Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Sunday, April 4 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1384
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 14:05:01 -0600
From: "Cummins" <cummins@dialnet.net>
Subject: RE: Peppered moths
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Troy Britain
> Yes, heaven forbid that anyone should actually have to learn even the
> terminology (let alone the methodologies & facts) used in the
> sciences that
> they are sure are totally wrong...
We have people using 5-cent reasoning with 5-dollar words. And, often (as
in the example I used), the 5-dollar word isn't any more precise than the
5-cent word. So, why do some of the people in this newsgroup use "the
terminology"? My 2-cents is that they want to sound more intelligent and
more informed.
Although, self-important Evolutionists are not alone in this juvenile
babble? Ever read documents produced by teachers for other teachers? Too
bad their language only handicaps their thinking ability.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 17:24:44 -0600
From: "Cummins" <cummins@dialnet.net>
Subject: RE: Recent rhetoric
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Ami Chopine
> I have seen both honest and ad hominim in reply to Cummins. With
> respect to
> the ad hominim, it has been uneccessary and proven little. I
> again refer to
> such biblical references as cited above.
I provide honest replies to honest posts. However, there are some
Evolutionist crusaders who have no interest in honest debate. For example,
I posed a challenge for Evolutionists to identify any empirical example of
an indefinite increase in complexity anywhere in nature. Or, to leave out
some of the qualifiers, show me that nature can create complexity.
Of course, not one Evolutionist could answer the challenge (because nature
can't create complexity, at least nothing beyond equilibrium conditions).
Instead of any Evolutionist admitting that they have no answer, they start
trying to pick apart the challenge -- no matter how stupid they must act to
do it, such as demanding to know what simple words like "indefinite" mean
(it means that snowflakes don't count). I may have missed some replied, but
only one of them seemed like an honest response, the guy who referred to
evolution itself (but, that doesn't count because evolution is an inference,
not an observed fact). The wording of my original challenge was to close
loopholes which allow Evolutionists to provide answers that miss the point
that Evolution is foreign to nature.
I used ad hominim replies to underscore the fact that they didn't try to
provide honest replies to my messages. BTW, as long as we're talking about
ad hominim, note their hypocrisy when they dish out ad hominim attacks while
accusing me of ad hominim attacks.
> been corrected on this list
> by [name deleted], and Kevin O'Brien..I think by Pim too. I am most
> grateful to have my errors corrected.
You've identified a couple of Evolutionist Crusaders. It is in the nature
of an Evolutionist Crusader to provide help when they sense weakness that
can be exploited. They'll happily feed either the sympathetic (you) or the
naive newbie with friendly propaganda and basic corrections.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 16:15:35 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts
>
>You misrepresent my use of the term "intelligence."
>
Then you should have defined it; if you do not define your terms, do not get
upset if people do not use them as you intended to use them.
>
>I use the term to denote the ability to reason.
>
Which is how I assumed you meant it; maybe you didn't read my post carefully
enough. You seemed to be saying that some people were inherently better
able to reason than others, so they develop theories the rest of us could
never think of. I was trying to explain that that is not the case; that
with sufficient education and training and experience, anyone could have
come up with any theory.
>
>It is clear that most people can reason....
>
So we agree on this point; then why do you believe only a special few could
think up scientific theories?
>
>...but most
>people cannot be at the forefront of science and develop the theories and
>devise the experiments necessary to elicit questions from Nature.
>
That has nothing to do with the ability reason; that has to do with getting
the education, the training, the experience and the money necessary to do
the work, and having the luck to be in the right places at the right times.
>
>I do not recall using the term "artifact."
>
No, you didn't, but it's assumed in your logic, whether you realize it or
not.
>
>Scientific theories are by nature mathematical....
>
No, they are not. Theories are by nature explanations of how physical
phenomena work; sometimes that can be done with pure mathematics; often
times with a mixture of mathematics and exposition; most of the time solely
with exposition. Most physical theories are mathematical; many chemical
theories are mathematical but many are expositional; most biological and
biochemical theories are expositional with only a few being mathematical.
Yet all are theories, because they explain physical phenomena.
>
>...and so it deals with concepts that include fields that
>are more elusive than what is normally called an artifact.
>
Theories are explanations of physical phenomena; therefore theories deal
with physical forces. Artifacts are controlled by physical forces, so
theories usually deal with artifacts directly or indirectly.
>
>For instance, it
>is clear to me that there can never be a mathematical theory that will
>explain life.
>
Perhaps you can enlighten the rest of us with the evidence you have that
makes that clear to you. In any event, life is a physical phenomenon that
needs to be explained; there are in fact many theories that when combined
explain how life works. Some of these theories are mathematical, most are
not, but they explain how life works well enough to be accepted as true.
>
>It could be that we can "create" life in the lab, but the
>elements that we use in the lab cannot be described mathematically by a
>full-fledged theory.
>
Theories don't merely describe a phenomenon (what does it do, when does it
do it, where does it do it), they also explain it (how does it work; why
does it work the way it does); scenarios that only describe phenomena are
called "schemes". Since life created in a laboratory must be the same as
natural life then it must be explained by the same theories that explain
natural life. So in fact we do have full-fledged theories that explain
life; whether they are mathematical is irrelevant.
>
>Fundamental theories deal with "dead" things and not life.
>
Except that life is controlled by these "dead" things, such as
electromagnetism, chemical kinetics and thermodynamics; therefore these same
fundamental theories deal with life as well.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 16:48:39 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Peppered Moths - in black and white
It's obvious that you do not want to believe that what I am telling you is
true, considering they way you twisted my words to distort my position.
Fine, Cliff, have it your way, but as I said before you do not have to take
my word for it. Read the scientific literature, such as the textbooks of
Douglas Futuyma; they'll show you how "micro-" and "macroevolution" all fit
together as evolution as a whole. (You have some serious misconceptions
about the relationship between phenotype, genotype, the genome and DNA in
general, and how they relate to evolution.) The scientific literature will
also alleviate your ignorance concerning the timing and mode of change of
the Cambrian explosion. Read the creationist literature of the past three
decades; it will demonstrate how creationists have manipulated the terms of
the debate to their advantage.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 16:52:06 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Peppered moths
>
>> Yes, heaven forbid that anyone should actually have to learn even the
>> terminology (let alone the methodologies & facts) used in the
>> sciences that
>> they are sure are totally wrong...
>
>We have people using 5-cent reasoning with 5-dollar words. And, often (as
>in the example I used), the 5-dollar word isn't any more precise than the
>5-cent word. So, why do some of the people in this newsgroup use "the
>terminology"? My 2-cents is that they want to sound more intelligent and
>more informed.
>
It was a creationist (Art Chadwick) who used that term; didn't you know
that? Was he using 5-cent reasoning; was he simply trying to sound more
intelligent and more informed?
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 17:05:39 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Genes and Development Conference
>
>I've seen similar statements peppering the literature as well.
>There's no doubt that some believe it (or did believe it at one
>time). However, I think the when backed into a corner and really
>probed on the specifics, even those people quoted would probably
>admit that their comments were a tad overstated (I'd hope). What
>I find to be foolish are attempts to quantify what proportion of
>developmental control is genetic or "extra-genetic". They're
>*both* important. You can't have one without the other. I think
>that if someone (anyone) sits still and thinks about the problem,
>this becomes apparent. Genes are just parts of the whole organism.
>Take the example of cloning, where a nucleus is transferred from
>one cell type into another, which "resets" the developmental clock
>in the process. What changed? Probably not the DNA sequence. DNA
>is simply one of the many intermediate players in the whole process.
>The reason there has been so much focus on genes is that they are
>much easier to study. (Sequencing is easy, understanding the
>context is hard).
>
Forgive my ignorance (I work with proteins, not genes), but by extra-genetic
components are you referring to the cell's metabolic system, or to
extracellular protein factors, both or neither?
>
>This problem is not confined to development, but runs across
>areas like metabolism as well (Heck, if we're going to assign
>claims of priority, people studying metabolism recognized the
>problem very early). Knowing gene sequences aren't going to tell
>us all we need to know about how cells sense and respond to changes
>in their environments. We understand that metabolism is regulated
>at many levels in a huge interconnecting network of which genes
>are just one component.
>
>For example, there are now many technologies that allow us to
>monitor changes in the levels of the different mRNAs in a cell.
>We can subject a culture to various changes in conditions
>(nutrient availability, temperature, addition of antibiotics &
>etc.) and see which genes are activated or repressed in response.
>The hope is that with this information, one would be able to
>determine what functions/genes are involved in a particular response
>and figure out how the signals propagate through metabolism. The
>harsh reality is that so much change happens that it's practically
>impossible to distinguish signal from noise. Worse still, it's
>likely that the signals you're interested in propagated long before
>any response is reflected as a change in mRNA levels. On top of
>and woven within the "genetic program" are many other layers of
>"non-genetic" responses. (Aside: The technology still has its uses,
>specially in well-defined systems or in situations where you'd like
>to test a particular hypothesis).
>
This I do know something about; most of my research involves metabolic
systems. Most of the people I have worked with agree that genetic
regulation of metabolism is somewhat limited and crude; more like turning a
light on and off. Much of the "noise" you refer to above is the action of
the metabolic system trying to adjust to these gross changes. As such,
while we are interested in knowing if any genes are activated or shut down,
we concentrate more on the changes in the metabolic system itself -- what I
believe you call the "non-genetic" responses -- which are broader, more
subtle and more finely regulated, like a reostat. In our experience there
have been times when genes shut down and we expected a particular metabolic
activity to decrease, but it actually increased instead. And we've seen the
reverse happen as well. So we pretty much conclude that genes as less
important to overall metabolic control than the way the different pathways
cooperatively interact.
>
>BH> Just to check if one had to really dig for such quotes, I took
>BH> a look at <The Shape of Life> by Rudolf A. Raff. All I had to
>BH> do was look in the index under "gene" and then the subtopic
>BH> beneath "assuming primacy in developmental biology" which led
>BH> me to the following:
>BH>
>BH> "Genes are important because they are the controllers and
>BH> executers of developmental processes." -- Raff
>
>Yes, taken at face value, Raff's statement is ridiculous. Genes
>can't execute anything.
>
By this you mean they need a metabolic system to first transcibe the gene,
then translate it into a protein or enzyme that then exerts the control or
executes the appropriate function, no?
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 17:29:06 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts
>
>I think we can know something for what it is or for what it is not. The
>term "intelligent design" means that the universe did not come into being
>without the aid of some preexisting being who has the ability to reason.
>
I would agree with that in principle. Now the question becomes, did this
Being simply create the physical forces and the raw materials, then let them
shape themselves according to It's design (which would in fact allow for
random elements to appear and influence the final outcome), or did It create
the physical forces and used them to shape the raw materials to It's design
(in which case imperfections in the raw materials or the physical forces or
both could still influence the final result), or did It use non-physical
forces to stamp the raw materials to It's design (in which case the final
result matches the original conceptualization perfectly, with no random or
imperfect affects to alter the design)?
>
>Therefore, in truth there is no such thing as truly random, everything is
>designed.
>
That depends upon how this Intelligent Being actually created It's
conceptualization. Just as a gardener cannot control the way the flowers he
planted grow, the Being may not be able to control a creation designed to
form itself. Just as a sculptor must work within the limitations and
imperfections of his tools and material, the Being may have had to work
within similar limitations as well. Just as a tool and dye manufacturer can
use special equipment to create exact and virtually perfect copies of any
template, the Being could have used special forces to create a perfect copy
of Its conceptualization.
>
>We are like fish in the water who are not aware of the existence
>of the water and want to prove it. An impossible task!
>
Interesting metaphor, because there was a time when no one realized that air
existed either, yet we eventually discovered that air was not nothing, but a
combination of gases, two of which were needed for life (oxygen and carbon
dioxide). So the task may not be as impossible as you believe.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 17:33:16 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts
>
>Why would a philosoper (Nelson) and a mathematician talk about biology?
>
Because they feel they are better qualified to establish the validity of
biological concepts, especially since biologists are so biased that you
cannot trust whatever they have to say about their fields of study.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 16:44:50 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Peppered moths
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Troy Britain
> Yes, heaven forbid that anyone should actually have to learn even the
> terminology (let alone the methodologies & facts) used in the
> sciences that
> they are sure are totally wrong...
Cummins: We have people using 5-cent reasoning with 5-dollar words. And, often
(as
in the example I used), the 5-dollar word isn't any more precise than the
5-cent word. So, why do some of the people in this newsgroup use "the
terminology"? My 2-cents is that they want to sound more intelligent and
more informed.
On the contrary, using established terminology reduces the potential for
misunderstandings.
Cummins: Although, self-important Evolutionists are not alone in this juvenile
babble? Ever read documents produced by teachers for other teachers? Too
bad their language only handicaps their thinking ability.
It's interesting that you apparantly oppose evolution without understanding its
premises. Should you not at least make that effort ?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 16:47:48 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Recent rhetoric
> I have seen both honest and ad hominim in reply to Cummins. With
> respect to
> the ad hominim, it has been uneccessary and proven little. I
> again refer to
> such biblical references as cited above.
Cummins: I provide honest replies to honest posts. =20
Translation: I use ad hominem when I cannot address the issues.
Cummins: However, there are some Evolutionist crusaders who have no =
interest in honest debate. =20
You're an evolutionist crusader now ?
Cummins: For example, I posed a challenge for Evolutionists to identify =
any empirical example of
an indefinite increase in complexity anywhere in nature. Or, to leave =
out
some of the qualifiers, show me that nature can create complexity.
And we have and furthermore you have refused to accept these responses =
and continue to ignore them. You also continue to ignore efforts to get =
you to explain your "indefinite increase in complexity" and how it =
applies to evolution.
Cummins: Of course, not one Evolutionist could answer the challenge =
(because nature
can't create complexity, at least nothing beyond equilibrium =
conditions).
ANd of course you have been shown wrong here. Yet you pretend that this =
has not happened. Is this what you call an "honest debate" ?
Cummins: I used ad hominim replies to underscore the fact that they =
didn't try to
provide honest replies to my messages. BTW, as long as we're talking =
about
ad hominim, note their hypocrisy when they dish out ad hominim attacks =
while
accusing me of ad hominim attacks.
Irrelevant, you abuse of ad hominem attacks remains such wether or not =
others do it. So how come that you refuse to engage in an honest debate?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 16:48:40 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Peppered moths
Cummins:
>We have people using 5-cent reasoning with 5-dollar words. And, often (as
>in the example I used), the 5-dollar word isn't any more precise than the
>5-cent word. So, why do some of the people in this newsgroup use "the
>terminology"? My 2-cents is that they want to sound more intelligent and
>more informed.
>
Kevin: It was a creationist (Art Chadwick) who used that term; didn't you know
that? Was he using 5-cent reasoning; was he simply trying to sound more
intelligent and more informed?
CUmmins is just upset that he does not understand common terminology.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 18:13:13 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Recent rhetoric
>
>I provide honest replies to honest posts. However, there are some
>Evolutionist crusaders who have no interest in honest debate. For example,
>I posed a challenge for Evolutionists to identify any empirical example of
>an indefinite increase in complexity anywhere in nature. Or, to leave out
>some of the qualifiers, show me that nature can create complexity.
>
And our challenge to you, a challenge you have consistently ignored, is to
demonstrate that this test really invalidates evolution.
>
>Of course, not one Evolutionist could answer the challenge (because nature
>can't create complexity, at least nothing beyond equilibrium conditions).
>
Again, where is your evidence that that is true?
>
>Instead of any Evolutionist admitting that they have no answer, they start
>trying to pick apart the challenge -- no matter how stupid they must act to
>do it, such as demanding to know what simple words like "indefinite" mean
>(it means that snowflakes don't count).
>
Funny, that's not what my dictionary says. It defines "indefinite" as
"unclear; vague; lacking precise limits; uncertain". So that means you want
an empirical example of a vague, unclear, uncertain increase in complexity
anywhere in nature. Since "empirical" means "verifiable or provable", your
challenge is an oxymoron; no wonder no one can give you an example.
Evolution does not demand an increase in complexity (as you yourself have
admitted), but even if it did it would be a clear and certain increase in
complexity, not a vague increase.
Oh, and by the way, a "vague, unclear, uncertain" increase in complexity
would not rule out snowflakes, except of course that snowflakes are not
"vague, unclear, uncertain" increases in complexity.
Now, are you finally ready to define "indefinite" and explain how it applies
to evolution?
>
>I may have missed some replied, but
>only one of them seemed like an honest response, the guy who referred to
>evolution itself (but, that doesn't count because evolution is an
inference,
>not an observed fact).
>
I'ld tell you to read the scientific literature, but of course you would
simply ignore me. So, prove that evolution is not a fact.
>
>The wording of my original challenge was to close
>loopholes which allow Evolutionists to provide answers that miss the point
>that Evolution is foreign to nature.
>
So, you will accept no answer to your challenge except an admission that it
cannot be answered; how honest a debate is that?
>
>I used ad hominim replies to underscore the fact that they didn't try to
>provide honest replies to my messages. BTW, as long as we're talking about
>ad hominim, note their hypocrisy when they dish out ad hominim attacks
while
>accusing me of ad hominim attacks.
>
It's spelled "hominem". We would be hypocritical only if you truly never
made an ad hominem attack; since you admit that you do, we are not being
hypocritical. However, what you call ad hominem attacks on our part is
simply our recognition of your ignorance, arrogance and ill-temper. It is
not an ad hominem attack to tell the truth.
>
>> been corrected on this list
>> by [name deleted], and Kevin O'Brien..I think by Pim too. I am most
>> grateful to have my errors corrected.
>
>You've identified a couple of Evolutionist Crusaders. It is in the nature
>of an Evolutionist Crusader to provide help when they sense weakness that
>can be exploited. They'll happily feed either the sympathetic (you) or the
>naive newbie with friendly propaganda and basic corrections.
>
Is that why you feel the need to be so mean and nasty all the time, even to
those who approach you kindly, even to your fellow creationists?
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 17:35:56 -0800
From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts
At 01:05 PM 4/3/99 EST, you wrote:
>Why would a philosoper (Nelson) and a mathematician talk about biology?
>
Why wouldn't they? What is your point?
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"All kinds of private metaphysics and theology have
grown like weeds in the garden of thermodynamics"
- -- E. H. Hiebert
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 19:36:44 -0800
From: Cliff Lundberg <cliff@noevalley.com>
Subject: RE: Peppered Moths - in black and white
Pim van Meurs wrote:
>Cliff: Creationists do science a service when they make challenges based on
>this valid point.
>
>So they do serve a purpuse after all ?
Why are you on this list if you don't think they have anything interesting
to say?
I see the 'modern synthesis' of the 30's as an exercise in pulling the
wagons together and sweeping the anomalies and difficulties under
the rug; this is response to the realization that creationists were not
going to go away, and that creationists had considerable political
influence over funding and textbook purchasing. Evolutionary science
has not recovered from this compromising approach; it is vulnerable
because it has left it to the creationists to ask the hard questions.
Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noevalley.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 22:51:50 -0600
From: Bill Payne <bpayne15@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Recent rhetoric
On Sat, 3 Apr 1999 18:13:13 -0700 "Kevin O'Brien"
<Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Evolution does not demand an increase in complexity (as you yourself
have
>admitted), but even if it did it would be a clear and certain increase
in
>complexity, not a vague increase.
Hello Kevin,
I probably missed something since I really haven't followed this thread,
but could you please clarify the above. I thought that if only
naturalistic explanations were allowed for the transition from the big
bang to what we see today, that an increase in complexity would be part
and parcel of that model. You seem to indicate otherwise. How come?
I finally got my copy of NCSE Reports today. I look forward to reading
your article.
Bill
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 21:52:45 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Peppered Moths - in black and white
>
>I see the 'modern synthesis' of the 30's as an exercise in pulling the
>wagons together and sweeping the anomalies and difficulties under
>the rug; this is response to the realization that creationists were not
>going to go away, and that creationists had considerable political
>influence over funding and textbook purchasing. Evolutionary science
>has not recovered from this compromising approach; it is vulnerable
>because it has left it to the creationists to ask the hard questions.
>
You have some serious misconceptions here; try reading the scientific
literature for a change.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1384
********************************