" and "Creation Science Evangelism" is the ONLY player in this debate who
                                      has been convicted of fraud. No one else has ever been convicted or served
                                      jail time for fraud as a result of their actions in the creation-evolution
                                      dispute.

                                      Further, out of tens of thousands of papers on evolution every year, that
                                      you can only find such a paltry number to which you can object on grounds of
                                      fraud speaks huge volumes for the overall integrity of mainstream science.

                                      Finally, even if what you say about Darwin and Marx.... in fact, even if
                                      they were bed partners.... is true, it has absolutely no relevance to the
                                      evidence supporting evolution.

                                      Would you like to actually deal with evidence concerning the comparative
                                      claims of creation "science" and mainstream science, or are you simply
                                      interested in attempting character assassination. If you actually want to argue
                                      science, here are a couple for you:

                                      Astronomy: Creationists claim the universe to be only a few thousand years
                                      old. Yet, we can directly observe, with our unaided eye, objects hundreds of
                                      thousands, even millions of light years distant. This does not even include
                                      the billions of galaxies we know of that are billions of light years
                                      distant. How can we see these objects in a universe only a few thousand years old.

                                      Geology: The "global" flood. An event such as this would leave a clearly
                                      identifiable later of flood strata. No such layer has ever been identified by
                                      a creation "scientist". Further, there is no adequately explained source
                                      for all this water, nor is there any place for it to go on a planet already
                                      covered with the stuff.

                                      Notice, these fields of science have nothing to do with biological
                                      evolution. In fact, creation "science" isn't only at odds with evolution. Creation
                                      "science" is in conflict with every single branch of mainstream science:
                                      astronomy, geology, botany, physics, meteorology,... all the way to zoology. Not
                                      ONE branch of mainstream science supports creationism.



                                      ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Randy Raymond
                                      ... some 50 ... paper was ... longstanding bogus ... Creation ... yeah... all ... There ... member, Lab ... creation ... forced to ... that. And ... then,
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Nov 4, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:
                                        >
                                        > In a message dated 10/31/2007 11:22:29 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
                                        > Labbbim@... writes:
                                        >
                                        > A few days back, NYT had some article on an evolutionist retracting
                                        some 50
                                        > year old paper, because a Creation scientist had analyzed it. What
                                        paper was
                                        >
                                        > that? Will they again have to rewrite Science texts where
                                        longstanding bogus
                                        > Evolutionism had been taught?
                                        > **********
                                        > Pi:
                                        > "A few days". "Some article". "Some 50 year old paper." "A
                                        Creation
                                        > scientist."
                                        >
                                        > When? What article? What paper? What creation scientist? Oh
                                        yeah... all
                                        > of these have now been produced.... by those on the evolution side.
                                        There
                                        > are two particularly interesting things at work here. I, our new
                                        member, "Lab"
                                        > did not produce ANY of the requested information and there was NO
                                        creation
                                        > scientist who had analyzed the data and "exposed" the error.
                                        > ***********
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Lab (from another post):
                                        > An Evolutionist's longstanding claims so deeply questioned he is
                                        forced to
                                        > retract and we are told that is irrelevant. Yes Evolutionism is
                                        that. And
                                        > only
                                        > days later, after taking half a century to be exposed, no Evolutionism
                                        > believer
                                        > can even remember the NYT article. So long in stark denial followed by
                                        > instant and permanent amnesia. How much chance will school students,
                                        then,
                                        > ever get
                                        > to hear the truth of Evolution and its longstanding war on Science?
                                        > *************
                                        > Pi:
                                        > How the hell would I "remember the NYT article" if, like over 90% of
                                        the
                                        > population, I don't get the NYT and YOU don't provide any more
                                        specifics than
                                        > "a few days back... some article" made a claim. Surely you don't
                                        expect me to
                                        > run out and start buying stale dated NYT so I can search thru
                                        hundreds of
                                        > pages of newspaper searching for "some article". It's real easy...
                                        I don't
                                        > "remember the NYT article" because I never SAW (or heard of) the
                                        article.
                                        > Further, I wouldn't have had the opportunity to find out more about
                                        your
                                        > mysterious article if it weren't for the EVOLUTIONISTS on this
                                        list. Creationists
                                        > certainly didn't provide any help
                                        >
                                        > Since I teach High School science, I would be absolutely delighted
                                        to teach
                                        > my students the truth about both evolution science and creation
                                        "science" and
                                        > the "longstanding war" on science... as well as which side is
                                        conducting the
                                        > war.
                                        > ***************
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Lab (in response to my comment that the ONLY convicted fraud in this
                                        subject
                                        > is Kent Hovind):
                                        > Stalwart denial won't reverse the convictions of Hwang Woo-Suk,
                                        Dr.Haeckel,
                                        > > and so many Evolutionism hucksters. The Korean was showered with
                                        honors
                                        > and
                                        > > plaudits until he admitted his work was just more fraud. The very
                                        similar
                                        > > conditions of Marx and Darwin are what is topical and
                                        interesting. Both
                                        > given to
                                        > > psychological and physical disturbances related to their diseased
                                        > conditions.
                                        > ***********
                                        > Pi:
                                        > What conviction? Hovind was convicted of 58 counts of fraud by a
                                        United
                                        > Stated District Court and is now serving 10 years in federal prison
                                        for his
                                        > actions. Woo-Suk's fraud was discovered by evolutionists and
                                        exposed by them.
                                        > He has not been convicted, since he has not been tried. Nor was
                                        Haeckel ever
                                        > tried or convicted in a court of law.
                                        >
                                        > I stand by my original comment that Kent Hovind, creationist founder
                                        of
                                        > "Dr.Dino" and "Creation Science Evangelism" is the ONLY player in
                                        this debate who
                                        > has been convicted of fraud. No one else has ever been convicted or
                                        served
                                        > jail time for fraud as a result of their actions in the
                                        creation-evolution
                                        > dispute.
                                        >
                                        > Further, out of tens of thousands of papers on evolution every year,
                                        that
                                        > you can only find such a paltry number to which you can object on
                                        grounds of
                                        > fraud speaks huge volumes for the overall integrity of mainstream
                                        science.
                                        >
                                        > Finally, even if what you say about Darwin and Marx.... in fact,
                                        even if
                                        > they were bed partners.... is true, it has absolutely no relevance
                                        to the
                                        > evidence supporting evolution.
                                        >
                                        > Would you like to actually deal with evidence concerning the
                                        comparative
                                        > claims of creation "science" and mainstream science, or are you simply
                                        > interested in attempting character assassination. If you actually
                                        want to argue
                                        > science, here are a couple for you:
                                        >
                                        > Astronomy: Creationists claim the universe to be only a few
                                        thousand years
                                        > old. Yet, we can directly observe, with our unaided eye, objects
                                        hundreds of
                                        > thousands, even millions of light years distant. This does not
                                        even include
                                        > the billions of galaxies we know of that are billions of light years
                                        > distant. How can we see these objects in a universe only a few
                                        thousand years old.
                                        >
                                        > Geology: The "global" flood. An event such as this would leave a
                                        clearly
                                        > identifiable later of flood strata. No such layer has ever been
                                        identified by
                                        > a creation "scientist". Further, there is no adequately explained
                                        source
                                        > for all this water, nor is there any place for it to go on a planet
                                        already
                                        > covered with the stuff.
                                        >
                                        > Notice, these fields of science have nothing to do with biological
                                        > evolution. In fact, creation "science" isn't only at odds with
                                        evolution. Creation
                                        > "science" is in conflict with every single branch of mainstream
                                        science:
                                        > astronomy, geology, botany, physics, meteorology,... all the way to
                                        zoology. Not
                                        > ONE branch of mainstream science supports creationism.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > ************************************** See what's new at
                                        http://www.aol.com
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        >
                                        **********************************************************************

                                        Randy:

                                        C'mon Pi "lam" is almost certainly our old buddy Morrowitz. We have
                                        enough experience with him to know "He don't need no steenkin'
                                        evidence". He just LOL's at evidence.
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.