Home » Culture, Darwinism, Eyes Rolling, Human evolution, Humor, Intelligent Design » Reverend Barry Lynn Blasts Infidels Who Refuse to Venerate Darwinius

Reverend Barry Lynn Blasts Infidels Who Refuse to Venerate Darwinius

On May 26, 2009 Reverend Barry Lynn offered his characterization of infidels who refuse to venerate Darwinius. His tirade (supported by Eugenie Scott) can be found here: Show #1415 Eugenie Scott, Susan Russell.

Some excerpts:

Reverend Barry Lynn :
The more new evidence that develops the more some people dig in to their erroneous earlier beliefs
…..
I am still flabbergasted by the notion that no matter what you show some people and say…”this why I believe what I believe” some people say, “nope not enough”….

….the religious right is already saying….”it [Ida (Darwinius)] could be a fake”

What’s wrong with people that they can’t look at evidence and say, “Ok, I didn’t see it before I’m going to re-evaluate based on what I do see.”

But then, less than a month later, reporter Denyse O’Leary pointed us to a Scientific American article:

And in an elaborate public-relations campaign, in which the release of a Web site, a book and a documentary on the History Channel were timed to coincide with the publication of the scientific paper describing her in PLoS ONE, Ida’s significance was described in no uncertain terms as the missing link between us humans and our primate kin. In news reports, team members called her “the eighth wonder of the world,” “the Holy Grail,” and “a Rosetta Stone.”

The orchestration paid off, as Ida graced the front page of countless newspapers and made appearances on the morning (and evening) news programs. Gossip outlets, such as People and Gawker, took note of her, too. And Google incorporated her image into its logo on the main search page for a day.
And in an elaborate public-relations campaign, in which the release of a Web site, a book and a documentary on the History Channel were timed to coincide with the publication of the scientific paper describing her in PLoS ONE, Ida’s significance was described in no uncertain terms as the missing link between us humans and our primate kin. In news reports, team members called her “the eighth wonder of the world,” “the Holy Grail,” and “a Rosetta Stone.”

But a number of outside experts have criticized these claims. Not only is Ida too old to reveal anything about the evolution of humans in particular (the earliest putative human ancestors are a mere seven million years old), but she may not even be particularly closely related to the so-called anthropoid branch of the primate family tree that includes monkeys, apes and us.

So Reverend Lynn was criticizing the skepticism of those who refused to venerate Ida. He insinuated that those who were skeptical of Darwinism were closed minded and had no basis for skepticism of Ida. What does Lynn have to say now? Is anyone aware of a retraction or apology for his smear on those skeptical of Ida?

Let me remind Reverend Lynn of his own words:

What’s wrong with people that they can’t look at evidence and say, “Ok, I didn’t see it before I’m going to re-evaluate based on what I do see.”

Reverend Lynn’s guest on this show was Eugenie Scott. Genie speculated on the large financial interest that certain organizations have in perpetuating the myths and untruths of Darwinius.

Eugenie Scott:

This is a wonderful wonderful fossil….it [Ida (Darwinius)] is a wonderful transitional fossil ……

My hypothesis about the secrecy…had to do with the payment…the asking price was a lot of money…I suspect that it was the company that ended up making the book, making the movie, selling the showing rights to ABC and the history channel…I suspect that the money came from the media…..

Reverend Barry Lynn:
We’re gonna explore…this persistent fear by people from people don’t like evolution. They don’t believe in anything. They don’t include…like Ida.

…we’re talking this first half of the program about the new discovery of a 47-million-year-old skeleton….kind of a branch of the chain that breaks out into lemurs and other varmints and then that branch in the evolutionary ladder, tree or whatever you want to call, that branches out to humans….

Eugenie Scott:
I am looking much more Neanderthal since I had this job…
A real problem that anybody has is when you let your ideologies override the evidence….

Did your irony meter explode like mine did?

NOTE:

To set the record straight, I probably think more highly of Genie and the NCSE than most. She seems like a nice person for the most part (except for her treatment of Sternberg). I think she is mistaken on many issues, but I certainly would not go so far as to say what one teacher in Minnesota said of her organization:

“The NCSE is lying.”

–PZ Myers

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

84 Responses to Reverend Barry Lynn Blasts Infidels Who Refuse to Venerate Darwinius

  1. First let me say that I accept common descent and evolution of small scale biological features as put forward by the modern evolutionary synthesis. However when it comes to the development of complex biological features by an evolutionary pathway my verdict is not proven.


    I am still flabbergasted by the notion that no matter what you show some people and say…”this why I believe what I believe” some people say, “nope not enough”

    Fair enough but I am awaiting the 500 page book that describes one complex biological transition where we know for sure the genetic path followed, can infer the external characteristics of the organism, the survival advantage and have fossil evidence for appropriate steps? And yes I realize that not all genetic changes are immediately expressed and am willing to consider a reasonable argument as to why in some cases there is no external change to the organism. When I have read such a book by say Coyne or Dawkins, then there is a good chance that I will change my mind.

    Dave W

  2. What’s wrong with people that they can’t look at evidence and say, “Ok, I didn’t see it before I’m going to re-evaluate based on what I do see”?

    When people like the “reverend” Barry Lynn like a shell game uncover evidence that is presented such that 1+1=3, i.e., man evolved from an apelike ancestor, then there is no need to re-evaluate.

    1+1 does not = 3 and it won’t = 3 no matter how many peer-reviewed papers and flaky bones are put out and no matter how much air is blown out the mouth claiming all calculations based on the 1+1=3 formula is true. It does not compute.

    The evidence presented doesn’t flush, it doesn’t fly. Mindless unliving matter does not pop into existence from nowhere and move itself to form purposeful entities like suns and molecules and living things. It just doesn’t.

  3. gingoro,

    I don’t believe we’ve met at UD before. Welcome to UD.

    beancan5000,

    Likewise. Welcome to UD.

    Sal

  4. The really interesting thing about “Ida Darwinius” is that the usual pop science media simply rejected it, which doubtless explains our good Reverend’s anger.

    Folks, that has almost never happened before in the history of Darwin nonsense inflicted on the public.

    I used to ask myself – is there any “defend Darwin” story so obviously unbelievable that the pop science media won’t just swallow it and spout the usual lines, as expected?

    Guess what, there was! Ida Darwinius tipped the barrel.

  5. O’Leary , Scordova
    This following song reminds me of the state of most debates on ID-Evolution sites,,,God has given us a veritable banquet of evidence verifying His glory,,,yet the banquet prepared, apparently with such care for us to enjoy, more often than not turns into a juvenile food fight.

    Travis – Sing
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1f2M5G9KG8

    Romans 1:20
    For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

  6. Mr Gingoro,

    Fair enough but I am awaiting the 500 page book that describes one complex biological transition where we know for sure the genetic path followed, can infer the external characteristics of the organism, the survival advantage and have fossil evidence for appropriate steps?

    is this your private standard, or do you think that everyone should only switch views when confronted with this pathetic level of detail? Which ID researcher is most likely to write such a volume for the doubters among us?

  7. Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

  8. I take great exception to Reverend Lynn tarring people who do not accept Darwinain evolution as “anti-science”.

    That is a smear. Even if a minority of scientists, medical doctors, and engineers do not accept evolution, the minority status hardly justifies labeling these individuals anti-science. It hardly justifies tarring aspiring science students as “anti-science”.

    This is a prejudicial smear campaign that does no good, and demostratably ruins careers and lives.

    The only people it benefits are people like Lynn. And Lynn was demonstratably wrong this last round.

  9. Nakashima

    That is not a pathetic level of detail let me explain. What I call evolution of complex biological features is what is often called macro evolution and includes as a subset what in ID terms is called evolution of irreducibly complex features. Right now they do not have any such descriptions see Coyne’s book and his chapter on evolution of complex biological features. The chapter is essentially vacuous and consists of him mainly waiving his hands and complaining about having to provide such details. If the flagellum were the chosen example then I’d want enough evidence to convince Behe that it evolved without the kind of intelligent input that he currently thinks is necessary. I do not think that is a trivial request. Also note that I said that I would think about changing my mind, probably I would think that evolution of complex biological features was a little less unlikely. Certainly if they had a large number of such descriptions I probably would change my mind.

    Dave W

    Others
    Thanks for the welcome.

  10. Mr Gingoro,

    You haven’t addressed my question. Is this your personal level of scepticism and evidence or do you think other people (such as myself) should only change their beliefs when provided with this amount of evidence?

    I apologise for not welcoming you as well. There are so many people who post here, and often people change handles. What is your background?

  11. Nakashima,

    What do you have for evidence?

    IOW what is the evidence that demonstrates mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery and new body plans?

    Can you even present a testable hypothesis pertaining to non-telic processes?

  12. Nakashima @6:
    The idea that natural forces acting randomly can produce anything as complex as the simplest living thing is so outrageous, so fantastic, so unbelievable, that no one can be faulted for rejecting it outright without reams of documentation or a time-lapse video. Something so preposterous cannot be accepted based on threads of evidence woven together by speculation and hope.

    That intelligent agents create such complexities is well established. We know enough to take it seriously.

  13. Sal: Please edit your post and put the word ‘Reverand’ in quotes (” “) in front of Lynn’s name. There is nothing “reverand” about the guy and, frankly, I don’t think he deserves the title!

  14. Mr Joseph,

    So far the discussion has been (tried to be) about standards of evidence, not evidence itself. What is your opinion on this?

    IOW what is the evidence that demonstrates mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery and new body plans?

    Can you even present a testable hypothesis pertaining to non-telic processes?

    By the Power of Greyskull – I commanded Neil Shubin to predict and find Tiktaalik, and it worked! Bwahahaha!

    OK, so maybe the whole Greyskull and commanding part is fake, but I’m pretty sure I didn’t imagine the Shubin predicting/finding Tiktaalik part.

  15. Mr ScottAndrews,

    That intelligent agents create such complexities is well established. We know enough to take it seriously.

    Since all the intelligent agents I’m familiar with are solidly materialistic, I take it you are voting for a visit by littering space aliens 4 billion years ago.

  16. Nak, that you cling to such a dubious prediction of Tikaalek, as controversial a transitional as ever, which was based as much on known geography of the time as to anything else, yet you would ignore the failed predictions of evolution such as the cambrian, and the sudden appearance of life on earth 3.89bya, big bang, as well as numerous others once again reveals your bias to twist any evidence no matter how trivial to your atheistic bias,,,that the new moderator would allow such is amazing, maybe he feels that allowing people to see how pathetic the materialistic philosophy is will show people how ludicrous the whole evolutionary framework is. Myself, I long for the old days when such comments as you are making would have got you a few warnings and then a boot for violating standards of logic.

  17. Wow, congratulations, Nak-san.
    Your conversational English has improved light years since I first read your postings (was it only last year?) on this blog.
    It should be recommended reading for ESL students.

  18. Nakashima @15:
    I prefer to avoid the material/immaterial debate. That’s where the science gets left behind and personal religious beliefs come into play.
    ID is an examination of the the thing which may or may or not be designed. In other words, the subject of ID is always material.

  19. Shubin finding Tiki had nothing to do with non-telic processes.

    As for the standard of evidence it appears that evos will acecpt anything besides the design inference, whereas to reach the design inference specific criteria must be met.

    Thenthere is the fact that you can’t produce a testable hypothesis pertaining to non-telic processes…

  20. Mr Charlie,

    Thank you! I think any progress is due to feeling more comfortable with the venue.

  21. Mr Joseph,

    How was Shubin’s prediction of Tiktaalik a ‘telic process’ prediction? I’ve watched his presentation on the process used and I saw no assumption of a telic process depositing that fossil in that place.

  22. I bet.

  23. Mr BA^77,

    I’m not familiar with the failure of evolutionary predictions vis-a-vis the Cambrian Explosion. What do you feel was a prediction, and what was a failure?

    I’m sorry to hear you are dissatisfied with the current moderation policy. I appreciate any pointers where my logic has lapsed, though there is a clear distinction with regard to assumptions, not logic.

  24. Excellent ID video just came out:

    Journey Inside The Cell – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fiJupfbSpg

  25. Nak,
    You never address anything that is asked of you and always refer to dubious evidence, then act all innocent as to it all didn’t matter when all that really matters to you is to deny any teleological inference whatsoever, this is not science.

    In fact I want you to provide a concise answer to Joseph’s question and not just dance around with semantics.

    “IOW what is the evidence that demonstrates mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery and new body plans?”

  26. Nakashima:

    How was Shubin’s prediction of Tiktaalik a ‘telic process’ prediction?

    Who said it was?

    What you need to do is show it was a prediction borne from non-telic processes.

  27. BTW there are air-breathing fish in the Amazon River today.

    Are they also transitionals?

  28. Mr Joseph,

    I’m provisionally sure that if Shubin wasn’t predicting a telic process, then he was predicting a non-telic process.

  29. Mr Joseph,

    Are they also transitionals?

    Come back in 5 million years, and you’ll have an idea! I think we are all either transitional or going extinct. We won’t know for a while…

  30. Nak, please answer Joseph’s question on mutations because even as Darwin himself insisted:

    “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

    We are not asking for much,,,just maybe the demonstration of something like the flagellum being formed in the laboratory:

    As for the Cambrian which you so non-nonchalantly ignore, Darwin considered a huge problem for his theory as well that would be “cleared up” with future fossil discoveries. He was wrong once again in his prediction! Why don’t you mention that glaring failed prediction that is so contrary? Oh that’s right you don’t care about the truth and only want to defend your atheism no matter what deception you have to use!

    As for you saying that the air-breathing fish will change in a few million years,,,I ask you,,,exactly what evidence do you base this speculation on other than your deluded desires for the fossil record to be as you wish it would be so as to conform to your God-free illusion of the universe…

    The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists –Gould

    The fossil record may, after all, be 99 percent imperfect, but if you can, nonetheless, sample a species at a large number of horizons well spread over several million years, and if these samples record no net change, with beginning and end points substantially the same, and with only mild and errant fluctuation among the numerous collections in between, then a conclusion of stasis rests on the *presence* of data, not on absence! — Gould

    http://www.blavatsky.net/newsl.....record.htm

  31. Mr BA^77,

    Mr Joseph and I have already had sevral discussions around these issues. Two of my favorite examples are the single mutation that was capable of changing an annual plant to a perennial woody type, and the genetic evidence of the development of tricolor vision in primates such as man. I’d be happy to discuss them again.

  32. MR BA^77,

    in re the Cambrian Explosion – what was the prediction? Please be specific.

  33. Nak, Cambrian Prediction:

    Darwin realized that building highly
    complex animals such as trilobites from single-celled organisms by natural selection
    operating on minute, step-by-step variations would require a multitude of transitional
    forms and failed biological experiments over vast amounts of geologic time. Accordingly
    he made the following prediction:
    . . .if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures.
    24—Reference;Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species, 1859, reprint (Penguin Books, 1985), p. 313. Also see first
    edition Harvard University Press, facsimile reprint (1964), p. 307. Darwin’s original quote used the
    “Silurian” rather than the “Cambrian” because in Darwin’s time, what we now label the Cambrian period was subsumed within the concept of the lower Silurian.

    Darwin’s prediction is significant because of his appreciation of the amount of time that his theory required. Geologists in Darwin’s day employed relative dating methods. They did not yet have modern radiometric methods for determining the “absolute” date of rocks. Nevertheless, Darwin had a clear picture of what his postulated
    selection/variation mechanism implied about the history of life. On his theory, complex
    structures could only be built gradually, minute improvement by minute improvement. Thus, natural selection would require vast periods of time to create new biological forms and structures. Even in the 19th century, Darwin understood that this process would take many tens or hundreds of millions of years. Modern neo-Darwinists concur in this
    view. As noted above, neo-Darwinism envisions minute changes in gene sequences accumulating very slowly as the result of random mutations. Empirically-derived estimates of mutation rates in extant organisms, suggest that the kind of large scale morphological changes that occurred in the Cambrian would have required far more time than the duration of the explosion. As Susumo Ohno has explained:
    Assuming a spontaneous mutation rate to be a generous 10-9 per base pair per year and also assuming no negative interference by natural selection, it still takes 10 million years to undergo 1% change in DNA base sequences.
    It follows that 6-10 million year in the evolutionary time scale is but a blink of an eye. The Cambrian explosion denoting the almost simultaneous emergence of nearly all the extant phyla of the Kingdom Animalia within the time span of 6-10 million years can’t possibly be explained by mutational divergence of individual gene functions.25
    http://www.discovery.org/artic.....mbrian.pdf

  34. As Well Nak,
    please cite me a paper where they have conclusively generated functional information, of say 140 fits, by natural processes, instead of you cherry picking fringe stuff of what you want to look at,,,I really don’t have time to waste with you! So just show me the evidence that conclusively establishes evolution is even plausible for what we know of reality!
    Or as someone has famously said:

    “Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting.”
    – Ernest Rutherford

    The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel – Null Hypothesis For Information Generation – 2009

    To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it:

    “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.”

    Then once you explain information generation to a base level of physics, I may take you seriously, other than that Nak, evolution is a joke and you are one of its worst comedians.

    By the way I use “latent genes” to show the ancient terra-forming ability of bacteria-

    Interestingly, while the photo-synthetic bacteria were reducing greenhouse gases and producing oxygen, and metal, which would be of benefit to modern man, “sulfate-reducing” bacteria were also producing their own natural resources which would be very useful to modern man. Sulfate-reducing bacteria helped prepare the earth for advanced life by detoxifying the primeval earth and oceans of poisonous levels of heavy metals while depositing them as relatively inert metal ores. Metal ores which are very useful for modern man as well as fairly easy for man to extract today (mercury, cadmium, zinc, cobalt, arsenic, chromate, tellurium and copper to name a few). To this day, sulfate-reducing bacteria maintain an essential minimal level of these heavy metals in the ecosystem which are high enough so as to be available to the biological systems of the higher life forms that need them yet low enough so as not to be poisonous to those very same higher life forms. (Ross: Creation As Science)

    Bacterial Heavy Metal Detoxification and Resistance Systems:
    excerpt: Bacterial plasmids contain genetic determinants for resistance systems for Hg2+ (and organomercurials), Cd2+, AsO2, AsO43-, CrO4 2-, TeO3 2-, Cu2+, Ag+, Co2+, Pb2+, and other metals of environmental concern.
    http://www.springerlink.com/co.....04577v8t3/
    http://www.int-res.com/article.....26p203.pdf

  35. The role of bacteria in hydrogeochemistry, metal cycling and ore deposit formation:
    Textures of sulfide minerals formed by SRB (sulfate-reducing bacteria) during bioremediation (most notably pyrite and sphalerite) have textures reminiscent of those in certain sediment-hosted ores, supporting the concept that SRB may have been directly involved in forming ore minerals.
    http://www.goldschmidt2009.org...../A1161.pdf

    Transitional Metals And Cytochrome C oxidase – Michael Denton – Nature’s Destiny
    http://books.google.com/books?.....3&lpg

    As well, geological processes helped detoxify the earth

    The Concentration of Metals for Humanity’s Benefit:
    Excerpt: They demonstrated that hydrothermal fluid flow could enrich the concentration of metals like zinc, lead, and copper by at least a factor of a thousand. They also showed that ore deposits formed by hydrothermal fluid flows at or above these concentration levels exist throughout Earth’s crust. The necessary just-right precipitation conditions needed to yield such high concentrations demand extraordinary fine-tuning. That such ore deposits are common in Earth’s crust strongly suggests supernatural design.
    http://www.reasons.org/TheConc.....tysBenefit

    And on top of the fact that poisonous heavy metals on the primordial earth were brought into “life-enabling” balance by complex biogeochemical processes, there was also an explosion of minerals on earth which were a result of that first life, as well as being a result of each subsequent “big bang” of life there afterwards.

    The Creation of Minerals:
    Excerpt: Thanks to the way life was introduced on Earth, the early 250 mineral species have exploded to the present 4,300 known mineral species. And because of this abundance, humans possessed all the necessary mineral resources to easily launch and sustain global, high-technology civilization.
    http://www.reasons.org/The-Creation-of-Minerals

    To put it mildly, this minimization of poisonous elements, and maximization on useful minerals, is strong evidence for Intelligently Designed terra-forming of the earth that “just so happens” to be of great benefit to modern man.

    Man has only recently caught on to harnessing the ancient detoxification ability of bacteria to cleanup his accidental toxic spills, as well as his toxic waste from industry:

    What is Bioremediation? – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSpjRPWYJPg

    Clearly many, if not all, of these metal ores and minerals laid down by these sulfate-reducing bacteria, as well as laid down by the biogeochemistry of more complex life, as well as laid down by finely-tuned geological conditions throughout the early history of the earth, have many unique properties which are crucial for technologically advanced life, and are thus indispensable to man’s rise above the stone age to the advanced “space-age” technology of modern civilization.

    Metallurgy
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy

    Inventions: Elements and Compounds – video
    http://videos.howstuffworks.co.....-video.htm

  36. Nakashima:

    I’m provisionally sure that if Shubin wasn’t predicting a telic process, then he was predicting a non-telic process.

    So that’s it?

    Now I understand why the vast majority of people reject the non-telic position.

    Too bad you can’t provide any support for your claim.

    Two of my favorite examples are the single mutation that was capable of changing an annual plant to a perennial woody type, and the genetic evidence of the development of tricolor vision in primates such as man.

    1- It wasn’t a single mutation that did that. It was a simultaneouly intelligently introduced mutations- ie genetically engineered changes.

    2- The alleged development of tri-color vision could also be seen as evidence for the loss of tri-color vision.

  37. Nakashima:

    Come back in 5 million years, and you’ll have an idea!

    If all you have is to throw time at something then you don’t have any science, you have faith.

    Your trinity is Mother Nature, Father Time and magical Mystery Mutations.

  38. Mr BA^77,

    Well, it seems Mr Darwin was predicting that the history of life extended at least 600 million years back past the Cambrian, and he was right. Where is the failed prediction?

  39. Nak, I’ve done my job, far be it from me to show you that the only thing that is consistent with the Darwinian theory is the evolutionists hypocrisy to overlook any deficiency of evidence no matter how great and to promote any trivial evidence no matter how questionable,,,You cannot falsify a theory in a mind of someone that has such uncritical acceptance and blind faith as Darwin does in your eyes, …as far as I am concerned please respect my wishes for you to refrain from commenting on anything I say as I am done with your antics.

  40. Mr Joseph,

    So that’s it?

    Now I understand why the vast majority of people reject the non-telic position.

    Too bad you can’t provide any support for your claim.

    Shubin describes how he found Tiktaalik without invoking a telic process (AKA using a non-telic process)

    Proof by YouTube! Thank you Mr BA^77 for revealing the secret to me!

  41. bornagain77:

    You cannot falsify a theory in a mind of someone that has such uncritical acceptance and blind faith as Darwin does in your eyes,

    Just out of curiosity, have you ever falsified evolutionary theory in the eyes of anyone who didn’t already believe it to be false?

  42. R0b, I think plenty of the evolution skepticks here would admit to once having unquestioning belief in evolution. I was one of them.

  43. Mr Joseph,

    If all you have is to throw time at something then you don’t have any science, you have faith.

    Hardly, sir. You asked if someting was transitional. You can only know that retrospectively. There is a cherry tree in a park near where I live. Is it a member of a transitional species? Tell me, Mr Joseph, how you would know using ID?

  44. If all you have is to throw time at something then you don’t have any science, you have faith.

    Nakashima:

    Hardly, sir.

    Then please tell me how it is scientific to just throw time at something.

  45. Mr BA^77,

    Why abandon the conversation now? We are talking about a specific case, not spraying videos all over the place. Let’s talk about that quote from Ohno-sensei, I don’t think his point was quite what Dr Meyer, et al made it out to be.

  46. Nakashima,

    Only the uneducated think that by not invoking something in reality invokes something.

    IOW if Shubin didn’y invoke telic processes only the uneducated would say that is invoking non-telic processes.

    In order to invoke something it has to be explicitly stated.

  47. Why is bornagain77 abandoning the conversation?

    Because it is impossible to have one with you.

  48. Nakashima,

    “Since all the intelligent agents I’m familiar with are solidly materialistic, I take it you are voting for a visit by littering space aliens 4 billion years ago”

    Why do you keep referring to Richard Dawkins little green men evolutionary tale?

    Afterall, it is the athest materialist like Dawkins who pawn off little green men stories. Your materialist friends are a hoot. Thanks for bringing the subject up space aliens by a materialist, dogmatic zealot like Dawkins up again.

    Your humor is a good reminder of your sides double-standards and blatant hypocrisy.

  49. As for the sanctimonious wolf in sheeps clothing – the very un-reverand – Lynn, who never pastored a church, cared for a precious baby, but only seeks to murder them, frankly he’s an absurd character, masking hatred and lies, distortions and mocking about the bible, Christ and history.

    That the NCSE is so deparate to allow such a snake-oil salesman into their fascist abode is telling. They’re losing when a scoundrel like this is run out as their foot soldier, lol… please, put him on TV as an NCSE representative over and over.

  50. “intelligent agent” materialist believe in little green men….

    Atheist, Materialist Richard Dawkins believes little green men are possible ancestors

  51. Mr Joseph,

    In order to invoke something it has to be explicitly stated.

    I’ve never seen a scientific article that forced the authors to recite their belifs about the Big Bang, formation of the Solar System, etc to provide warrant that the hypothesis discussed was non-telic. Do you think every experiment needs a stick “No Telic Process Assumed”?

    Do you seriously put forward the possibility that Dr Shubin was using telic assumptions in choosing what to look for and where?

  52. Mr BA^77,

    as far as I am concerned please respect my wishes for you to refrain from commenting on anything I say as I am done with your antics.

    I’ll try to respect your wishes, but this is an open forum. If we are both posting in the same thread, you have to be prepared for that. Plus you’ve got a way of making dogmatic and absolute statements that invites response.

  53. I’m pretty sure this is the case regarding Shubin and the telic.

    1. Shubin “invoked” one or more processes to explain something. (The same process invoked by nearly all others working in his field.)

    2. Shubin has never invoked any telic processes.

    3. Therefore, Shubin invoked one or more non-telic processes.

    I am assuming that all hypotheses are either telic or non-telic. Non-telic does not mean that no agent could possibly be behind the process in question, but that none is necessary — it’s an equivalent to the distinction between “innocent” and “not guilty”. Science has no more business being “atheist” than law has of determining a defendant’s “innocence”.

    To bornagain: I have to say, I ? your comma-triplets! They are like trains of ducklings and have grown on me.

  54. Nakashima san

    “You haven’t addressed my question. Is this your personal level of skepticism and evidence or do you think other people (such as myself) should only change their beliefs when provided with this amount of evidence?”

    First the level of detail I was requesting wrt macro evolution was from evolutionists like Dawkins or Coyne not ID researchers. I need low brow books by the likes of Dawkins since my background is in electrical engineering and applied mathematics. I spent my career doing all kinds of programming- real time, operating system, application and compilers and interpreters. Due to attending high school in various schools and countries I managed never to take any biology which is my loss. Religiously I am an evolutionary creationist or what is often called a theistic evolutionist in terms of origins. The universe appears to be about 15 * 10**9 years old and the earth about 4.7 * 10**9.

    Second You have to decide for yourself what level of evidence you require. However I note that Coyne in his book provides all kinds of evidence for sexual dimorphism in birds eg the peacocks tail. Yet when he deals with evolution of complex biological features he is largely silent and comes no wheres near the level of detail I am asking for. He discusses experiments where birds tails were made longer and shorter and what affect that had on attracting mates. Yes I know that the level of detail that I am looking for is very hard to obtain but large claims require large amounts of evidence. IMO the evolutionists do not even have a prima facie case for macro evolution all they have is hand waving and just so stories. If I am wrong please point me at a low brow book with the level of detail I am asking for. My understanding that the state of the art right now is that if you provide a biologist a genetic change that they are unable to reliably infer what if any external change would be visible ie they can’t go from genome to morphology.

    So in summary if you ask me where I stand on macro evolution my response is that it appears to have happened but we have no real idea as to the mechanism of how it happened. Coyne and Dawkins may be right, Behe may be right, who knows and I lean towards some kind of intelligent input.

    When people assert that science supports their religious world view I get rather skeptical and atheism is Coyne’s and Dawkins religion/world view IMO.

    Dave W

    ps Sorry my comments are delayed but I only have periodic access to the net plus I am doing construction on our summer home.

  55. Mr Gingoro,

    Thank you for the introduction! No need to apologise for the spotty access. We all have day jobs!

    I’ve enjoyed the popular science books by Sean Carroll, His most recent one with the whole ice fish discussion was very good. But I’ve also found that to really get a good grip on the arguments, I have to go deeper. I read Lynn Margulis’ book on symbiosis. and Raff’s Shape of Life was excellent but very challenging for me. Now I am struggling with Valentine’s On the Origin of Phyla, but most of the time it is winning! :)

    On the subject of macro-evolution, at this point do you think that all speciation events need help from an intelligent agent or just some? The second view has been presented as the position of Alfred Russell Wallace.

  56. As for the sanctimonious wolf in sheeps clothing – the very un-reverand – Lynn, who never pastored a church, cared for a precious baby, but only seeks to murder them, frankly he’s an absurd character, masking hatred and lies, distortions and mocking about the bible, Christ and history.

    He’s an ordained minster for the United Church of Christ. Are you saying that despite that ordaination, the reverend never was a pastor?

  57. Nakashima,

    You can’t even form a testable hypothesis using non-telic processes.

    If you think I am wrong then have at it- produce a testable hypothesis based on non-telic processes.

    Your failure to do so will expose your position as a fantasy.

  58. Mr Joseph,

    I’m trying to see your point, but it is difficult.

    1. Shubin’s hypothesis was that non-telic material forces caused a certain kind of animal to live at a certain period, and that the remains of that animal might be preserved by the subsequent material, non-telic geohistory of the planet.

    2. Shubin’s thinking was itself an act of an intelligent agent, designing it’s goals and activities.

    I have been under the impression that your repeated demands have been answered by 1 above. Have you really been talking about 2 the whole time? Did you switch between 1 and 2 earlier? Do you agree with 1 but find 2 problematic? Do you think the combination of 1 and 2 forms a contradiction?

  59. Then produce Shubin’s hypothesis.

    Then we can all see if it pertained to non-telic processes.

    Ya see there is this peer-reviewed paper that says there isn’t enough time for non-telic processes to do the trick.

    So it would be interesting to see what Shubin actually said.

  60. Also it is a safe bet that Shubin doesn’t even know whether the transformations required- to go from fish to land animal- are even possible.

    Perhaps you could also cover that.

  61. Joseph:

    Also it is a safe bet that Shubin doesn’t even know whether the transformations required- to go from fish to land animal- are even possible.

    You keep saying that (“even possible”) whenever transitionals come up. I think you mean “possible by purely evolutionary means” or something like that. Obviously, if macroevolutionary changes are impossible, then not even a designer could cause them, and all relevant fossils must be illusions or hoaxes.

    (Personally, I think a good word is “plausible”. That at least one line of fish naturally developed a walking ability seems plausible to me and, more relevantly, to experts in the relevant fields. Obviously, such an ability was developed one way or another — and we don’t have data yet demonstrating such a transition by any means, artificially or no. So in that sense, we also don’t know yet whether it’s possible for a designer to induce the required change, one or more mutations at a time.)

  62. Mr Joseph,

    Watch the YouTube video I linked to earlier, and you can hear for yourself what Shubin said.

    Since you are someone who enjoys demanding an answer, I would appreciate the same consideration. Have we been talking, in your view, about 1, 2, or an equivocaton between them?

  63. Nakashima san

    “You haven’t addressed my question. Is this your personal level of skepticism and evidence or do you think other people (such as myself) should only change their beliefs when provided with this amount of evidence?”

    First the level of detail I was requesting wrt macro evolution was from evolutionists like Dawkins or Coyne not ID researchers. I need low brow books by the likes of Dawkins since my background is in electrical engineering and applied mathematics. I spent my career doing all kinds of programming- real time, operating system, application and compilers and interpreters. Due to attending high school in various schools and countries I managed never to take any biology which is my loss. Religiously I am an evolutionary creationist or what is often called a theistic evolutionist in terms of origins. The universe appears to be about 15 * 10**9 years old and the earth about 4.7 * 10**9.

    Second You have to decide for yourself what level of evidence you require. However I note that Coyne in his book provides all kinds of evidence for sexual dimorphism in birds eg the peacocks tail. Yet when he deals with evolution of complex biological features he is largely silent and comes no wheres near the level of detail I am asking for. He discusses experiments where birds tails were made longer and shorter and what affect that had on attracting mates. Yes I know that the level of detail that I am looking for is very hard to obtain but large claims require large amounts of evidence. IMO the evolutionists do not even have a prima facie case for macro evolution all they have is hand waving and just so stories. If I am wrong please point me at a low brow book with the level of detail I am asking for. My understanding that the state of the art right now is that if you provide a biologist a genetic change that they are unable to reliably infer what if any external change would be visible ie they can’t go from genome to morphology.

    So in summary if you ask me where I stand on macro evolution my response is that it appears to have happened but we have no real idea as to the mechanism of how it happened. Coyne and Dawkins may be right, Behe may be right, who knows but I lean towards some kind of intelligent input.

    When people assert that science supports their religious world view I get rather skeptical and atheism is Coyne’s and Dawkins religion/world view IMO.

    Dave W

    ps Sorry my comments are delayed but I only have periodic access to the net plus I am doing construction on our summer home. I wrote this earlier but it did not post.

  64. Nakashima,

    #1- I will get to the video later.

    I am going to read his book “Your Innner Fish” sometime this year.

  65. Lenoxus,

    My point is we don’t know if these fossils are really transitionals or we accept them to be because the paradigm needs them.

    Phenotypic platicity can also explain apparent transitionls.

    Also the fossil recird is made up mostly of marine invertebrates, >95%.

    In that vast majority we do not observe universal common descent.

    Also there isn’t anything in any genome, that we know of, that determines form. Influences, yes, determines, no.

    We don’t seem to have any evidence of an accumulation of mutations doing much of anything.

    Natural and sexual selection keep the norm and reign in the “freaks”, the outsiders, the mutants.

    Heck with sexual reproduction there isn’t any guarantee a beneficial change will get passed on.

    Then if you have more than one competeing beneficial change…

  66. Sal,

    I would like to say that I do not accept common ancestry- however I do not totally rule it out either- my views of science are provisional based on evidence and reasoning that I have expierenced myself- but I am very skeptical of all these “missing links” that the evolutionists have put forth- especiallly in the primate to man sequence. There can only be ONE true missing link-the one that gets us to mitochondrial Eve- and we have heard that they have found it “many times” before. How this particular new one can, once again, rediscover the missing link, or so to speak- is beyond me. It shows this is more about trying to get people to accept Darwinism than it is really about forward origins science.

    The internet has been a major blow to Darwinism because now with yooutube and site like this people can actually find out about the dissent. Before everyone was either a true beleiving Biblical literalist or at the mersey of what they learned in biology class. Now anyone regardless of what their past is can come into contact with the problems regarding Darwinism- as moreover with the scientific success and development of the theory of ID.

    I think that all of these primate fossils that have been found- which once you see them you realize they are not as glorious as Scott describes them- are ultimately either classifiable into modern man or ape categories. The fossil record DOES have some “candidates” for transitional fossils- but as we always find out later, those transitions get reevaluated and moved from “missing link” into one distinct category or another. Appearently every new fossil they find that looks somewhat ape like or man like they deem “THE missing link” – that is until it runs out of press coverage and hype – then it’s designation “evolves” into some other less significant link- once again usefully leaving open the door for another silver bullet to be crowned some time in the future.

    The fossil record is very deplete of transitions between major body plans and forms- and until we get some very good remains in a smooth order (which I have yet to see as the orders are always changing) I am going to remain skeptical- as all truly scientifically minded people do.

    Lets take a look at the missing link Scott romantically calls “a wonderful transitional fossil”

    http://blogs.discovermagazine......ius440.jpg

    It does not look ANYTHING like a modern human- unless I have in fact have tail that I am unaware of- and is therefore not THE missing link- and very well may not be A missing link of any sginigicance to modern humans either. My fist throught was that it looked more like a dinosaur than a human- and now i think maybe it is more ape like- but close to human? No.

  67. Frost122585,

    There can only be ONE true missing link-the one that gets us to mitochondrial Eve- and we have heard that they have found it “many times” before.

    Thanks for pointing this out. Here’s what the evos claim:

    Pond scum -> Ida -> Mitochondrial Eve

    Now look at this whole situation in a different way. Obviously Ida did not spring fully-formed from the primordial ooze, so from her point of view there must have been a “missing link” between her and the pond scum as well! Let’s throw the evos a bone and call it Tiktaalik:

    Pond scum -> Tiktaalik -> Ida

    But now Tiktaalik is a second missing link between humans and the ancestral pond scum! So the notion of a unique “missing link” refutes itself! Common descent is therefore falsified, QED.

  68. herb,

    But now Tiktaalik is a second missing link between humans and the ancestral pond scum! So the notion of a unique “missing link” refutes itself! Common descent is therefore falsified, QED.

    It’s obvious to me that every post you make is sarcastic. Are you doing this for the benefit of anyone or any group in particular? Will you start actually contributing thoughtful comments or will you continue your campaign of sarcasm?

  69. Frost @66:

    I feel similarly. After seeing so many overblown “missing links” which often turned out to be just fragments of bones and which are quickly overturned, I’m not very trusting.
    These are not cases in which science overturns old ideas in light of new evidence. Rather, great claims are made based on weak evidence or none, and everyone jumps on the bandwagon.

    So what am I do to when faced with some “overwhelming” lineage of transitional fossils? I don’t have time to become a paleontologist or the resources to examine the fossils in person. And yet it’s plain as day that some accredited paleontologists will say anything about a few bones if it gains them some notoriety. And no one cares.

    The field of paleontology is sorely lacking in credibility. It takes more than an “-ology” on the end to make something science.

  70. Herb,

    I made it very clear that I do not totally rule out universal common ancestry- but in light of how un human this thing looks I can hardly consider it THE missing link we all think of between ape like ancestors and modern humans. It really isn’t even close. And in the case of your ridiculous fish Tiktaalik- that is not a missing link between anything. It is insulting to my intelligence that anyone would be convinced of UCA based on an ancient fish.

    As far as my QED- my logic is exactly right- scientists say there was a first human – mitochondrial Eve- and we need the transition to it for the synthesis to be accept as reasonable proven.

    Now in light of the abundant evidence of UCA I think the fact that Darwinists have to even bring up Tiktaalik at all proves how poor that evidence really is.

    I remmeber whenn they were saying that birds evolved from dinosaurs – as if to test how gullible the general publically is- the nthey switched to the much more said- retile to bird hypothesis.

    Appearently evolution changes according to scientific design.

    Iv’e made my point.

  71. Frost,

    I made it very clear that I do not totally rule out universal common ancestry- but in light of how un human this thing looks I can hardly consider it THE missing link we all think of between ape like ancestors and modern humans. It really isn’t even close. And in the case of your ridiculous fish Tiktaalik- that is not a missing link between anything. It is insulting to my intelligence that anyone would be convinced of UCA based on an ancient fish.

    Let me clarify—I didn’t realize that by “missing link” you meant specifically an organism transitional between our alleged apelike ancestors and modern humans. I interpreted your use of the term to be more general, so that you could talk about supposed “missing links” between humans and any of our alleged ancestors. Perhaps this miscommunication is the reason you and Clive concluded I was being sarcastic. I certainly do agree with your main point. BTW, I completely reject the fairy tales that Shubin fronts concerning Tiktaalik.

  72. Frost122585 said: “As far as my QED- my logic is exactly right- scientists say there was a first human – mitochondrial Eve- and we need the transition to it for the synthesis to be accept as reasonable proven.”

    Now, I’m no expert in Darwinism, but I don’t believe this is correct. I believe that Mitochondrial Eve is actually not the first human, but is the most recent common ancestor of all living humans along the maternal line. As far as I can tell, the identity of this person is determined retrospectively and is not fixed in time. That is, 10,000 years ago (to pick an arbitrary timeframe) the person who then could be considered to be most recent common maternal ancestor of all living humans was not the same as the person who is said to hold that title today. Likewise, the Mitochondrial Eve 10,000 years from now will almost certainly not be the same person as it is today.

    Wikipedia has a pretty decent article on this that you might enjoy.

  73. Herb,

    No problem and thanks for clarifying. I understand your point completely.

    Hedge,

    I think you understand my point regardless of whether Eve is one particular creature or representivite of the very specific and closly related creatures denoting the missing link which leads us into modern humans.

  74. 74

    Frost: Mitochondrial Eve was a single and almost certainly anatomically fully-modern human woman, who lived in Africa roughly 150 thousand or so years ago. IOW, millions of years after we parted company from chimpanzees, and around a couple hundred thousand after Neanderthals went their own way. Which is to say, the term “missing link”, when applied to mtEve, is even more inappropriate than it usually is.

    Also, what exactly is your point? What sort of transitional is it, specifically, that you think must be found? Whereabouts in the sequence of ape and hominid fossils should it be? Are there certain features you would find particularly convincing?

  75. Scott,

    I am gald you agree with my skepticism. I once heard the creationist Hovind say to Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine “I agree with you alot of what you write, you are right to be skeptical of the tons of dumb theories out there… but I wish you would apply some of that skepticism to your advoated theory of Evolution.”

    Regardless of whether UCA is correct or not skepticism is still warrented especially when looking at a fossil lke the one shown here.

    And I liked your point about “ology”- you right iut takes when than just puting that suffix on the end of your occupation to validate the quality of your expertise. The world today is stupidly fooled by the classical “fallacy by authority”- if logic was taught right in schools people might understand that just because an accredited person- or someone in a postion of authority and or power- says somthing, that has nothign to do with whether it is true or not.

    The only true authority is reason. Darwinism is more about “progress” as defined in terms of poltical, social, philsosophical and economic terms than it is about sceintific truth- which is what we should be after. People who support Darwinism by and large want it to succeed not because they are interested in a closely scrintinized and then highly agreed upon consensus- but because they only want a certain materialistic view of reality to prevail. Science is a convention- truth is an objective grasp of reality- neither can are derived from occupational sources of authority without careful examination from both inside and outside their respected communities. Nazi Germany is the best example of consensus by authority and majority of society -and it is one example claimed in the name of true science. Everyone agreed and everyone was wrong.

    Science is not about progressing one bias- it is about progressing towards truth and that requires hard logical and rational scrutiny. So my skepticism of UCA may one day prove unecessary if it is clearly shewn to be correct- but until then I agree with Paul Feyerabend’s quote about sceintific progress

    “The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes.”

    We can expect plenty more “missing links” between apes and man to come. But until they get a real one- (without a tail…) I will remain unconvinced and unfooled. They progress towards a theory’s absolute acceptance- I progress towards absolute truth.

  76. Doomsday those are the real questions. As far as Eve- I think it is important to demonstate that sequence to insure that man was the result of true common descent. I have not yet seen any good real fossil transitions two and from Eve.

    In regards to other place I want transitions- how about from halibus to erectus?

    I have never seen a good first hand sequence between any of these- and so remain theoretic in my mind.

  77. Doomsday, another thing i find strange is that article goes out of it’s way to try and disprove the Bible’s flood theory of descent… I dont follow though exactly how they get to ruling out the existence Noah. It seems they take the time to assert that the flood requires bottle necks right off the bat but without elucudating the reasoning. Not that Eve should be a religious concern anyways- which is a dead giveaway of the obvious bias of the article’s author.

  78. 78

    Frost: according to the article history, someone added that anonymously today. Just a few hours ago, in fact. It reads as fairly creationist to me. Namely, someone trying to show that Y-chromosomal Adam could have been Noah, and not trying to discredit that idea. The same person made another edit, this one trying to support the idea that mtEve could really be the biblical Eve. In any case, I’ve reverted them.

  79. herb,

    Perhaps this miscommunication is the reason you and Clive concluded I was being sarcastic.

    Are you going to answer my question of whether you will continue your perpetual campaign of sarcasm? The above is not an answer.

  80. Are you going to answer my question of whether you will continue your perpetual campaign of sarcasm? The above is not an answer.

    Sir,

    I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I am waging a “campaign of sarcasm”. It could simply be that I am a poor communicator, or, may I gently suggest, that you just might be seeing more trolls here than there really are. Which is understandable—this place is awash in socks. And of course I can’t answer your loaded question. All I have to stand on is my modest record here as an ID supporter.

  81. Herb I originally did not think your comment was sarcastic- then after I read what Clive said looked back at it I thought it probably was. I just think it was maybe a bit too simplistic- with the QED part being a little over the top because it is totally unclear how UCA was falsified QED simply by my observation that what we really mean by “missing link” is a smooth transition from ape to man. Halibus to Erectus would be a good example – and Mito Eve (or transtions from throughtout this change) might be important as well. But this is not a falsification of UCA just a challenge it must face if it wants to be accepted as fact or close to it.

    I have no hard feelings against ya- just be careful about how you present your posts. You lucky Dave Judge-and-Jury Scott isn’t hear… he would have banned you already. Lol.

  82. Frost,

    Thanks for posting that. After reading your explanation, and rereading my own post, I now see how it could come off as sarcastic. I’ll always plead guilty to being too simplistic as well, and I’m sure my wife would agree LOL.

  83. herb,

    Sir,

    I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I am waging a “campaign of sarcasm”. It could simply be that I am a poor communicator, or, may I gently suggest, that you just might be seeing more trolls here than there really are. Which is understandable—this place is awash in socks. And of course I can’t answer your loaded question. All I have to stand on is my modest record here as an ID supporter.

    First, call me Clive. Second, I’m smarter than that. This post itself is sarcastic. Your record is very modest here as an ID supporter because you don’t support ID at all. This place is awash is socks, and you’re one of them. You don’t want to answer my question, and expose your sock-puppetry. I will give you one more chance to stop having fun with people, and start posting serious comments. Otherwise, you will be moderated, not banned, just moderated.

  84. Clive,

    Thanks for the offer, but I’m afraid I am headed toward the moderation sandbox regardless of what I say. I shall henceforth post elsewhere.

    Best regards,

    herb

Leave a Reply