The Evolution Myth

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha Pistike,

I harbor no truck about Christians who choose a *natural selection worldview.*

My contention is that evolution remains an open question regardless of how many Ph.D's or researchers or volumes of research say otherwise.

In profund humility,

CD

[Pista Gyerek]

Hello CD,

I harbor no truck about Christians who choose a *natural selection worldview.*

Is that as contemptuous as it sounds? So much for sincere humility. We're all lesser Christians and lesser people because we affirm the validity of a theory that's as well established as that of heliocentrism and the spherical Earth? You have no truck with us because we recognize the difference between our religious beliefs and our scientific education?

My contention is that evolution remains an open question regardless of how many Ph.D's or researchers or volumes of research say otherwise.

That doesn't sound like the attitude of someone who's interested in honest inquiry. You're displaying the same dogmatism you're warning others about.

Regards,

Pista Gyerek

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha Pistike,

Please, you're reading an absolutely skewed idea into what I just recently shared. What you have just said is not shared in an upbuilding discourse, but rather one of a tearing-down discourse. In what you shared in your posting at 16:58 MIMF time(#283) I sensed someone that I could continue a fruitful journey of discovery. I still believe that - Maybe we can view each others postings as those share in Charity, Love, and Hope. Because we do not physically see each other it might be tougher for us to gauge what the meaning is of our every word and thus it is easy to *jump the gun*. Therefore, let me apologise to you if you feel personally affronted by anything I have said.

In humble sincerity,

CD

[mathetes1963]

Being a Christian myself, I had a real crisis of belief attempting to reconcile the Bible (or at least a particular interpretation of some parts of it) and what could be observed within the scientific realm. Seems in some circles that if one even suggests the possibility of macro-evolution, one is branded a "heretic" or accused of "compromising" the word of God.

Anyone here familiar with Dr. Robert Bakker?

He wrote a book, The Dinosaur Heresies, that revolutionized the way we look at dinosaurs today. He was consulted for the Jurassic Park movies, and is frequently on TV speaking about the nature and evolution of dinosaurs. He is probably the "Dinosaur Man" today, a maverick, but a staunch evolutionist.

The man is also a Pentacostal preacher.

I agree with Piste (I think), Science may indeed tell us how, but it cannot presume to tell us why; that is the province of Faith.

Do I believe that the Creation account in Genesis actually happened? Yes. Do I believe that it is at least in some degree allegorical? Yes. Does Science contradict the Bible, or vice-versa? No. The Bible *indirectly* contains scientific fact, but it's main focus is showing sinful humanity how to be reconciled with a just but loving God. Science and related disciplines also *indirectly* confirm the Scriptures, but the main thrust of Science is to describe the universe around us, NOT prove or disprove the existence of a Creator (which it can do neither).

My two shekel's worth.

[Pista Gyerek]

Hello CD,

Honestly, I'm not hearing a sincere invitation to an upbuilding discourse from you. You seem to want everyone else to be as tolerant as possible of your own lack of tolerance for Christians and others who affirm the validity of evolution by natural selection. You warn others not to be dogmatic, and in the next breath declare that the overwhelming majority of expert opinion in biology is of no consequence to you. You say you don't expect science to pander to your prejudices, yet you refuse to make a distinction between faith and science.

So, in the interests of an upbuilding discourse, what should we believe about the history of life on Earth? Whose expertise should we recognize as valid and why? What is it about Darwin's theory is invalid, and why would so many people (believers and nonbelievers alike) affirm it if it's nothing more than a fairy tale?

Regards,

Pista Gyerek

[Pista Gyerek]

Hello, mathetes, and thanks for your thoughtful post.

the main thrust of Science is to describe the universe around us, NOT prove or disprove the existence of a Creator (which it can do neither).

That's exactly what I believe.

It's very presumptuous for someone to say there's "no scientific evidence" for God as if that's automatic proof that religious belief is indefensible. Material causes are all that empirical inquiry can ever find for natural phenomena, and that fact is irrelevant to religious belief.

However, the line cuts both ways. Biology is the last thing I would present in support of the existence of God. The notion of so many organisms fighting it out in a billion-year tournament of predation, parasitism, suffering, and extinction doesn't in the least suggest that a loving God operates in Nature.

It reminds me of the old joke about the guy who loses his keys in the park but is looking around under a streetlight to find them. When asked why he's looking in the wrong place for his lost keys, he responds, "The light is much better here."

We shouldn't expect science to validate our religious beliefs. And we shouldn't denigrate believers who are able to make the distinction between scientific inquiry and religious faith.

Regards,

Pista Gyerek

[Andrew Roussak]

Hi Pistike,

Your incomplete understanding of debates in biology have you quoting Professor Stahl's work as if it somehow casts doubt upon evolutionary theory in general. I said before that I think quote mining is dishonest, but I don't think you understood why: Professor Stahl had no doubt that the rhipidistians represented the ancestry of the original land tetrapods, only she didn't feel that (in 1985) the true intermediates had yet been found.

I don't see why I must repeat the same thing for the third time. It is exactly what I wanted to say, and I am sure I did not mean or say anything different . Yes, Prof.Stahl had no doubt about it. Yes, she did not feel that in 1985 the true intermediates were there. No, I am not a "quote-miner". Should we discuss the essence of the quote another two weeks? TIKTALIIK was THE ONLY INTERMEDIATE ,which was found after 1985, on the scheme YOU HAVE POSTED. That's why I have posted the analysis of this found separately. Ok? In this SPECIAL CASE, it was shown that TIKTALIIK is not intermediate as well. Can we close at least this subject?

This brings up the matter of your refusal to acknowledge any conceivable intermediates between primitive fishes and tetrapods. You seem to feel that any question you could raise represents a definitive refutation of the evolution of the original tetrapods. Then you demand that we produce fossils of millions of intermediates, demonstrating a rather comical unfamiliarity with the realities of paleontology in general.

Pistike, this is a misinterpretation of my words, or a misunderstanding, at best. I DON'T DEMAND that you produce the millions of links. I am saying that in the world of Darwin's evolution there would be no need to search for the missing links, they were simply here, in millions, if you regard every living species as a product of the constant change.

Then there's your enlisting Drs. Scherer and Gitt as your authorities, on no better basis than that they tell you what you want to hear. Do their views represent the mainstream of thought in their respective fields? If not, what do other experts think of their work? If, in fact, Scherer "proved" abiogenesis was impossible, did he offer his assessment of the probability of any rival theory of the origin of life on Earth? And as I said before, species evolution is a separate issue from that of the origin of life anyway, so what does that have to do with the shared ancestry of life on Earth?

Pistike, "open mind" and "mainstream" are sometimes not actually compatible conceptions, btw. All ground-breaking discoveries were being made against mainstream. Before Galileo and Kepler, the vast majority have obviously believed in the geocentrical system. Before Pasteur, the vast majority believed in abiogenesis. If Dr. Scherer simply states that abiogenesis is impossible, he is just honest about it. Why should he speculate ( rival theorie ) ? For evolution of species - but I thought I have explained it ? Common ancestry, in the light of abscence of other proofs, can be as well evidence of devolution, a process reverse to evolution. To other proofs - we are coming to the 300th mark in this thread, and all you needed to make was to post some clear evidences like intermediates, or lab tests, confirming ET. Something discussable, at least.

Can the evidence for creationism be assessed on the same objective basis as evolution, or does it depend on our unrealistic wish to have our religious beliefs validated by science?

I have three or four times posted here, that I am not supporting literal understanding of the Bible. Do you see creationism as the only possible alternative to darwinism? I don't. Neither I see why anybody who states that ET is simply wrong must be labelled as creationist. Furthermore, "objective basis" means evidence? Then WHERE IS IT???

Mathetes -

Do I believe that the Creation account in Genesis actually happened? Yes. Do I believe that it is at least in some degree allegorical? Yes. Does Science contradict the Bible, or vice-versa? No. The Bible *indirectly* contains scientific fact, but it's main focus is showing sinful humanity how to be reconciled with a just but loving God. Science and related disciplines also *indirectly* confirm the Scriptures, but the main thrust of Science is to describe the universe around us, NOT prove or disprove the existence of a Creator (which it can do neither).

God, how similar can the views be!!! I second that, from the first letter to the last. There are , obviously, many religious people who accept, or believe, in evolution - dr. John Polkinghorne, for example. Fantastic writer and personality. There are atheist scientists, who reject ET. I have read in the bio of dr.Behe, that he began his scientific way as evolutionist, later "converted" to ID.

If we understand the actual message of the Bible like, God has created Universe, Earth with all on it - including fundamental laws, and the evolution is one of the laws, intrinsic to life, then there is obviously no problems to accept it. All I wanted to see here were some clear evidences of evolution of species , without any religious/world view context. One could so easily stop the debate, providing them. And there are still none presented, though we are about to break the line of the 300th post.

Actually, it is the atheists who see the evolution in this ideological way. Otherwise I can not understand, why "There is possibly no God - enjoy your life", with Prof. Dawkins as the main sponsor. How can one condemn the Mohammad cartoons as the clear provocation, and not notice the very same things, happening at home. I am not - and was not - saying that creationism, with its literal understanding of Creation in 6 days, is the alternative theorie to ET. If ET is plain wrong, then an alternative theorie must appear, sooner or later. But, it is quite obvious that atheists see the ET as an alternative to religion.

I think it was my last post in this thread. Thank you all, guys, for your patience and participation.

Regards,
Andrew

[Pista Gyerek]

All I wanted to see here were some clear evidences of evolution of species , without any religious/world view context. One could so easily stop the debate, providing them.

From this site:

"Humans have two copies of the steroid 21-hydroxylase gene, a functional one and a untranslated pseudogene. Inactivation of the functional gene leads to congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH, a rare and serious genetic disease), giving positive evidence that the 21-hydroxylase pseudogene lacks its proper function. Both chimpanzees and humans share the same eight base-pair deletion in this pseudogene that renders it incapable of its normal function (Kawaguchi et al. 1992)."

"The same mistakes in the same [pseudo]gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. That strong evidence from the pseudogene points well beyond the ancestry of humans. Despite some remaining puzzles, there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives. The bottom line is this. Common descent is true;" Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, p 71-72.

Regards,

Pista Gyerek

[Andrew Roussak]

"The same mistakes in the same [pseudo]gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. That strong evidence from the pseudogene points well beyond the ancestry of humans. Despite some remaining puzzles, there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives. The bottom line is this. Common descent is true;" Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, p 71-72.

Regards,

Pista Gyerek

I guess that's what you called "quote-mining"?
Here interview with Michael Behe on this book.

See there:

When the motions of the galaxies away from the earth was first observed in the 1930s, that led to the Big Bang hypothesis. Many scientists of that time hated the idea of a beginning to nature, because it seemed to have theistic overtones. What if they had said that the Big Bang hypothesis was simply giving up on finding a scientific explanation for something that we don’t fully understand yet? If they had, physics would have missed out on a lot of progress. Science has to follow the evidence wherever it leads, or it ceases to be science. Right now the biological evidence is leading to the conclusion of design.

[Pista Gyerek]

Andrew,

I gave you a piece of evidence that you asked for that almost certainly points to common ancestry. Behe has always stated that even if he doesn't believe that Darwinian mutation-selection can account for certain "irreducibly complex" biological structures, he affirms that all life on Earth is descended from a common ancestor. To accuse me of quote mining is reprehensible.

With all that we understand about genetics, the only conceivable reason two species could share the same pseudogene in the same place in their genome is that they share a common ancestor that originally had the wrecked gene. That's what I'm saying, that's what Behe is saying, and that's what any expert in genetics will tell you.

You keep covering your eyes when people present you the evidence you ask for, and that's the reason you keep saying you haven't seen any.

Regards,

Pistike

[Pista Gyerek]

The fact that humans and chimps share the same steroid 21-hydroxylase pseudogene in the same place in the genome is a smoking gun, forensic evidence of shared ancestry that is nearly impossible to explain in any other context than the evolution of species from common ancestors.

Let's say student B handed in a term paper that was strikingly similar to the term paper student A had earlier handed in. Aside from a few opportunistic changes (such as student B's name at the top instead of student A's, naturally), the two documents appear nearly identical. Student B protests his innocence of plagiarism. However, closer inspection shows that there was a typo in Student A's paper that also shows up in the same spot in Student B's paper.

What are the odds that these two documents are products of independent creation? It stretches the bounds of credulity to allege that the same mistake would appear in the same place in both term papers unless there were a process of copying going on.

This is exactly what I'm saying about the fact that chimps and humans share the pseudogene. It's persuasive evidence of common ancestry for anyone familiar with the DNA replication process.

Regards,

Pista Gyerek

[Andrew Roussak]

Pistike,

I say thank you for sharing and explanation, sorry if I sounded personal for you - it was 1 am our time, I was almost sleeping. In the light of discussion, I want to share this with you - as you see, the theory of Mithohondrial Eve is in no way creationism, you may even see the name of Dawkins in the list below.
Still, such common ancestry of all humans points to me at the process, actually reverse to evolution ( I think, that is the situation you have meant - student's B name is up on the list ), as the genetic information of the ancestor was obviously more complete. So, what, or who could be the common ancestor of human and chimp - could it be the reverse process as well?

I want to excuse myself once again, I will really very probably absent here next time. I have massive problems with VISTA, which blocked all my musical software due to the one of the latest updates .So I had to even buy another PC without OS on it - just yesterday, have already installed Win XP there, and must newly install tons of software, actually to build up my studio anew. So, job first.

Hope it is understandable - guess I will come up again as I am over with all these sudden problems.

Best regards to you, and other participants,
Andrew

[sunwaiter]

Hi!

This is exactly what I'm saying about the fact that chimps and humans share the pseudogene. It's persuasive evidence of common ancestry for anyone familiar with the DNA replication process.

Well, this evidence, among others, tends to confirm the theory of evolution, inviting us (well...not me, but those who are in charge of the real job ) to keep digging, even in the perspective that one day another theory explains or contradicts Darwin's one in an efficient way.

Pista, this pseudogene issue made me think of something i had posted earlier on this thread. Since i don't actively participate, i can only repeat, but it seems it's part of the game. Robert thought i'd been impressed by this video, but it was not exactly the right word. Sorry if you feel it's not directly in connection with the current points discussed.

Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=FR&h...dQRvSdLAs&NR=1

Now i close the brackets.

Take care.

[Pista Gyerek]

Still, such common ancestry of all humans points to me at the process, actually reverse to evolution ( I think, that is the situation you have meant - student's B name is up on the list ), as the genetic information of the ancestor was obviously more complete. So, what, or who could be the common ancestor of human and chimp - could it be the reverse process as well?

I honestly can't make heads or tails of this.

Best of luck, Andrew.

Regards,

Pista Gyerek.

[mathetes1963]

Well said, Piste. And thank you.

Hello, mathetes, and thanks for your thoughtful post.

That's exactly what I believe.

It's very presumptuous for someone to say there's "no scientific evidence" for God as if that's automatic proof that religious belief is indefensible. Material causes are all that empirical inquiry can ever find for natural phenomena, and that fact is irrelevant to religious belief.

However, the line cuts both ways. Biology is the last thing I would present in support of the existence of God. The notion of so many organisms fighting it out in a billion-year tournament of predation, parasitism, suffering, and extinction doesn't in the least suggest that a loving God operates in Nature.

It reminds me of the old joke about the guy who loses his keys in the park but is looking around under a streetlight to find them. When asked why he's looking in the wrong place for his lost keys, he responds, "The light is much better here."

We shouldn't expect science to validate our religious beliefs. And we shouldn't denigrate believers who are able to make the distinction between scientific inquiry and religious faith.

Regards,

Pista Gyerek