My Science Question On Religion & Spirituality

[Theland]

It's all about this
http://www.talkorigins.org/
versus
this
http://www.trueorigin.org/

[dawkins]

Hay Clanad, happy new year.

You seem to be flitting from one subject to another but i'll try and keep up.

The age of sedimentary rock is not determined by the fossils they contain. The age of sedimentary rock is determined by radiometric dating of rock which is present with the sedimentary rock and can be cross referenced with the fossils contained in the sedimentary rock as well for belt and braces. Tests can be carried out on more than one isotope to further improve confidence in the results. similar fossils occur consistently in the right order in the geological column wherever they are in the world (hence haldane's rabbits). The column shows a graduation from simple to more complex. Are you seriously suggesting that geologists are wrong about the age of sedimentary rock?

The origin of life on earth is unclear but the free oxygen we enjoy today is the result of an abundance caused by photosynthesis by ancient critters such as cyanobacteria. abundant free oxygen occurred through evolution (as I said: evidence in iron). The evidence does not agree with you that there was abundand oxygen in the atmosphere of the early earth.

Bacteria have evolved. There is nothing about evolution which states that evolution causes the extinction of a parent species. Man didn't evolve from an ape, man shares a recent common ancestor with an ape. bacteria fill many niches and often enjoy symbiotic relationships with their hosts.

My species definition is not definitive, species definitions are difficult because the biological environment is dynamic. If critters were fixed as you suggest then species definitions would be simple.

[dawkins]

Sorry Lazygun Had I seen your excellent post I would have just left it at that.

[Clanad]

"Holy myriad conflicts, Batman".. where to start...
"There is considerable ferment now within the field of taxonomy because of conflicting philosophies of classification, and different perceptions of which patterns in the history of life should be reflected in the taxonomic hierarchy (Eldredge & Cracraft, 1980; Schoch, 1986). Higher taxa can be either artificial groupings of species with similar morphologies (evolutionary grades), or "natural" groups sharing derived characteristics inherited from a common ancestor (monophyletic taxa or clades. This is a quote from Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record, author:
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Obviously not a "creationist". The remainder of his document defends his interpretation of taxonomic hierarchy. As I'm sure you (Lazy Gun or dawkins, take your pick) know, there are several intrepreations that attempt to classify species and taxa. The Linnean classification system is hierarchical, which leads to the impression that species in different categories differ from one another in proportion to differences in taxonomic rank" (Carroll, 1988, p. 578). But the author, astoundingly, goes on to state:
Higher taxa are distinct and easily recognizable groups only when we ignore the time dimension of the history of life. When the fossil record is included, the boundaries between higher taxa become blurred during the major morphological radiations associated with the appearance of new higher taxa. Even in the modern world, discontinuity is not as great as it may appear superficially. In practice, species are often not easily recognized, and accepted species definitions cannot always be applied.
Contd.

[Clanad]

Contd.
I can, I'm sure you also know, provide you with many diametrically opposed positions.
I can also provide many refernces concerning radiometric dating of sedimentary rocks. All agree that particles within the rocks may be dated radiometrically, but that has nothing to do with the ages of the rocks since it says nothing about when they were deposited. My argument is only on this point, since it was a point made by Lazy Gun in his/her first post that caught my eye in the first place. All the other techniques may or may not, depending on each case, have something to say about the ages of the rocks. Granted, my training is with North American Rocky Mountain geology with it's folding, anti-clines and synclines, making dating extremely (in some cases) difficult.
Contd.

[Clanad]

What's next... Ah, yes, our friend archaeoptryx, somehow I just knew someone would trot out that old cliche (pun not intended). Evolutionist paleontologist Larry Martin, a challenger of the dinosaurs-to-birds theory, was quoted as saying that such comparisons "are riddled with characters based on mistaken anatomy" and such theories of dinosaur origins of birds are a good example of "garbage in, garbage out"( Feathers, or Flight of Fancy? Newsfocus article by Erik Stokstad. Science, vol 288, Pg 2124-2125.)
Further, Evolutionist paleontologist Sankhar Chatterjee has found what appears to be a fossil bird, Protoavis, in Late Triassic strata--at the same geological period as the appearance of the first dinosaurs. This fossil appears to have more features in common with true birds than Archaeopteryx did. Given that it appears in the fossil record at the same time as the earliest dinosaurs, then it seems highly unlikely that birds are descended from dinosaurs. In other words, if an almost true bird existed with the first dinosaurs, how can it be said that birds are descended from dinosaurs? As one evolutionist paleontologist puts it, "[t]here�s going to be a lot of people with Archaeopteryx eggs on their face." (Anderson, Alan, "Early Bird Threatens Archaeopteryx's Perch," Science, p. 35, 5 July 1991.) (Portions of this discussion excerpted from Nova southeastern University, et al).
Further, the diversity of opinion (re: archae) extends to the question i the animals were ectotherms (i.e., were "cold-blooded") or were endotherms (i.e., were "warm- blooded") and which had a thermal physiology which fell between the two extremes (Randolph 1994, p. 391). this appears to be a minor concern, but in determining transition, it's of huge importance.

Contd.>

[Clanad]

One other quote I finally located re: archaeoptryx...
Considering Archaeopteryx, Gould and Eldredge write, "Smooth intermediates between Bauplane [body plans] are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments: there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)" (p. 147).]
Stephen Jay Gould is a unique individual in the evolutionist camp. I should ssy, was, since Mr. Gould died in May of 2002 at the age of 60. He was highly outspoken in his lifetime and well respected, being a professor at Harvard. However, since his death, his writings and lectures have undergone a revisionist view from the evolutionists to the point that he has almost become anathema. My well spoken antagonist, dawkin probably falls in that field, although I would never deign putting words in his mouth. Gould, although a confirmed evolutionist, expressed concerns that I echo here. In fact he developed the theory of punctuated equlibrium which, overly simplified, states that he observed (correctly) that stasis was the rule throughout the existence of a species on earth. The species is found fully developed and departs the same way with little, if any, change. To accomodate evolution, Gould hypothesized a sudden, unexplained shange resulting in a new species. This theory rapidly came under fire from within and without and he probably regretted its exposition (my intrepretation). But it and other aspects of his position(s) nearly destroyed an otherwise admirable legacy. I expound on this case simply because it is not unusual to find scientists who stray from the "party line" becoming ostricized, often to the point of being hounded from their profession.
Contd.

[Clanad]

End

The point of all this is; nothing I can present can change the positions of dawkins or Lazy Gun, et al, nor is that my intent. Conversely, my position is equally entrenched. But, we must all realize there are valid reasons for such positions, not just "blind faith". I'm sure Theland's inbox is filling with e-mail notifications and at around 40 posts or so, we've nearly reached the historical limit of interest in such exchanges. I'll happily respond, but as dawkins pointed out, it's difficult to maintain a running count of all the counter-points, especially when responding to multiple posters. If I missed something, rest assured it's an oversight and not lack of sustainable defense...

[dawkins]

Not so much batman as batty Clanad. I'm getting a bit cheesed off with rebutting large swathes of data taken from creationist websites that selectively (mis)quote science news items ( http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetai ls.php/id/839 ) so I will briefly respond to your claims of disarray in the evolutionary biology community and leave it at that:

1. How one defines a species has no bearing whatever on evolutionary processes. Species as a concept has different definitions for different disciplines. It is difficult to pin down the species concept for various reasons but most saliently because it refers to entities that evolve, hinting at some kind of continuum. Keith Miller is in fact a theistic evolutionist but to be fair i'm not sure of his views on whether god intervenes in macroevolution. But no matter, he is simply saying that evolution is a continuum, evolution not revolution.

2. You seem to be saying that you do not accept the dating of sedimentary rock. Strange that you accept the age of the universe - and I assume the earth - as derived from secondary calculations and yet do not accept independently cross-verified calculations for the age of sedimentary rock. Or you do in some cases, but not in others. You accept the big bang, which has far less supporting evidence than the age of sedimentary rock.

cont.

[dawkins]

3. In the creation article you quote heavily from, they do not mention that Chatterlee�s discovery has almost no support from paleontologists. For a neutral treatment see:
http://discover.com/issues/may-92/features/ruf fledfeathers40/

Or the wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoavis.

The treatment of evolution on the ideacentre website quotes selectively to build an anti-evolution argument. It is easy to find anti-evolution propaganda on the web and if you follow the sources you invariably find a different story. I wonder whether you do this. For a positive treatment I recommend you read �The Ancestors Tale� by Richard Dawkins.

thanks

[Clanad]

I suppose, dawkins, had I the desire, time or need, I'd locate the source of your quotes. I assume you have need for research materials so that doesn't give me pause. But you invariably miss the point. Firstly, you can rebut or not, your choice, but to "get cheesed off..." is not only un-professional is contradictory, since you stated you were in full agreement with the "large swaths" of data taken from evolutionists sites and posted by Lazy Gun that fulfill your needs and pre-established position, no?

Secondly, a definition of speciation was inherent in Lazy Dog's initial post as it it yours. If one can't define a species adequately, then how in the world can one state a new species has arrived? I'm puzzeled, but call me dense...

You waffle from hostility and barely contained vitriol to gentlemanly disagreement... I think I like the gentlemanly dawkins frankly... have a bad day?

Cetainly you know that Wikipedia is undependable since anyone can post definitions or positions, often grossly biased. Picking and choosing can produce any results so desired, just as I've done.
Treatment of positions other than pro-evolution from sites such as talkorigins, et al quotes selectively to build a position supporting evolution, so it's certainly not a one way street and I think your outrage is badly misplaced in the interest of fairness. Or are you implying that you are a research scientist who does not rely on available information to make a valid point? I, for one have never implied such for myself. I, like you, I suspect, have the ability to read and understand current scientific positions and reach a conclusion based on that study. The fact that I come to a different conclusion than you doesn't cause me to be "cheesed"...
So, have a good night!

[WaldoMcFroog]

...and as usual, Captain Confirmation-Bias misses the point about his copying and pasting (not the first time for that, eh?) of other people's work. (Incidentally: here's where you stole the bit about Chaterjee from (a sentence I picked at random and threw into Google):

http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/archives/fossrec.htm

Perhaps you could credit your plagiarism?)

I rather suspect Dawkins is cheesed off because you use sources which misrepresent the work and conclusions of other scientists (and do so in order to force a conclusion which fits a pre-determined agenda).

[LazyGun]

Clanad, I take exception to being accused of posting "large swathes" of cut and paste text .The tenor of your response to dawkins re: my postings is pretty discourteous. I have been polite in all my posts to you - please afford me the same courtesy. I spent quite some time yesterday reading a variety of resources before answering. My posts are either my own interpretation or at the very least a reviewed, edited version of material drawn from several resources.I posted 3 topics yesterday, clearly defined in response to your posts, which flit from subject to subject with little evidence of delineation or thought for clarity of presentation. Note that my name is LazyGun, not LazyDog... if you are going to bold my name, please get it right.

1.Speciation. One can define a species, by many different criteria according to the phylum and reproductive habits of the organisms involved.Credible scientists are not confused by this.You and your other co travellers on the other hand,seem able only to comprehend a "one size fits all" definition, and anything other is interpreted as a weakness.

2. Protoavis. You are dismissive of the mainstream view supporting archaeopteryx as the link between reptiles and birds, but you are entirely uncritical and accepting of the findings of Chatterjee, with its fragmentary and ambiguous evidence? You fail to mention entirely that the proponents are a minority consisting of Chatterjee and his team and perhaps one or two adherents.His findings are vigorously contested, to say the least! Much, much more fossil evidence needs to be provided before any credibility at all is given to Protavis. And hypothetically, even if more fossil evidence was uncovered to give credence to Protoavis as a genuine species, it would still mean a reptile to bird descent by evolution. Misrepresentation of a rival theory of common descent once again being used by creationists as somehow anti-evolutionary!
-Ctd-

[LazyGun]

3. You quote Dr.Larry Martin "rubbishing" the therapods to birds descent but think that somehow this tiff between rival schools of evolutionary thought somehow supports creationism, rather than a squabble between essentially like minded but fiercely competitive teams? The fact that he differs from the currently accepted mainstream view ( of therapods to birds) does not invalidate evolution from reptiles to birds at all! He just claims that a different type of reptile was the common ancestor from which modern day birds are the sole remaining representative.The majority of paleobiologists would disagree with his view quite strongly, since the similarities between therapod and bird far outweigh the differences. Yet another case of quote mining and misrepresentation by creationists.

4. Stephen Jay Gould. An evolutionist to his dying breath, he often expressed both frustration and dismay that his punctuated equilibrium hypothesis of how evolution might work , and his subsequent disagreements with proponents of other mechanisms of evolution had been seized upon by the creationist lobby desperate to dress up their frankly paltry anti -evolution arguments by quote mining and distortion.His work, and those of his colleague Eldredge were based upon Ernst Mayrs earlier work. Nothing in their proposed mechanism refutes the theory of evolution at all..... in fact, it is merely a variant of the mainstream gradualism hypothesis with added elements, such as catastrophe and stasis, as well as giving small isolated populations more importance in speciation than gradualism does.

[Clanad]

Lazy Gun, my sincerest apologies for entering your name incorrectly... I truly meant nothing by it and would ask you to view it as it was, an unintentional oversight. I concur that your posts have been courteous and informative, but, as just demonstrated, the charges of plagiarism abound... dawkins intimated such but overlooked segments of your posts which were obtained from other sites. Understand clearly, I've no problem with that technique since there's absolutely nothing to be gained by reinventing the wheel. This is one of the reasons that I try to include as many attributions as possible. I believe that you, like me, have a set purpose and goal in mind when you are constructing your posts, but need refreshing of memory, clarification of postion or immediate wording of the same thought. After all, this is a simple question and answer site and nothing stated here is published for peer review or monetary gain.
Those who resort to this charge often have nothing to offer in the discourse and just as often resort to the technique themselves; i.e., quoting, at length, obscure verses from the original King James version of the Bible as though they were stored in memory.
Regardless, here's the point and then I'm finished; I do think the "rubbishing" of one's evolutionary position by another confirmed evolutionist is significant. I can, given time produce a list of over 500 notable, peer reviewed, published scientists who, over the last few years, have abandoned their belief in the evolutionary paradigm. Obviously, there are probably creationists that have changed thier positions. However you, I suspect, would call the first group fools and the second enlightened. And somehwere in that mix is incongruity, in my opinion.
Contd.

[Clanad]

Contd.

If Protavis were the only example, your point would be strengthened. However, examples from China are under study as we speak, and even discounting the obvious fake (obvious except to National Geographic) new evidence will be interesting.
Speciation debates among scientists are far more than just minor disagreements over syntax. It goes to the heart of our discussion, but you refuse to see that. If the scientific community has such a difficult time determining species definitions, than how are we poor unititiated suppose to make any determination as to origins.
I find it interesting that we are starting to see individuals and even groups of evolutionists talking about a direction and end goal for their evolutionary paradigm. One is calle Evolution's Arrow as seen here: http://users.tpg.com.au/users/jes999/ . Unique concept, no?
We've both, along with dawkins presented our cases, charge and counter-charge. Now it's up to whomever wants to review the positions to either choose an opinion or deem the entire effort interesting but not worth devoting a whole lot of time to. As stated, I never intended to change your or anyone else's postition, only to present a fact based alternative, as I see it. Your choosing to adhere to your previous Gesamtkunstwerk is expected and certainly not disrespected.

Contd.

[Clanad]

Finish

I guess I would end with this question: While not all evoultionists are atheists, many are, in my experience. How is it then, that the most purpose driven creature on Earth, ultimately, has no purpose? How can one be driven through life to attain knowledge, strive towards goals, relish accomplishments and at the end simply shrug their shoulders and say that's all folks? I guess I can never understand that philosophy, especially when the God who created all this invites me to "Come, let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18)...
I sincerely hope you have a nice day..

[WaldoMcFroog]

Disengenous way to try and wriggle out of your plagiarism, Clanad. The exact same one you tried last time, I note. The problem is not that you quote facts or opinion, but that you cut and paste unattributed argument and present it as your own, hence 'plagiarism', see? This would accord exactly with the definition used in any higher education facility in the land, and doubtless the States.

As for "quoting obscure biblical passage" (something you've done on numerous occasions, let us not forget), clearly intended to be a dig at me (http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Society-and-Cul ture/Religion-and-Spirituality/Question345395- 2.html) - and please don't be so insulting to pretend otherwise - the attribution of chapter and verse makes it entirely clear that it is a quote.

The argument is all mine however and *that* is the difference.

[mibn2cweus]

It is precisely because life must face the alternative, the antithesis and complete opposite of life, death, that life achieves any purpose whatsoever. Likewise, it is because a certain species evolved with the capacity to reason that life derives any meaning. Through engaging in a process of reason, life�s meaning becomes defined. For this reason and by virtue of reason a rational person can say, �that�s all folks!�, because that person understands that ultimately life is all that matters and with that knowledge works to make the most of it.

[LazyGun]

Clanad, Thank you for your apology over the name confusion.
As to what we post here, broadly I would agree with you that there is no point in reinterpreting the wheel, with one caveat, and that is that the (re)poster shows some evidence of critically reviewing the text,and checking of the "facts" presented, by going back to the source material, or sites with an alternatve view, for comparison and validation.

Your interpretation of the differences of opinion between evolutionists appears to be that said differences invalidate the underlying theory, rather than being an argument over different concepts of the mechanism. Your interpretation is entirely wrong, in my opinion. The advancement of science,and our increasing knowledge of the universe around us,is driven entirely by these differences of opinion - this is the essence of what is called the scientific method!

Your list of 500 notable reseachers who have abandoned their belief in the "evolutionary paradigm" would have some value only if we also saw the evidence verifying the claim that they have abandoned their belief, together with information on their particular field of research.An evolutionary biologist rejecting evolution in favour of creationism would be interesting.. a physicist less so. It would also be useful to know what they now believe in, since abandoning the "evolutionary paradigm" may only mean that they dispute the current mainstream thinking of the mechanism, without disbelieving the underlying principle. Only after these points are established can we then talk about how much meaning this list might have...and as you rightly point out, there have been more than a few creationists that have changed their position on creation over the years.

-ctd-

[LazyGun]

To my knowledge, the Protoavis finds in Texas (?) remain the only ones to date. When you say examples from China, do you mean more examples of Protoavis, or examples of another type of fossil althogether? Also remember that whilst data and evidence can be used to posit different hypotheses of in this case common ancestry, all hypotheses still rest on one fundamental principle... that of evolution.

Speciation. - There is no disagreement over definitions of speciation amongst biologists. Rather, there are several,well established,definitions which are used,depending on the phylum and the mode of reproduction of the species in question. The problem is that many people expect a single, "one size fits all" definition, when even a moments thought will tell you is impossible, given the variation and diversity between the different categories of organic life.

Lifes "Purpose".
I suspect this area, more than any other, is the real heart of the fundamental differences of opinion between theist and non theist.It only (currently) has relevance to humanity, since the notion that life has a "purpose" is only meaningful if you are of a species capable of advanced abstract thought. Theists believe that learning about their deity of choice, worshipping said deity and coming to love him/her/it are what gives life purpose ; Athiests believe that it is down to the individual to give their own life direction and meaning, above and beyond the basics of material comfort, nutrition, companionship, reproduction etc.

Betrand Russel once said �Unless you assume a God, the question of life�s purpose is meaningless�. Or put another way, the assumption of some abstract "purpose" to life is only valid if you believe in the notion of divine creation.