Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Scientific world unites over origins of life

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 22 June 2006
THE world's leading scientists have issued a damning statement against the teaching of creationism in schools, arguing that denying the facts of evolution damages the development of children.
The national science academies of 67 countries, including the Royal Society, issued a joint statement warning that scientific evidence about the origins of life was being "concealed, denied, or confused" in many schools.

It added that teaching children about Darwinian evolution and the natural world was integral to protecting the planet.

The statement aims to present a united front against the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in schools in the United States, the UK and elsewhere.

Creationism argues that the origin of life on earth is recent and divine and that all forms of life have always existed in their present form.

Intelligent design, which has been called "thinly veiled" creationism, argues that some species are too complex to have evolved through natural selection and must therefore be the product of a "designer".

The statement says: " Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet. [Life has] evolved in ways which paleontology and the modern biological sciences are describing and confirming with increasing precision."

It continues: "Within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence ... [is] being concealed, denied or confused with theories not testable by science."

The statement follows a long-running row over claims that one of Prime Minister Tony Blair's flagship city academies in the north-east of England, backed by Christian millionaire Sir Peter Vardy, is promoting creationism alongside conventional evolutionary scientific theory.

It also comes as a Times Higher Education Supplement investigation reveals that there are at least 14 academics in science departments at UK universities who consider themselves to be creationists. Creationism and intelligent design have been added to the curriculum at Leicester and Leeds Universities, although the universities say they will be presented as fallacies irreconcilable with scientific evidence.

Scientists in the US have also voiced concern over intelligent design being taught in American schools despite a recent federal court decision prohibiting its teaching in science classes.

A spokesman for the Royal Society said the diversity of signatories to the statement should dismiss claims that evolution is just a "theory" still debated among scientists.

He said: "With crucial international issues, it is important for scientists to express a collective voice in the political process.

"It may be a surprise to people that there is a such a strong consensus on evolution across these cultures and countries."

He added: "We hope this statement will help those who are attempting to uphold the rights of young people to have access to accurate scientific knowledge about the origins and evolution of life on Earth."

Al Nasr, a Berkshire-based Islamic education group which has published leaflets dismissing Charles Darwin's theories as false, said that the Koran provided an equally compelling argument for the origins of life.

A spokesman said: "Evolution is a theory. There are many scientific claims in the Koran - about geography and embryology for example - that are clearly correct and science cannot disprove them.

"So one has to believe [the Koran] has more weight when it comes to the origins of life than evolutionary theory."

Stephen Green, of Christian Voice, a British Christian lobby group, said: "I am encouraged that these guys feel rattled enough to issue this statement.

"It shows how worried they are that children are open to the idea that the complexity of the world around us cannot be explained by the evolutionary process and that the complexity of the world demands the considering of intelligent design.

"And to say that protecting the planet requires an understanding of Darwin is so far off.

"Christians are concerned for the environment and the planet. We are concerned because the planet and environment were created by God."

Facts of life


THE following is the joint statement concerning evolution from the Inter-Academy Panel on International Issues (IAP):

"We agree [on] the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet:

• In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.

• Since its formation, the Earth - its geology and its environments - has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.

• Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.

• Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin."

The full article contains 871 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 22 June 2006 1:03 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Creationism
 
1

Inquisitive Brain,

USA 22/06/2006 00:00:00

What is the scientifically verifiable evidence that the origin of life is based solely on chance and blind natural processes?

2

Jack1,

Edinburgh 22/06/2006 00:00:00

Children are not taught science until they are old enough to grasp the concepts and make logical deductions. However children are indoctrinated into their parents’ religion virtually from the moment they are born. If religious doctrine were withheld until secondary school I wonder how many would accept it. “Stand in line for your circumcision, boys!” is unlikely to go down well with a group of teenagers.

3

Timothy Chase,

United States 22/06/2006 00:00:00

PS

The phylogenetic relationships (essentially, trees of ancestory) which we are discovering on the basis of the fossil evidence, endogenous retroviruses, protein regulatory circuits, etc. are independent of one-another, and there is a great deal of independence between them. Nevertheless, they are identifying the very same lines of descent. When multiple, independent lines of investigation reach the same conclusions, the justification for those conclusions is far stronger than what would result from any one line of investigation considered separately from the rest.

The evidence for the conclusion of common descent between all life on earth is far greater than for nearly any other proposition of empirical science.

4

James,

Olympia, WA 22/06/2006 00:00:00

A problem with this discussion is the fact that it's been turned into a polarity: either creation or evolution. A third possibility is that evolution involves not only living beings and inanimate objects but also spirit. Aurobindo's writings describe this process: The Divine comes into existence through evolutionary unfoldment; God is a verb, rather than a noun, and the universe "gods." God is not off somewhere in space and time creating living beings and the rest of the universe; rather, the evolution of the universe, including living beings, is the unfoldment--that is, the creation--of the Divine. The end result of the evolution into being of God is not humanity, which is an egoistic assumption, but the Divine. Thus, Creation and Evolution are one and the same splendid phenomenon, which is both spiritual and material.

5

Ian,

22/06/2006 00:00:00

Brian,
your comment "What is the scientifically verifiable evidence that the origin of life is based solely on chance and blind natural processes?" really illustrates what is wrong with much of the american public today. Science "proves" nothing, because one essential element of science is that it is falsifiable, therefore nothing can ever be proven 100%. That being said, there is overwhelming evidence that evolution is real. Whether you believe god (I do not capitalize that term) or nature does it I don't care. The difference between religious and non religious people is this. Non-religious people do not attempt to force their beliefs on others, so if there is a heaven, it will be full of atheists.

6

Timothy Chase,

United States 22/06/2006 00:00:00

Inquisitive Brian wrote:

"What is the scientifically verifiable evidence that the origin of life is based solely on chance and blind natural processes?"

There is a great deal of evidence.

For example:

1. nested hierarchies based upon homologies;

2. fossils;

3. the geographical distributions of related species;

4. speciation events which we are seeing even today (such as those which involve polyploidy with orchids);

5. ring species;

6. phylogenetic trees based upon shared endogenous retroviral sequences with the same points of insertion;

7. phylogenetic trees based upon protein structure;

8. phylogenetic trees based upon protein regulatory circuits and regulatory suites;

9. shared motifs between endogenous retroviruses and their exogenous bretheren;

10. shared pseudogenes -- which in a distant ancestor were functional;

11. shared gene regulation network kernels; and,

12. fault-lines in the genome which resulted have been identified as points where intrachromosomal and interchromosomal rearrangements took place during the mammalian radiation and which are active even today -- oftentimes resulting in cancer.

If you would like, I can refer you to websites for some of the information, or in other cases the technical papers themselves.

(I will check back over the next few days.)

7

Mart on Skye,

Scotland 22/06/2006 00:00:00

Jack wrote
"Children are not taught science until they are old enough to grasp the concepts and make logical deductions."

But from primary school they are taught to accept evolution as a fact. Now who's being indoctrinated?

Ian wrote
"The difference between religious and non religious people is this. Non-religious people do not attempt to force their beliefs on others, "

Unless of course it happens to be evolution - didn't you read the article?

Timothy Chase's technical stuff proves nothing.
The evidence used by evolutionists or creationists is the same evidence it's the interpretation of the evidence that makes the difference. In other words it's the assumptions you make before you examine the evidence that influences the conclusions that you draw.

To be properly educated one should examine all possible avenues even those that the majority of scientists don't agree with.

Consider the number of important discoveries made because wise men ignored the conventional knowledge of their time.

Teach evolution and creation equally rigourously and give young people more credit for being discriminating in their thought. Then they will not be indoctrinated by either view.

I received both and know what I believe because I was given the choice.

8

Shanchat,

Edinburgh 22/06/2006 00:00:00

Put simply...why are dinosaurs not mentioned in the bible?

9

Ian,

23/06/2006 00:00:00

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be,...If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science"

Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory

10

,

23/06/2006 00:00:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 3191, Article id was mapped to record!
11

Ian,

23/06/2006 00:00:00

Its not an attempt to force "beliefs" on someone Martin. Its an attempt to keep science in the science class and church somewhere else. Oh by the way you wrote
"Consider the number of important discoveries made because wise men ignored the conventional knowledge of their time."
This is true, because most of these individuals ignored the religious veil of ignorance of their time, and embraced an enlightened point of view. Marx said it best:
Religion is the opiate of the people

12

Nancy,

North Port, Florida 23/06/2006 00:00:00

There is still one question, that no scientific answer has EVER been found - how did space get here in the first place? If it can ever be scientifically proven how space got here, and it can be scientifically proven that God does not exist, only then should creationism or intelligent design, or whatever you want to call it, not be taught in school.

Jesus told Doubting Thomas "Blessed is he who believes by Faith"

13

Ian,

23/06/2006 00:00:00

ps Martin,
I've never had anyone knock on my door and ask me to accept Darwin or Evolution as my personal savior.

14

russell,

Atlanta, Georgia, USA 23/06/2006 00:00:00

Timothy Chase refers to fossil evidence in support of macroevolution. The gradual nature of evolution means there should be hundreds of thousands or millions of transitional fossils for humans and other advanced species. Where are the books or websites filled with photos of these transitional fossils all lined up in rows?

15

jj mollo,

Florida, USA 23/06/2006 00:00:00

"Faith and Hope may be called the virtues of dupes, for the benefit of knaves." - Count Volney

16

Alberto,

SLC, UT 23/06/2006 00:00:00

More scientists express doubts on Darwin
600 dissenters sign on challenging claims about support for theory

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=...

The battle rages on...

17

Timothy Chase,

United States 23/06/2006 00:00:00

(continued)

"Naturally occurring DNA sequences can form noncanonical structures such as H-DNA, which are abundant and regulate the expression of several disease-linked genes. Here, we show that H-DNA-forming sequences are intrinsically mutagenic in mammalian cells. This finding suggests that DNA is a causative factor in mutagenesis and not just the end product. By using the endogenous H-DNA-forming sequence found in the human c-myc promoter, mutation frequencies in a reporter gene were increased 20-fold over background in COS-7 cells. H-DNA-induced double-strand breaks (DSBs) were detected near the H-DNA locus. The structures of the mutants revealed microhomologies at the breakpoints, consistent with a nonhomologous end-joining repair of the DSBs. These results implicate H-DNA-induced DSBs in c-myc gene translocations indiseases such as Burkitt's lymphoma and t(12;15) BALB/c plasmacytomas, where most breakpoints are found near the H-DNA-forming site. Thus, our findings suggest that H-DNA is a source of genetic instability resulting from DSBs and demonstrate that naturally occurring DNA sequences are mutagenic in mammals, perhaps contributing to genetic evolution and disease. "

Naturally occurring H-DNA-forming sequences are mutagenic in mammalian cells
Guliang Wang, and Karen M. Vasquez
Published online before print September 1, 2004, 10.1073/pnas.0405116101
PNAS | September 14, 2004 | vol. 101 | no. 37 | 13448-13453
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/37/13448

18

Timothy Chase,

United States 23/06/2006 00:00:00

Now lets do something from the other end of the list.

I had written:

12. fault-lines in the genome which resulted have been identified as points where intrachromosomal and interchromosomal rearrangements took place during the mammalian radiation and which are active even today -- oftentimes resulting in cancer.

There some technical articles I brought up in a debate a while back, and within the specific context of the debate, they proved useful. (There were non-technical articles as well, but they don't specifically focus on mice and humans.)

Technical --

"Although analysis of genome rearrangements was pioneered by Dobzhansky and Sturtevant 65 years ago, we still know very little about the rearrangement events that produced the existing varieties of genomic architectures. The genomic sequences of human and mouse provide evidence for a larger number of rearrangements than previously thought and shed some light on previously unknown features of mammalian evolution. In particular, they reveal that a large number of microrearrangements is required to explain the differences in draft human and mouse sequences. Here we describe a new algorithm for constructing synteny blocks, study arrangements of synteny blocks in human and mouse, derive a most parsimonious human–mouse rearrangement scenario, and provide evidence that intrachromosomal rearrangements are more frequent than interchromosomal rearrangements. Our analysis is based on the human–mouse breakpoint graph, which reveals related breakpoints and allows one to find a most parsimonious scenario. Because these graphs provide important insights into rearrangement scenarios, we introduce a new visualization tool that allows one to view breakpoint graphs superimposed with genomic dot-plots. "

Genome Rearrangements in Mammalian Evolution: Lessons From Human and Mouse Genomes
Pavel Pevzner and Glenn Tesler
Genome Research
Vol 13, Issue 1, 37-45, January 2003

19

Timothy Chase,

United States 23/06/2006 00:00:00

(continued)

"Using paired-end sequences from bacterial artificial chromosomes, we have constructed high-resolution synteny and rearrangement breakpoint maps among human, mouse, and rat genomes. Among the >300 syntenic blocks identified are segments of over 40 Mb without any detected interspecies rearrangements, as well as regions with frequently broken synteny and extensive rearrangements. As closely related species, mouse and rat share the majority of the breakpoints and often have the same types of rearrangements when compared with the human genome. However, the breakpoints not shared between them indicate that mouse rearrangements are more often interchromosomal, whereas intrachromosomal rearrangements are more prominent in rat. Centromeres may have played a significant role in reorganizing a number of chromosomes in all three species. The comparison of the three species indicates that genome rearrangements follow a path that accommodates adelicate balance between maintaining a basic structure underlying all mammalian species and permitting variations that are necessary for speciation."

Human, Mouse, and Rat Genome Large-Scale Rearrangements: Stability
Versus Speciation
Shaying Zhao, Jyoti Shetty, Lihua Hou, Arthur Delcher, Baoli Zhu,
Kazutoyo Osoegawa, Pieter de Jong, William C. Nierman, Robert L.
Strausberg and Claire M. Fraser
Genome Research 14:1851-1860, 2004
http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/14/10a/1851

20

Timothy Chase,

United States 23/06/2006 00:00:00

Let's do some stuff on observed speciation...

Some More Observed Speciation Events
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Observed Instances of Speciation
http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/speci.htm

New animal species evolved in an instant
18:24 27 July 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Bob Holmes
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7741

A Different Kind of Evolution
Fall 1998
http://www.wsu.edu/NIS/Universe/Evo.html

21

Timothy Chase,

United States 23/06/2006 00:00:00

(continued)

"Scruffy little weed shows Darwin was right as evolution moves on"
Times Online | 2003-02-20 | Anthony Browne, Environment Editor
Posted on 02/20/2003 2:30:45 PM PST
originally: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-584528,00.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/848039/posts

... and the creationists have a response -- speciation is no problem
for creationists. Kinds are immutable...

A new weed species—does it prove Creation wrong?
by Philip Bell, AiG–UK
3 March 2003
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0303.asp

Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

Observed Instances of Speciation: Ring Species
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/rings.htm#Rings

22

Timothy Chase,

United States 23/06/2006 00:00:00

Incidentally, I find the ring species (last two entries in the last post) quite fascinating -- speciation extended through space as well as time.

Here is something more recent on speciation...

Recreation Of Butterfly Speciation Event
General Science : June 19, 2006
http://www.physorg.com/news69912442.html

"In a matter of months, butterflies sporting the yellow and red wing color pattern of a wild species were created through simple laboratory crosses of two other wild species, researchers report in the June 15, 2006 edition of the journal Nature."

23

Timothy Chase,

United States 23/06/2006 00:00:00

Fossilization is a fairly rare event. It depends in large part upon minerals replacing bone before the bone is destroyed, which in turn depends upon climate, geology, and more than a little luck. Nevertheless, we have been able to identify relatively smooth transitions in the fossils. And there is plenty of material on the web.

For those who are interested, please see:

Smooth Change in the Fossil Record
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/fossil_series...

Similarly, we have been able to identify trends, and oftentimes trees in the sequential evolution of species, where new species are generated by speciation events.

For those who are interested, please see:

Transitional Human Fossils
Six Million Years of Human Ancestry
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/hominid.htm

Transitional Forms of Horses
Equid Evolution over 55 million years
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/horses.htm

Transitional Forms of Whales
The Journey from Land to the Deep Sea
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm

24

Timothy Chase,

United States 23/06/2006 00:00:00

Here are some more...

Evolutionary Transitionals
From Dinosaurs to Feathered Birds
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/dinobirds.htm

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Tiktaalik Roseae
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/photos.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik_roseae

25

Mart on Skye,

Scotland 23/06/2006 00:00:00

Ganymede, I'd like to point out that there is no proof for evolution.
Does it follow then that it should not be taught in school either?

I am afraid a lot of scientists seem not to understand such concepts as proof in relation to evolution. Just because a lot of them agree that a particular set of observations supports a theory does not constitute proof as the processes have not been replicated by experimentation.

I recall hearing a well known scientist say that the best evidence that proves the truth of the fact of evolution was the fossil record.

I would suggest that the words prove, truth and fact are incorrectly used. The evidence does not prove, therefore there is no fact and so there is no truth about evolution.

26

Ganymede,

23/06/2006 00:00:00

Nancy, I'd like to point out that there is no proof for God. This is why it shouldn't be taught in schools. So until you prove him, please don't ask everyone to believe in him. We have theories about the creation of the universe equally, if not more valid than the theory that God created the universe.

27

Timothy Chase,

United States 24/06/2006 00:00:00

Re: David

"First, we need to make a distinction between evolution and origin of life. We also need to make a distinction between Biblical creationism and creation. ID asserts that life provides evidence of creation, but does not attempt to identify who the designer is. "

It does seem to be rather sparse on the assertions, doesn't it? Rather odd for a scientific theory.

Who did what, where, when and how? Who? -- well, someone. Maybe space aliens. What -- created life, I suppose -- or injected information or irreducible complexity, or well, something along those lines. I will get into this "irreducible complexity" in a moment. When? -- maybe 3,900 million years ago, or perhaps 6,000. On this point ID proponents -- particularly the ID scientists -- are generally quite vague since they don't want to lose the support of Young Earth Creationists, but then again, they don't want to make it too glaringly obvious that their movement is only the worst kind of pseudo-science. But then they are aiming for a really big tent, trying to garner the support of the Young Earth Creationists, the Old Earth Creationists and anyone else who might support them. OK, then, How? Somehow! But if you are asking for any of the specifics, well, this just isn't that kind of theory.

Michael Behe's original definition of "irreducible complexity" was, "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." (Darwin's Black Box, pg. 39)

But it became obvious that this definition wouldn't work since, by this definition, a Roman arch is irreducibly complex, even though it is built just one step at a time. The trick is to use center stones while building the arch, then remove the center stones once all the rest of the stones are in place so t

28

Timothy Chase,

United States 24/06/2006 00:00:00

Re: David, part II

For more on Behe, I would suggest:

Irreducible Complexity Demystified
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe
Do Biochemical Machines Show Intelligent Design?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

A reducibly complex mousetrap
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

The Flagellum Unspun
The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe on Intelligent Design
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
from Talk Origins http://www.talkorigins.org

For analyses of Intelligent Design:

"Master Planned: Why Intelligent design isn't." by H. Allen Orr
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/050530fa_fact
from
The New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com

"Intelligent Design (Divine Design)"
Report Unsuitable

29

Timothy Chase,

United States 24/06/2006 00:00:00

Re: David, part III

"The proclamation by the scientists is dogmatic propaganda. They provide no support for their assertion that life came about spontaneously, other than the dogmatic statement:

"'Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen.'"

The support is in the scientific literature. It is in the fossil record. It is supported by the geological record. Anyone who is familiar with any of the science is well aware of this. If you are interested, you might begin by looking at some of the links I provided above, or better yet, go to Google and avoid those creationist sites.

"Many of the evidences for evolution are evidences for creation! Think of designed systems like cars, for example. They possess the same attributes that are cited as evidence for evolution."

Steering wheels? Or do you mean things like coordinated, morpheological development -- organic growth?

"Creationists of all persuasions point to the extreme improbability of spontaneous origin of life, and to witness marks in biological systems that defy explanation by purely Darwinian mechanisms."

Still aiming for a God-of-the-Gaps? "We don't know how this happened, therefore God must have done it." They used to think this way about lightning, if I remember correctly. The big problem with a God-of-the-Gaps is that science keeps filling those gaps in -- and in time your God-of-the-Gaps won't fit whatever gaps you tried to stick him in. But I suppose he could always relocate.

"Don't take my word for it, there are over 600 doctoral level scientists that have signed a statement that agrees with what I have written here. (See www.d

30

Timothy Chase,

United States 24/06/2006 00:00:00

Re: Martin

The point that Ganymede was making, as I understand it, isn't simply that there is no proof that God exists, but that the existence of God really isn't a testable hypothesis. For example, if you believe that God is both the transcendental creative cause and the immanent sustaining cause of existence (e.g., St. Augustine), this is well outside of the realm of empirical science -- and I suspect it always will be. But if instead one wishes to treat an article of faith as a testable, falsifiable, empirical hypothesis or try and fit God into a test-tube, I am sure that there are plenty of religious individuals who would have a problem with this sort of thing. Understandably so, I believe.

Now you state, "I am afraid a lot of scientists seem not to understand such concepts as proof in relation to evolution." Well, it would be odd if they attempted to apply the concept of proof to empirical knowledge, wouldn't you think? No empirical knowledge, including the fact that you are reading my words right now, is susceptible to proof. As a matter of fact, any empirical knowledge which you might claim can be denied without contradiction -- regardless of however much personal evidence you might claim in its support. For example, despite all the evidence that the world is more than 4,000 million years old, you could claim that it has existed for only 6,000 years -- or six seconds -- and in the latter case, that not simply the fossils have been faked, but all of your perceptions (mere illusions) and memories of anything before this. Creationists have actually tried to argue this way for over a century: it is called the Omphalos theory -- and it is no better or more scientific than radical solipsism.

31

David,

Phoenix, AZ USA 24/06/2006 00:00:00

Timothy - Your comments regarding Behe are misguided. There is no research that contradicts his claims. There are speculations regarding how the features described in the book may have evolved, but much more research needs to be done to challenge what Behe has put forth.

32

David,

Phoenix, AZ USA 24/06/2006 00:00:00

I agree on the points regarding "Pandas and People." There are much better books and papers on the topic of ID, and challenges to evolution. I'd suggest that anyone interested in thinking for themselves start with www.discovery.org and do some reading. At the same time, i would recommend care with talkorigins, pandasthumb, and ncse - these are people with a philosophical commitment to atheism and it clouds their ability to consider alternatives.

33

Timothy Chase,

United States 24/06/2006 00:00:00

CORRECTION to "Re: David, part IV":

The creationist textbook was renamed "Of Pandas and People" when the Intelligent Design "former" creationists decided to obscure the books creationist origins in an attempt to get around the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution.

Going from memory has its disadvantages.

34

David,

Phoenix, AZ USA 24/06/2006 00:00:00

First, we need to make a distinction between evolution and origin of life. We also need to make a distinction between Biblical creationism and creation. ID asserts that life provides evidence of creation, but does not attempt to identify who the designer is.

The proclamation by the scientists is dogmatic propaganda. They provide no support for their assertion that life came about spontaneously, other than the dogmatic statement:

"Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen."

Many of the evidences for evolution are evidences for creation! Think of designed systems like cars, for example. They possess the same attributes that are cited as evidence for evolution.

Creationists of all persuasions point to the extreme improbability of spontaneous origin of life, and to witness marks in biological systems that defy explanation by purely Darwinian mechanisms.

Don't take my word for it, there are over 600 doctoral level scientists that have signed a statement that agrees with what I have written here. (See www.discovery.org)

And finally, while ID is not the same as biblical creation, keep in mind that most fields of scientific study were founded by Christians, a fact that should be well known in Scotland, but sadly is not. Please do not equate Christianity with ignorance or anti-science. If your curious about this, start your study with Michael Faraday. (http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/educational_issues/bcs...)

35

Timothy Chase,

United States 24/06/2006 00:00:00

Re: David, part IV

The arguments and rhetoric of the Intelligent Design movement came from the creationists. Their textbook "Of People and Pandas" was originally a creationist textbook. They are being largely financed by a member of a radical Young Earth Creationist movement called the Reconstructionists, or alternatively, the Dominionists -- who wish to establish Christian theocracies. His name is Howard Ahmanson.

For more on Howard Ahmanson, please see:

From Genesis To Dominion
Fat-Cat Theocrat Funds Creationism Crusade
by Steve Benen
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
from: Church & State, July/August 2000
Originally: http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs7003.htm
http://www.texscience.org/files/discovery.htm

For more on the Reconstructionists and Dominionists, please see:

Christian Reconstructionism, Part 1
March/June 1994
Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence
by Frederick Clarkson
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre1.html

I would also recommend checking out:

The Christian Right, Dominionism, and Theocracy - Part One
By Chip Berlet Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 05:29:29 PM EST
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2005/11/28/172929/14

"And finally, while ID is not the same as biblical creation, keep in mind that most fields of scientific study were founded by Christians, a fact that should be wel

36

Marc,

Middlebrough 24/06/2006 00:00:00

Just because someone has a doctorate doesn't amount to a whole hill of beans if he's speaking outside of his discipline, now does it? If I remember correctly, some of the doctors on that list are actually faux doctors too: like Dr Ian Paisley for example; also a famous creationist if memory serves.

What would people have thought if Albert Einstein suddenly came up with a tract on the theory of refrigeration. Oh, wait, he did co-invent that (you may need to look that up).

Seriously. Do we hear Richard Dawkins trying to discuss advanced astrophysics? Did Carl Sagan ever write a book on biology?

What, precisely, qualifies someone with a *real* doctorate in thermodynamics (for example) to make informed statements about advanced biology? They are hardly the same thing and you might as well ask a train driver to pilot a commercial airliner.

The intelligent designer was so smart that he made the most advanced species on the planet birth children by forcing a massive head through a tiny hole. Ask a mother what that feels like! The marsupials have a much better method, but you don't hear them arguing about the age of the earth.

Even Michael Behe, darling of the ID world, was exposed as a liar at the last trial. Oh dear. Not that the discovery institute are going to admit that. Oh no. That would be honest: and they're not going to let a little bit of truth get in the way.

You make a sweeping claim here that "...to witness marks in biological systems that defy explanation by purely Darwinian mechanisms."

Well here's the latest. Darwin died a fair while back now; but unlike creationism, science didn't take its collective brain out. Neo-Darwinians have answered a lot of the questions but the main thing that makes them superior to the know-it-all creationists is that they actually admit to NOT having all the answers.

Now I don't think all Christians are anti-science any more than I think all scientists are atheists. I d

37

David,

Phoenix, AZ USA 24/06/2006 00:00:00

Remember, the article is about life origins, and on that point, the hypothesis of special creation is better supported by the evidence than spontaneous generation. Abiogenesis research to date supports creation. Perhaps as time passes, there will stronger evidence for abiogensis, but its not there today, and science can't build a foundation on wishful thinking.

The problem is that in this regard, science organizations have stacked the deck by compelling adherence to methodological naturalism. By doing this, the design inference is technically not allowed, since the designer is presumable super-natural.

I appreciate the comments about science being so open and willing to admit they don't have all the answers, but scientists are not infallible and they are many examples of new scientific ideas being suppressed or ignored due to political reasons.

Today, we have to acknowledge that design is a possibility, and to a large extent, the alternative hypothesis to abiogenesis.

Finally, to the person that claimed ID is "God in the gaps" sort of argument because of the probabilities involved, I would say that when you don't have laboratory tests that can demonstrate abiogenesis, you have to resort to forensics and statistical probabilities. The probabilities are extremely low, so the only way one can conclude that abiogensis occured is to make it the only acceptable possibility. (See my comments above regarding methodolical naturalism)

BTW - Behe's arguments in the book Darwin's Black Box have not been seriously challenged, despite the links you provided. There is no scientific evidence or laboratory test/experiment that can demonstration the emergence of irreducibly complex features. Its a great book, I suggest people read it and decide for themselves.

38

Timothy Chase,

United States 25/06/2006 00:00:00

(continued)

And we seem to have made some headway in understanding this as well.

For something informal, please see:

Putting Life's Puzzle Together

Summary (May 17, 2006): Two laboratories at Penn State set out to show how an obscure undersea microbe metabolizes carbon monoxide into methane and vinegar. What they found was not merely a previously unknown biochemical process--their discovery also became the inspiration for a fundamental new theory of the origin of life on Earth, reconciling a long-contentious pair of prevailing theories. This new, "thermodynamic" theory of evolution improves upon both previous theories by proposing a central role for energy conservation during early evolution, based on a simple three-step biochemical mechanism.

http://www.astrobio.net/news/article1961.html

What scientific studies have creationists performed regarding the supernatural creation of life recently? Is that sort of thing even possible? Or are you simply going to argue that since we haven't explained everything, we can't possibly claim to know anything?

David writes in #35,

"The problem is that in this regard, science organizations have stacked the deck by compelling adherence to methodological naturalism. By doing this, the design inference is technically not allowed, since the designer is presumable super-natural."

I won't limit you to methodological naturalism. All I require is the hypothetico-deductive method.

Here are the steps:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe

2. Form a theory that potentially explains what you have observed

3. Derive a specific, testable hypothesis from that theory

4. Make specific predictions based upon that hypothesis

5. Make observations or experiments that can the the hypothesis by comparing the ev

39

Timothy Chase,

United States 25/06/2006 00:00:00

David writes in #36:
"At the same time, i would recommend care with talkorigins, pandasthumb, and ncse - these are people with a philosophical commitment to atheism and it clouds their ability to consider alternatives."

Quite the contrary -- and ad hominem, I might add.

There are some evangelical atheists who comment on PandasThumb sometimes -- I have debated a couple at some length. Incidentally, some of the regulars thought that at least one was a Fundamentalist plant trying to make supporters of evolutionary biology look bad -- but I am fairly sure that this wasn't the case: the guy was simply practicing the same sort of intolerance which is far more typical of the other side. And Undoubtedly some supporters of TalkOrigins or NCSE are atheists, but many are religious, perhaps the majority. It is hard to say as this sort of thing usually doesn't come up. What unites these people of diverse views is the recognition of the value of science, pluralism and the importance of opposing those who would attempt to impose their religious views upon everyone else.

David writes in #37:
"Timothy - Your comments regarding Behe are misguided. There is no research that contradicts his claims. There are speculations regarding how the features described in the book may have evolved, but much more research needs to be done to challenge what Behe has put forth."

As I stated in #29, "It has become clear that by 'irreducibly complex,' Behe simply means something which couldn't possibly have evolved -- and until we prove that no such unicorn exists, he will continue to insist that it does (making a positive assertion) and insisting that others prove the negative."

When you say, "There is no research that contradicts his claims," you are expecting us to prove the negative, but it is up to those who assert the positive to justify their position. We don't have to prove that unicorns do not exist: it

40

Timothy Chase,

United States 25/06/2006 00:00:00

David writes in #35,

"Remember, the article is about life origins, and on that point, the hypothesis of special creation is better supported by the evidence than spontaneous generation."

Ah, but in #28 you wrote, "First, we need to make a distinction between evolution and origin of life."

Despite the title of this article, the subject of the statement was about the defense of evolutionary biology in the context of the rising tide of Young Earth Creationism in places like Great Britain, Australia and South Africa, not speculations regarding abiogenesis or the wide variety of theories and proto-theories regarding that particular subject. It makes sense to separate them since evolutionary biology actually presupposes the exist of life for life to evolve. Abiogenesis is related, but a somewhat different topic.

David continues in #35,

"Abiogenesis research to date supports creation. Perhaps as time passes, there will stronger evidence for abiogensis, but its not there today, and science can't build a foundation on wishful thinking."

What evidence is there for creation? How does anything support creation? Do you have genuine, specific, testable, falsifiable hypotheses? Or are you simply playing that God-of-the-Gaps game, that since we don't yet have an explanation for lightning, or homochirality or whatever, that means that your "God[-of-the-Gaps] must of done it"? Last I checked, "I am going to make a bald-faced assertion, and it is up to everyone else to prove me wrong" wasn't part of the scientific method. But don't worry -- we will get back to this shortly.

David continues,

"Perhaps as time passes, there will stronger evidence for abiogensis, but its not there today, and science can't build a foundation on wishful thinking."

There are plenty of theories regarding how life itself originated, and there has been a great deal of progress in this fiel

41

Timothy Chase,

United States 25/06/2006 00:00:00

(continued)
They are studying the enzymatic properties of various ribozymes.

Please see:

Ribozymes
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/...

They have demonstrated that, given the appropriate nutrients, an enzyme can give rise to a self-replicating virus.

Please see:

An Extracellular Darwinian Experiment with a Self-Duplicating Nucleic
Acid Molecule
D. R. Mills, R. L. Peterson, and S. Spiegelman
Communicated May 18, 1967
PNAS 1967; 58: 217-224.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/58/1/217

Evidence for De Novo Production of Self-Replicating and Environmentally
Adapted RNA Structures by Bacteriophage Q3 Replicase
Manfred Sumper and Rudiger Luce
Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA
Vol. 72, No. 1, pp. 162-166, January 1975
Communicated by Manfred Eigen, October 11, 1974
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/72/1/162

Nucleotide Sequence of Microvariant RNA: Another Small Replicating Molecule
D. R. Mills, F. R. Kramer, C. Dobkin, T. Nishihara, and S. Spiegelman
PNAS | November 1, 1975 | vol. 72 | no. 11 | 4252-4256
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/72/11/4252

They have found a fair amount of evidence for an RNA world which preceded the DNA world that we now know -- with evidence which includes the core of reverse transcriptase in the enzyme of telomerase used to lengthen the telomeres dur

42

Timothy Chase,

United States 25/06/2006 00:00:00

(continued)

David states in #35, "BTW - Behe's arguments in the book Darwin's Black Box have not been seriously challenged, despite the links you provided. There is no scientific evidence or laboratory test/experiment that can demonstration the emergence of irreducibly complex features. Its a great book, I suggest people read it and decide for themselves."

As I stated in #29, "It has become clear that by 'irreducibly complex,' Behe simply means something which couldn't possibly have evolved -- and until we prove that no such unicorn exists, he will continue to insist that it does (making a positive assertion) and insisting that others prove the negative." But apparently you think that scientists should go and hunt unicorns.

43

David,

25/06/2006 00:00:00

Here's an objective summary of the current state of abiogenesis research - its a good read.

http://biology.plosjournals.org/archive/1545-7885/3/11/pd...

Also, if you need an authority figure to lend credence to my skepticism, I offer one, Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
Director National Human Genome Research Institute who says on the question of origins:

"Another issue, however—one where I am very puzzled about what the answer will be—is the origin of life. Four billion years ago, the conditions on this planet were completely inhospitable to life as we know it; 3.85 billion years ago, life was teeming. That is a very short period—150 million years—for the assembly of macromolecules into a self-replicating form. I think even the most bold and optimistic proposals for the origin of life fall well short of achieving any real probability for that kind of event having occurred. Is this where God entered? Is this how life got started? I am happy to accept that model, but it will not shake my faith if somebody comes up with a model that explains how that the first cells formed without divine intervention. Again, watch out for the God-of-the-gaps. However, I think it is noteworthy that this particular area of evolution, the earliest step, is still very much in disarray."

44

Herman Cummings,

PO Box 1745 Fortson GA, 31808 25/06/2006 00:00:00

In response to "Scientific world unites over origins of life",
the Royal Society is ignorant of the facts, and misrepresents
their true position. It’s true that science backs the theory
of evolution, but it is false to say that the 600+ million year
fossil record proves evolution to be a fact. That is only a narrow minded (false) conclusion.

They also said that “teaching children about Darwinian evolution and the natural world was integral to protecting the planet”. They
should put into practice what they preach. The best place to compare scientific conclusions with alternate explanations is in
science class, and by the teachers that teach science.

The belief that the Earth & universe were created just 10,000 years ago is a gross misunderstanding of Genesis. However there are other explanations for the various life forms found over the course of 4.6 billion years of history. But science
(and the news media) is so bias, that they don't have the prudence to seek possible alternative explanations. One such plausible explanation is that from at least 900 Million BC to 245 Million BC, all found life forms lived on Earth from the beginning,
but repeated periodic exposure to certain phenomena, first killed the lower forms of life, then progressively higher forms, before
killing all remaining life on Earth in 245 Million BC. With this scenario, the same evidence is left in the ground, but with no need for "missing" transitional life forms.

The news media shows it's bias by over reporting articles that favor the evolutionists, and bypasses articles that favor the truth of Genesis. Case in point, the "Flying Spaghetti Monster".

The fact is, Genesis is not about "Creation Week" as creationism and theology have taught mankind. God revealed a certain concept to Israel (Moses) in 1598 BC, that modern science would not discover f

45

marie,

u s 25/06/2006 00:00:00

Animal behavior is exhibited by human beings. Beastly acts of self abuse, sexual abuse, group orgies, violent rioting at sports events and the many other uncivilized approaches toward self and others indicates something. Either we are just advanced apes or we have been indoctrinated to believe that we are by the scientists. If humans are unaccountable to a creator they tend to be given over to base sexual and moral orientations. I believe Darwinist promoters wanted to be free to exercise their lusts without the restraint of spiritual authority. That may be true of those who vehemently force no creator laws and doctrines today.

46

David,

25/06/2006 00:00:00

Ian - Creation is a possibility, and science has not falsified it by any stretch of the imagination. Instead, the priests of science are trying to censor and disparage anyone who would raise that possibility. I accept many aspects of evolutionary theory, but I also see compelling evidence of design.

And you are falling into line just like the church of science would have you. You even call for my comments to be censored! Good for you.

I don't require the designer(s) of life to be perfect, nor am I interested in unraveling their motives.

We can't solve world hunger in this thread, but the original article has many problems that I am trying to bring people's attention to. The issue that I have with the proclamation is that asserts that abiogenesis is strongly supported by science and that its alternative, creation, should not be discussed or presented. That's dogma backed by censorship.

Timothy - Scientists that assert abiogenesis is a fact are getting a bit ahead of themselves, no? Do you believe that DNA and the mechanisms for reading, error-checking/correcting, and synthesizing proteins that are then used to construct molecular machines somehow originated on their own? If so, your belief is no less fantastic than those that believe in special creation, its just sanctioned by the "church of science."

47

Timothy Chase,

Seattle 26/06/2006 00:00:00

Who?, part I

Sorry, David -- I missed that part of your comment that was directed to me in #46:

"Timothy - Scientists that assert abiogenesis is a fact are getting a bit ahead of themselves, no? Do you believe that DNA and the mechanisms for reading, error-checking/correcting, and synthesizing proteins that are then used to construct molecular machines somehow originated on their own? If so, your belief is no less fantastic than those that believe in special creation, its just sanctioned by the 'church of science.'"

Yes -- they are getting ahead of themselves if they assert this as something which they know. But the absence of such an explanation isn't evidence for its being something entirely inexplicable -- and does not magically transform such a belief into a scientific theory.

But yes, I believe that natural abiogenesis took place. It is reasonable. And scientifically, I see no alternative.

Is it fantastic? Well, I am not sure about "fantastic," but it causes me a great deal of wonder.

Consider this... Who tells the lightning when to strike? Who tells the hurricanes when to form? Who tells rocks to make circles in the arctic? Who tells the sand to form ripples by the sea? The world is self-organizing.

In relation to a mechanical engineer arguing for the irreducible complexity of the knee, I wrote recently:

With regard to someone in mechanical engineering (head of the department or not) attempting to critique evolutionary biology on the basis of the knee, well, clearly there is no excuse for what ignorance he has demonstrated. No doubt nearly all of it is deliberate.

But at the same time, there is one very important point which such a person is going to have a great deal of difficulty with: machines are made, but organisms are grown. His paper is written from the perspective of someone who thinks in terms of making machines -- where each piece is exactly the size it is and th

48

Timothy Chase,

Seattle 26/06/2006 00:00:00

Re: Herman, part II

Herman writes in #45:

"The belief that the Earth & universe were created just 10,000 years ago is a gross misunderstanding of Genesis. However there are other explanations for the various life forms found over the course of 4.6 billion years of history. But science (and the news media) is so bias, that they don't have the prudence to seek possible alternative explanations. One such plausible explanation is that from at least 900 Million BC to 245 Million BC, all found life forms lived on Earth from the beginning, but repeated periodic exposure to certain phenomena, first killed the lower forms of life, then progressively higher forms, before killing all remaining life on Earth in 245 Million BC. With this scenario, the same evidence is left in the ground, but with no need for 'missing' transitional life forms."

You state, "The belief that the Earth & universe were created just 10,000 years ago is a gross misunderstanding of Genesis. However there are other explanations for the various life forms found over the course of 4.6 billion years of history." Ah, Old Earth Creationist -- what are you doing in these parts? You suggest, "... all found life forms lived on Earth from the beginning." There is just one problem: if there were buffalo, deer and antelope in the Cretaceous period, or any other advanced life forms for that matter, no doubt we would have found them by now. But we don't. We don't find any of the more advanced animals in the earlier periods. What we find is a very well documented progression.

Herman states, "With this scenario, the same evidence is left in the ground, but with no need for 'missing' transitional life forms."

Why yes, that would be rather tidy. Better yet, we could simply opt for the Omphalos argument and be done with the need for any evidence whatsoever. But this wouldn't be science.

With regard to "missing transitional f

49

Timothy Chase,

Seattle 26/06/2006 00:00:00

Who?, part II

The contrast becomes most stark when one looks at the subcellular level. A cell which isn't doing anything is actually doing a great deal. I think of it as being in "dynamic stasis." The cellular membrane, for example, is constantly being recylcled. And with nearly all cells, the cytoskeleton is constantly being built up only to be torn down. A big part of the key at this point is the fact that cells are constantly channeling and being transformed by the passage of energy in one form or another.

It reminds me of the water cycle. Water evaporates to form clouds, then the water condenses to form rain, replentishing the ponds, lakes, seas and oceans which it evaporated from. In the same way, tubulins (protein molecules) are constantly being added to tubules in the cytoskeleton, then being torn away -- depending upon the local concentrations of other molecules. In some respects, it is a very wasteful process, but what it conserves on is the need for centralized control. No intelligence is needed to orchestrate the whole thing -- any more than someone must tell the rain when to fall.

Of course, the chemistry is far more complex. We are still figuring it out and probably will be for a while -- even in the case of microtubules which take and give back tubulin to the surrounding cytoplasm.

But because of this dynamic stasis, when damage is done, for example, to the membrane of a cell, assuming it isn't too severe, it will be undone simply as a result of the constant recycling of the membrane itself. Moreover, the complexity of the chemistry and of the processes involve a great deal of redundancy -- such that if some change occurs in one part of the part of the protein regulatory network, other parts are generally able to fill in -- generally due to various feedback loops.

At the organismal level, similar processes are involved. Just as no centralized intelligence is needed to orchestrate the recycling of t

50

Timothy Chase,

Seattle 26/06/2006 00:00:00

Re: Herman, part I

Herman writes in #45:

"In response to 'Scientific world unites over origins of life', the Royal Society is ignorant of the facts, and misrepresents their true position. It’s true that science backs the theory of evolution, but it is false to say that the 600+ million year fossil record proves evolution to be a fact. That is only a narrow minded (false) conclusion."

I believe they are well aware of the facts -- and we have covered quite a few of them in the previous posts.

Herman writes in #45:

"They also said that 'teaching children about Darwinian evolution and the natural world was integral to protecting the planet.' They should put into practice what they preach. The best place to compare scientific conclusions with alternate explanations is in science class, and by the teachers that teach science. "

I will admit that "protecting the planet" may seem a little over the top at first, but when one considers the fact that many creationists are expecting the immanent return of Jesus and therefore see no reason to protect the planet, there is clearly a measure of truth here. Likewise, when one considers the fact that many of the same outlets which hawk creationist nonsense continue to deny the fact of global warming or the fact that much of it is manmade, or, as in the case of the Dominionists, believe that it is the duty of good Christians to take dominion over the earth (all of the earth, including national governments and those who are not good Christians), it becomes clear, at least among rational people that there is a threat both to human and to the planet implicit in such irrationality.

51

Timothy Chase,

Seattle 26/06/2006 00:00:00

Re: Herman, part III

Herman writes in #45:

"The news media shows it's bias by over reporting articles that favor the evolutionists, and bypasses articles that favor the truth of Genesis. Case in point, the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster.'"

Ah, that slanted media, is it?

Reminds me of those who make claims regarding all the miracles which aren't getting covered in the news.

The view had been expressed "miracles" which are happening close to home, where they could be most easily investigated are of course frauds, but those which are happening in distant lands are real. Now of course, if there were a great many miracles happening in distant lands, these would be quite newsworthy -- and the mainstream media would cover them -- unless they had some collective reason for remaining silent.

I get the sense that you are in a state of dogmatically-induced doubt and denial with respect to all the major discoveries of modern science. But I get the sense here that something more is going on.

In a different forum, a friend once pointed out the dogmatism which lies at the core of creationism.

I responded: "I think the above is very important in terms of understanding the dynamics of the list, whether in terms of the accusations of religious dogmatism, illogic, or claims of bias. In essence, what we are dealing with is what the German's termed a 'Weltanshauung' which has very near its core a highly improbable theory of a vast conspiracy stretching over centuries -- and a small, fairly uneducated group of individuals who, despite all of the evidence for the technological and scientific advances of our civilization -- somehow claim to be in 'the know' that this is all some great fraud to delude everyone into presumably believing there is no God -- which this group presumably 'believes' -- in order to defend their own extreme religious views."

52

Timothy Chase,

Seattle 26/06/2006 00:00:00

Re: Herman, part IV

I suspect that you are just such a conspiracy theorist. Then again, within the creationist movement, this sort of thing isn't that uncommon.

Take for example R. J. Rushdoony, one of the godfathers of Dominionism:

"R. J. Rushdoony states that 'The view of history as conspiracy. . .is a basic aspect of the perspective of orthodox Christianity.' A conspiratorial view of history is a consistent ingredient of Christian Right ideology in the United States, and is often used to explain the failure of conservative Christian denominations with millennial ambitions to achieve or sustain political power. The blame for this is most often assigned to the Masons, particularly an 18th-century Masonic group called the Illuminati, and, ultimately, to Satan. "

Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence
by Frederick Clarkson
Part 3
No Longer Without Sheep
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre3.html

Herman writes in #45:

"The fact is, Genesis is not about 'Creation Week' as creationism and theology have taught mankind. God revealed a certain concept to Israel (Moses) in 1598 BC, that modern science would not discover for another 3000 years. However, the world of creationism has incorrectly interpreted Genesis as giving a description of how God created the Earth, and that is not what early Genesis is about."

Herman states, "God reveled a certain concept to Isreael... that modern science would not discover for another 3000 years." I can't tell what that is, given what you have written so far.

Would this be that the sun orbits the earth?

The Scriptural Basis for a Geocentric Cosmology
http://snipurl.com/qrvm
Report Unsuitable

53

Inquisitive Brain,

USA 26/06/2006 00:00:00

Timothy,

Thank you for your reply (comment #6, 8:15pm 22 Jun 2006) to my question.

These observations regarding common descent are interesting, and even compelling, yet they do not seem to address my question about abiogenesis. In comment 40 you imply this is the case when you say that abiogenesis is a "somewhat different topic" from evolutionary biology (also, I assume you mean that abiogenesis is "somewhat" separate from common descent). Please allow me to repeat my question:

What is the scientifically verifiable evidence that the origin of life is based solely on chance and blind natural processes?

If you would like to propose comment #6 as answering my question, please explain how these dozen or so points address abiogenesis.

Again, thank you for your previous reply, it is always refreshing to exchange with a reasonable person, as reasonability can be rare in this topic.

54

kaya,

Scotland 26/06/2006 00:00:00

Hi Timothy, wow i just wanted to say ive followed and read your posts with great interest and appreciate the sincerety in which they are written. I myself was ardent atheist all my life until 2 years ago and now have no doubt that God exists. Truthfully Darwin still has a hold on me but i have been reading more literature on creationism and design evolution these past 2 years and still not sure about, so when i came upon your posts and links i was back in the Darwin camp (Evolution does not threating my faith) until the end........"Is there something which can explain why the world is self-organizing? I am not sure that anyone even knows the right questions to ask on that point".
I believe a created world would be self organising.
Thanx for your posts and renewal of my faith.
Kind regards.
Kaya

55

Timothy Chase,

Seattle 26/06/2006 00:00:00

Re: Herman, part V

Herman writes in #45:

"Yes, God created our Earth and universe in six days (144 hours), and rested on the seventh day, more than 4.5 billion years ago. Yes, God made Adam & Eve 9,200 years ago. But the first chapter of Genesis is about what happened on Earth between Creation Week and the advent of modern mankind. The current teachings of creationism by creationists and theologians amount to nothing more than ignorance, and misrepresentation of scripture. Instead of seeking the truth, they bury their heads in willful ignorance. "

Current creationists bury their heads in willful ignorance? -- entirely unlike yourself, I take it.

Herman writes in #45:

"The disposition of Atheism is just like another unpopular religion. They want complete control, and they don't want to entertain or review other beliefs and points of view. Atheists also zealously embrace the theory of evolution, because if there is no Creator, then there is no 'judgment.'"

Atheists want complete control? They do want to entertain or review other beliefs and points of view?

Well I suppose Fundamentalists -- as keepers of The Truth -- will set us free.

56

Timothy Chase,

Seattle 26/06/2006 00:00:00

David writes in #46: "Here's an objective summary of the current state of abiogenesis research - its a good read."

Ah, yes. The Richard Robinson article -- not technical, but not entirely informal, either.

Jump-Starting a Cellular World: Investigating
the Origin of Life, from Soup to Networks
Richard Robinson
November 2005 | Volume 3 | Issue 11 | e396
http://biology.plosjournals.org/archive/1545-7885/3/11/pd...

I ran into the article some time ago. In some ways it is a good overview of various theories. At the same time, it overstates the problems and understates the progress. Chirality is one good example of where it falls down a bit. For example, not all bacteria use proteins of the normal chirality, and likewise, many metabolic paths are of such a nature that they can select molecules of the proper chirality. Likewise, it omits the recent discovery involving the unequal racimization of amino acids in water.

P-Violation Manifested at the Molecular Level - A Simple Means for an Absolute Definition of "Left" vs. "Right"
Avshalom C. Elitzur and Meir Shinitzky
arXiv:physics/0601010 v1, 3 Jan 2006
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0601/0601010.pdf

... and the amplification of chirality through the stronger bonds of serine:

SHORT COMMUNICATION
Chiral Enrichment of Serine via Formation, Dissociation, and Soft-Landing of Octameric Cluster Ions
Sergio C. Nanita, Zoltan Takats, and R. Graham Cooks
J Am Soc Mass Spectrom 2004, 15, 1360-1365 CHIRAL ENRICHMENT OF SERINE VIA ION SOFT-

57

Timothy Chase,

Seattle 26/06/2006 00:00:00

(continued)

At the popular level, please see:

2005
Calculations favor reducing atmosphere for early Earth
Was Miller-Urey experiment correct?
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-09/wuis-cfr09...

But Robinson shares with me my skepticism regarding the view that genes came first and shares some of the optimism I expressed with respect to the possibility that life was metabolism first. Moreoever, while the article you cited is older, towards the end, it alludes to a particular line of thought which seems promising and is more fully expressed in the following paper:

The Stepwise Evolution of Early Life Driven by Energy Conservation
James G. Ferry and Christopher H. House
Molecular Biology and Evolution 2006 23(6):1286-1292
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/6/1286

I provided you with something at the popular level describing this development:
May 17, 2006
Putting Life's Puzzle Together
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article1961.html

In sum, as I said previously in #40, "There are plenty of theories regarding how life itself originated, and there has been a great deal of progress in this field. Perhaps we can get into some of the details -- if you wish. But no, currently there isn't any one theory which clearly ahead of all the others. When you state, '... build a foundation on wishful thinking,' this seems to be precisely what you wish to do, but it isn't applicable to the scientists who are engaged in acti

58

Timothy Chase,

Seattle 26/06/2006 00:00:00

(continued)

David writes in #46: "Also, if you need an authority figure to lend credence to my skepticism, I offer one, Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
Director National Human Genome Research Institute who says on the question of origins:

'Another issue, however—one where I am very puzzled about what the answer will be—is the origin of life. Four billion years ago, the conditions on this planet were completely inhospitable to life as we know it; 3.85 billion years ago, life was teeming. That is a very short period—150 million years—for the assembly of macromolecules into a self-replicating form. I think even the most bold and optimistic proposals for the origin of life fall well short of achieving any real probability for that kind of event having occurred. Is this where God entered? Is this how life got started? I am happy to accept that model, but it will not shake my faith if somebody comes up with a model that explains how that the first cells formed without divine intervention. Again, watch out for the God-of-the-gaps. However, I think it is noteworthy that this particular area of evolution, the earliest step, is still very much in disarray."

Do you have a reference? Do you have a date? I suspect not -- as you probably got that off of Uncommon Descent.

The quote is from:

"Faith and the Human Genome"
Francis Collins
Perspectives in Christian Faith, 2003
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

I see that you did not remove the reference to the "God-of-the-gaps." Incidentally, there is more criticism of intelligent design in that article.

However, while I know that this won't necessarily go over that well with some, I would call your attention to the following part of the quote:

"... it will not shak

59

Timothy Chase,

Seattle 26/06/2006 00:00:00

(continued)

As I said in #40, "What evidence is there for creation? How does anything support creation? Do you have genuine, specific, testable, falsifiable hypotheses? Or are you simply playing that God-of-the-Gaps game, that since we don't yet have an explanation for lightning, or homochirality or whatever, that means that your 'God[-of-the-Gaps] must of done it'? Last I checked, 'I am going to make a bald-faced assertion, and it is up to everyone else to prove me wrong' wasn't part of the scientific method."

Understanding the origin of organic life is considerably more difficult that that of explaining the origin of lightening. But before Stanley Miller, the abiotic synthesis of amino acids was thought impossible. Likewise, Stanley Miller gave up on the stable synthesis of ribose back in 2000 -- but we found that it is actually a very simple problem. And no one would have that that an RNA replicator of over a hundred bases could arise spontaneously from nothing more than the appropriate nutrients and an enzyme -- prior to 1974. Likewise, among the metabolism-first theories, both the heterotrophic and chemoautotrophic schools seemed to have hit a brick wall of sorts. But each time we make a discovery, it is a step forward which never needs to be surrendered. Such discoveries aren't undone. And we are already a great many steps closer than, for example, 2000, and the pace seem only to be accelerating.

60

William Bradford,

United States 27/06/2006 00:00:00

"Timothy - Scientists that assert abiogenesis is a fact are getting a bit ahead of themselves, no? Do you believe that DNA and the mechanisms for reading, error-checking/correcting, and synthesizing proteins that are then used to construct molecular machines somehow originated on their own? If so, your belief is no less fantastic than those that believe in special creation, its just sanctioned by the 'church of science.'"

Yes -- they are getting ahead of themselves if they assert this as something which they know. But the absence of such an explanation isn't evidence for its being something entirely inexplicable -- and does not magically transform such a belief into a scientific theory.

But yes, I believe that natural abiogenesis took place. It is reasonable. And scientifically, I see no alternative.

Bradford: Why is it reasonable to believe that on a planet devoid of life chemical reactions led to a minimal functional genome and a replicating cell. What scientific evidence is there indicating that extracellular chemical reactions result in encoded nucleic acids and how does a mechanism enabling the expression of a genome evolve? I respect your right to believe whatever you wish but hasten to add that your belief is not grounded in anything known about genetics or biochemistry that encourages your viewpoint.

61

kevin,

belgium 27/06/2006 00:00:00

it mystifies me where people got the idea that there is something like chaos or random behaviour.
when i look at the universes (and i'm a bit of an astrofycicist) all i see is absolute order.
i agree, this order isn't always apparant, but it is not because humans, with their limited intellectual capacities, see chaos in the universe that what humans see actually is chaos.
it is quite possible that what we perceive as chaos is an order of a magnitude greater than we can conceive.
for instance, what was first seen as junk DNA (leftovers from eons of random mutation) we now know as backup DNA, it contains copies of strains in the case something went wrong with one of the originals.
this was fisrt seen as chaotic, but now we know that this is a complex order.
if this backup DNA wasn't present life would have randomly mutated in a truly chaotic soup of aminoacids by now. evolutionists in general believe that the fact that the universe is a viable place for humans, is one item, one lucky shot, but if you take into account what the chance is that a universe 'accidently' springs into existence with the right size, the right expansion, the right chemical properties, a sufficient chemical diversity, ... , you will get a better view of what it takes for a universe to exist, if you add to this what the chance is that in this soup the right elements come together to form aminoacids and other molecules, that these aminoacids come together to form what we tend to call life, that this eventually resulted in the biodiversity here on earth and everywhere else in the universe (because if you believe earth is the only place which supports life, you will need to figger out a system which allows life to appear on earth but not anywhere else (and luck doesn't count as a system)), you will notice that the universe or space-time needs almost an infinity more time than it already existed to form even the most basic of aminoacids. basically humans hardly know

62

kevin,

belgium 27/06/2006 00:00:00

when paleontologists and biologists make statements about evolution or creationism they not only make statements about something limited to their fields or earth, they also make statements about the inner workings of space-time or the universe in general, and frankly, i really do not think paleontologists or biologists have the knowledge or intellectual capacities to make statements about anything else than things exclusive to their field
because if you hardly know anything about modern astrophysics (quantum stuff, relativity and stuff surrounding this) you are basically about a century, century and a half behind present, not only in dry facts but modern physics is completely different from f.e. nineteenth century physics, and everyone unaware of this basically lives with seriously outdated views of science and our surroundings
which is equally dangerous as being a religious freak thinking the planet's a square.

so maybe it's time 'scientists' and 'believers' put aside their ego and either admit or come to realise that we hardly know anything
and this includes evolution, because there is far from enough evidence to even consider it to be a theory
all the so called proof for evolution are things open to debate and interpretation.
if this wasn't so it would have been a settled matter long ago, just as the spherical properties of our planet are a settled matter
the proof brought forth by creationists is mainly based upon the bible, but people must realise that christianity is merely one of many religious worldviews, so basically creationism, if it should be true, could be proven from the vantage point of an other religion.
as it is now, the debate is little more than the childish bickering between the two largests beliefs in western society, christianity and atheism (or mechanical positivism)
and as long as the debate doesn't transcend this level nothing valuable will ever come out of it, at most it will tear up humanity

63

Ian,

27/06/2006 00:00:00

I'm sick of people calling atheism a religion, this is stupid. A lack of a belief system does not constitute a belief system. (all you religious nuts out there will say that science is that belief system, but this is inaccurate as well) Since science is a skeptical (not cynical) way of viewing the world it has no room for beliefs (which are central to any religion, which is a "system of beliefs")

64

Timothy Chase,

Seattle 28/06/2006 00:00:00

(continued)

However, while all this is evidence for the process of evolution, a process which we are highly confident took place (given the types of evidence listed in #6, etc.), and while this may also be regarded as fairly tentative evidence for the process of abiogenesis, and might even properly provide an individual with a proper justification for claiming to be personally confident that the process of abiogenesis took place on earth, it is not sufficient from the perspective of empirical science as empirical science generally requires falsiable theories which have withstood a fair number of tests. There are theories of abiogenesis, but no one theory is necessarily strongly supported by the evidence so far, and there simply are too many contestants. Or if I may use a different metaphor, the jury is still out and fairly divided.

For example, at this point, I regard the recent thermodynamic metabolic theory of abiogenesis as particularly interesting, but we will see how it stands the test of time.

"Again, thank you for your previous reply, it is always refreshing to exchange with a reasonable person, as reasonability can be rare in this topic."

Not a problem.

In any case, I am intending to do another response in reply to someone else which will probably also be pertinent.

65

Timothy Chase,

Seattle 28/06/2006 00:00:00

(continued)
"If you would like to propose comment #6 as answering my question, please explain how these dozen or so points address abiogenesis."

Well, with comment #6, we are dealing with a list of evidence for the theory of evolution, or to be more precise, what has now become the broad field of evolutionary biology -- which is no longer a single theory or even a single discipline, but a number of different disciplines each with a number of theories, some with broader or narrower scopes, many in competition with one-another, and many which will probably be subsumed under a broader theories at some point in the future. Alternatively, the list of evidence may be viewed as evidence for the process of evolution itself as it exists as a broad, historical process extending back perhaps 3,900 million years ago or even further. In a sense of course, it also acts as evidence for abiogensis -- but that wasn't the context in which it was proposed, and one could in principle maintain that the broad historical process of evolution took place as a natural process, but that abiogenesis was not a natural process, or at least was not a natural process which took place on earth. For example, if we found that metabolic processes were based upon chemical processes that never occured in nature apart from biological systems, this would be a problem for abiogenesis. One could still argue that the evolutionary process took place, but it would appear that there is no way of bridging this gap and working one's way back to abiogenesis on earth.

If we found that there were no borderline cases between multicellular lifeforms and single-celled lifeforms, this would be a problem for abiogenesis. For example, we could have evolution from organisms with at least a thousand cells or more to the complex life forms, but be entirely out of luck when it comes to explaining the origin of the original thousand celled organism. But we have social amoeba and other organi

66

Timothy Chase,

Seattle 28/06/2006 00:00:00

(FIRST PART to #76 & #77)
Inquisitive Brian wrote in #62:

"Thank you for your reply (comment #6, 8:15pm 22 Jun 2006) to my question."

No problem. Incidentally, at some point this is probably going to have to come to an end, but I am sure that there will be other discussions. Other times for questions and points to be raised.

I have noticed that it is not at all possible to say everything you want to say in a given discussion simply because there isn't enough time or there are other demands on your life, but what you miss at one point, you come back to later. A kind of an exploration.

But since this is still going...

"These observations regarding common descent are interesting, and even compelling, yet they do not seem to address my question about abiogenesis. In comment 40 you imply this is the case when you say that abiogenesis is a 'somewhat different topic' from evolutionary biology (also, I assume you mean that abiogenesis is 'somewhat' separate from common descent).

True, although I figure that, historically speaking, life would have arisen once, then spread like wild-fire. I supect there were a number of moments like that. Where ever it happened, growth would have continued exponentially until the places where it could have potentially happened if it hadn't already happened would have been engulfed. So in this sense, there has to be common ancestry -- assuming I am correct.

At the same time, with all the lateral gene transfer which occurs at the level of one-celled organisms, tracing a single line of descent will become almost meaningless at you approach the beginning.

"Please allow me to repeat my question:

"What is the scientifically verifiable evidence that the origin of life is based solely on chance and blind natural processes?"

You ask, "What is the scientifically verifiable evidence..."

Scientists will typically tend to frame thi

67

Timothy Chase,

Seattle 28/06/2006 00:00:00

(response to Bradford, continued)

Now setting this aside for the moment, what is the alternative? Can you offer an alternative? I would presume that your alternative is some form of divine intervention. If so, please see:

#29 where I state:

"Who did what, where, when and how? Who? -- well, someone. Maybe space aliens. What -- created life, I suppose -- or injected information or irreducible complexity, or well, something along those lines. I will get into this 'irreducible complexity' in a moment. When? -- maybe 3,900 million years ago, or perhaps 6,000."

#40 where I state:

"What evidence is there for creation? How does anything support creation? Do you have genuine, specific, testable, falsifiable hypotheses? Or are you simply playing that God-of-the-Gaps game, that since we don't yet have an explanation for lightning, or homochirality or whatever, that means that your 'God[-of-the-Gaps] must of done it'? Last I checked, 'I am going to make a bald-faced assertion, and it is up to everyone else to prove me wrong' wasn't part of the scientific method. But don't worry -- we will get back to this shortly."

Then finally #42 where I state:

All I require is the hypothetico-deductive method:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe
2. Form a theory that potentially explains what you have observed

3. Derive a specific, testable hypothesis from that theory

4. Make specific predictions based upon that hypothesis

5. Make observations or experiments that can the the hypothesis by comparing the evidence against the predictions

6. Modify your theory until it is in accord with all observations

7. Go back to step (3)

68

Timothy Chase,

Seattle 28/06/2006 00:00:00

Bradford writes in #66:

"Why is it reasonable to believe that on a planet devoid of life chemical reactions led to a minimal functional genome and a replicating cell. What scientific evidence is there indicating that extracellular chemical reactions result in encoded nucleic acids and how does a mechanism enabling the expression of a genome evolve? I respect your right to believe whatever you wish but hasten to add that your belief is not grounded in anything known about genetics or biochemistry that encourages your viewpoint."

It is grounded in a fair amount of circumstantial evidence -- and to some extent, a general understanding of the scientific method. For example, the boundary between life and non-life has borderline cases. Viruses are a good example. We know, for example, that an enzyme and nutrients are all that are required to form a self-replicating RNA virus. (See #41 above -- which includes technical references and links to the original articles.) Likewise, we know that natural processes form amino acids under circumstances which evidently existed on the early earth with its reductive atmosphere -- prior to the continual production of corrosive oxygen through photosynthesis. Likewise, we know that stable ribose can be formed under natural conditions.

As #41 demonstrates, self-replication doesn't require a cell per se -- and doesn't even require a genome to arrive at a self-replicating genome. Likewise, a metabolism is essentially an autocatalytic chemical reaction and wouldn't necessarily require any genome at all, or for that matter, an enzyme. Likewise, a cell is essentially a semi-permeable compartment, and some geological formations could act as a primitive "cell" of sorts. There are of course other problems, smaller missing pieces. More importantly, putting all of the pieces together into a coherent theory which fits the evidence we have so far as to what conditions existed on the primitive earth, an

69

Ian,

28/06/2006 00:00:00

Well, you are a good writer William, but them there big words don't change the fact that evolution is supported by many reliable sources, while creationism is supported by one book of fairytales. Maybe Zeus farted and created life.

70

Ian,

28/06/2006 00:00:00

"It is not supported by scientific evidence which is all that should matter to "reliable sources.""


and creationism is?

71

William,

28/06/2006 00:00:00

Creation according to abiogenesis is a fairytale. It is not supported by scientific evidence which is all that should matter to "reliable sources."

72

William,

28/06/2006 00:00:00

Creation is a belief based in part on faith. Christians have been honest about this since the first century. Abiogenesis is sustained by faith as well. Some of its adherents are not as honest about their faith and scientific evidence.

73

Ian,

28/06/2006 00:00:00

Christians have been honest about this since the first century
What about the gnostic gospels? They were surpressed. oh by the way, doesn't the creation story come from genesis? from the old testament, written in about 440BCE? If your going to be a bible thumper, you had better get your facts straight.

74

William,

28/06/2006 00:00:00

The gnostic gospels are not part of Christian scripture. Why are you arguing with yourself? Where did I claim Genesis was not part of the OT? I stated that faith is a necessary element of both Genesis and abiogenesis. You brought up the matter of creation. My focus was on scientific evidence for life's origins.

75

William,

28/06/2006 00:00:00

Atheism may not be a religion but any concern as to God's existence is inherently religious in nature. Unless you are brain dead you have a belief system. It may not be shared by others and may not be codified but if you have reasons for believing and doing whatever it is you do, you have beliefs based on your values. The aggregate of them and their common themes is your belief system. Science is an empirical discipline. The article states "scientific evidence about the origins of life was being "concealed, denied, or confused." Since the actual evidence does not support the hypothesis that life arises in extracellular environments the belief that it does is a profession of faith not a belief supported by empirical evidence.

76

cgrant,

tyler 05/02/2009 17:08:54
I find it incredable that so called scientists deny the very definition of a "theory".
There are several possible theories as to the origin of life.
Otherwise we would call it the "Law of evolution".
To exclude all other "theories" from the discussion is in itself a very unscientific action.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.