I suspect you are the same person as benkirk. Same style, same rhetoric, etc. So have at it. Enjoy yourself.
Incredible. You really havenât a clue what evolution is.
I suspect that the post in question may have a word missing but it is easy to see how you wrenched the statement from its context. Letâs look at what Mr. Molinist posted:
So his point was not that evolution never brings about change but that a bacterium doesnât reproduce and generate a non-bacteria. It takes many generations for a POPULATION OF BACTERIA to produce enough changes for our TERMINOLOGY to start calling it something else. Thus, when evolution deniers say âI never saw a cat give birth to a dogâ and âNo monkey ever gave birth to a humanâ, they have no better understanding of evolution than Johnz.
For those readers who are interested in understanding evolutionâand seeing how JohnZ likes analogies but only on a selective basisâconsider the evolution of language. A population of Latin speakers in the Iberian peninsula gradually morphed into what is now usually called Old Spanish. Does that mean that there was a Latin-speaking couple somewhere who gave birth to the first non-Latin speaker who grew up to speak âOld Spanishâ? This illustrates the fact that our human convention of applying names does NOT mean that ACTUAL boundaries govern and prevent changes beyond those terminological boundaries.
No, the Latin-speaking population didnât at some point in time begin giving birth to non-Latin speakers. The changes were gradual and amassed enough distinctive changes that Latin was no longer a SUFFICIENT label. The Old Spanish language exhibited many differences from the older tongue yet it was still a Romance (Latin-derived) language, as is Modern Spanish. Is Modern Spanish the same as Latin? No. Is it ânon-Latinâ? That isnât really a standard term JUST AS NON-BACTERIA IS NOT A STANDARD SCIENTIFIC TERM.
Perhaps JohnZ is similarly confused when he hears about âYour Inner Fishâ. And when did a dinosaur first produce a non-dinosaur which we would call a bird? Could there be a reason why we hear terms like ânon-avian dinosaurâ? Also, did the dinosaurs âdie outâ or dinosaurs survive as birds (non-avian dinosaurs.) If one doesnât understand evolution nor the purpose of LABELS, these kinds of sentences will seem very strange indeed.
Notice how JohnZ and his evolution-denying friends have had to retreat over the years. Back in the early days of THE GENESIS FLOODâs influence, evolution-deniers within fundamentalist churches said that âNo species ever evolved to produce a new speciesâ. However, the evidence for evolution became overwhelming. So they started saying, âThere is no evolution from one genus to another. The Genesis KIND was a genus.â Again, too many counter-examples made that sound silly. So today, evolution-denying Christians tend to say âThe Biblical kinds were basically taxonomic FAMILIES.â (Yet, despite Ken Hamâs promise to make major contributions to the field of âbaraminologyâ, donât hold your breath in expectation of systematic tables of Genesis âkindsâ. Among other things, it runs the risk of destroying silly arguments like âItâs still a Coelacanthâ, pretending that it is a single species instead of an ENTIRE ORDER OF FISH!)
Of course, JohnZ has reminded us that these failures of evolution-denying âbaraminologyâ has become both absurd and embarrassing. So in desperation heâs retreated to âItâs still a bacteriaâ (which as already has been mentioned is like saying âItâs still an animalâ or âItâs still a plant.â) even though he realizes that it has no credibility with anybody but those with no science training. Whatâs next, JohnZ? Will your next excuse be âItâs still a eukaryote!â?
Life is a continuum. There is no rigid boundary between bacteria and ânon-bacteriaâ, only the convenience of summarizing lists of traits under a label/term. Evolution-deniers still want to believe that KINDS is a more rigid term than the Genesis text ever intended.
Why not simply state aloud WHY you are so uncomfortable with evolution: You have theological/philosophical objections driving your denial. You know it. Readers know it. Nobody believes that following the evidence led anybody to reject the reality of evolution. (Do you think that that might be why evolution-deniers all seem to come from a few very narrow theological categories?)
The fact that evidence-denialism has little to do with science also explains comments like this:
You donât say who âyouâ is but everyone notices that evolution-deniers are quite obsessed with conspiracy theories. Tell us, Johnz, exactly what would âyouâ or BenKirke gain from posting under another username? Would it make the evidence anything other than what it is? Would it help BenKirkeâs career? Would it make the evidence he posts even more impressive?
Iâve only had to adopt a new username on Biologos once, but Iâve got an associate who says sheâs had her password rejected on several occasions and found it easier to start a new username than to go through the hassles of resetting passwords. Iâve seen this happen with various forums, especially if Iâm using a different computer or am overseas on a different IP address. Here again, JohnZ, common sense would serve you better than worrying about nefarious plots and conspiracies. (Somehow I doubt that BenKirke is quaking in his shoes over being âfound outâ as being the mysterious and unidentified âyouâ.)
(For those who keep finding their password rejected on Biologos, especially if using multiple computers and traveling a lot, I find that logging into Google first and then using that as the basis for the Biologos login avoids a lot of those hassles. Otherwise, youâll be wasting a lot of time resetting passwords. Also, sometimes Biologos.org issues prompts which turn out to be leading one to choose a new username for oneâs account. Not sure why that is but RESIST it. Also, a lot of the error messages issued by the Biologos server software, such as claiming that an edit has failed, can be ignored. An associate showed me that the edit has already been recorded fine even though the error message claims otherwise. So one has to simply ABANDON the current comment in order to get out of the loop. This wasnât even with an obscure browser. It was with Chrome. My hunch is that the use of data compression proxy serversâsuch as those one uses with satellite Internet servicesâmay be messing up such protocols. For that matter, perhaps this also explains the constant rejection of passwords and needing password resets.)
@JohnZ, BenKirke clearly got under your skin. Why? He tried to force you to deal with the evidence and pointed out terms you were using incorrectly. Thatâs why youâd rather complain about usernames.
BenKirke has a much stronger grasp of evolution than I do, apparently from professional involvement in that field. I doubt that you will accuse me of being him but I would feel affirmed if you did!
Does evolutionary theory provide any useful scientific benefits? Obviously, yes.
A much more interesting discussion for another thread topic would be to consider why anyone thinks that pretending otherwise helps their cause.
In reality, such a lame argument only underscores the desperation of science-denialism and the realization that such arguments will only work on people with little understanding of science. Entire sub-industries and product lines are spending billions of dollars on the REALITY of âuseful scientific benefitsâ from evolutionary theory. Trying to label everything as âBut thatâs not based on the Theory of Evolution. Scientists would have developed that without it.â only sounds more pathetic every time itâs used.
Eventually itâs time to wake up and smell the reality. How many times in the history of Christendom have the science-denialists had to finally throw in the towel? (Do we actually need to LIST the many science-denialism embarrassments in the history of the Church? Perhaps we do. But we already know the excuse: âNo, that was different!â)
Iâm done.
If you are not benkirk, you must be his twin. Since you equate evolution with science and generalize that a dispute with evolution is science denialism, you are displaying not an open-mindedness towards different ideas, but a close minded approach to questions of any kind that challenge your faith. It is absurd to suggest that PhDs in plant science, in physical chemistry, in biology, in geology, are âscience-denialistsâ. It is so absurd, that it makes me laugh. Once you get past this type of mis-characterization, you might achieve a bit more credibility for yourself.
So if you think it would have been impossible for something to have been developed without invoking the grand theory of evolution, the microbes to man theory, then please elaborate. The equivocation of âchanging of allele frequency within a populationâ just wonât work.
I thought the discussion was about the Theory of Evolution. Now I see that youâve invoked terminology more common on Young Earth Creationist websites. Can you show us a commonly used university biology textbook which talks about the âthe grand theory of evolutionâ or âthe microbes to man theoryâ?
Now I see why you are so confused about the definition of evolution and why you start making fraud accusations (calling the scientists âfraudulentâ) when they define evolution as changes in allele frequency over time. You are confusing the Theory of Evolution with abiogenesis, a common fallacy found on Young Earth Creationist websites.
I too am curious as to why JohnZ posted the question âDoes evolutionary theory provide any useful scientific benefit?â and then immediately started quoting an evolution-complainer and answered his own question with âNo!â Obviously, whether or not evolutionary theory provides any âuseful scientific benefitâ would have no bearing on whether or not the theory is valid. So what is to be gained from denying the benefits of the theory?
I donât think your laughter is productive in this case. After all, you said:
Yet, you have called the entire scientific academy âfraudulentâ for defining evolution as every biology textbook does. Interesting.
How credible is it for someone with limited understanding of evolution to tell the science academy they are guilty of fraudâeven after repeatedly demonstrating a lack of understanding of basic terms and definitions and principles?
Whenever the people Ken Ham attacks point out the evidence he denies, Ham always says, âWe donât deny Science. We LOVE Science!â Yet, when evidence is ignored, âwe love scienceâ has no meaning.
Many useful scientific benefits have the Theory of Evolution have been posted on this thread. Posting denials of those benefits is unlikely to sway anyone. Laughing at others and attacking their âcredibilityâ only tends to divide and frustrate participants.
Johnz, if you think there is a âtheory of evolutionâ which includes abiogenesis, I would be interested in seeing a new thread about it. I donât carefully keep up with abiogenesis research, but Iâve not heard of any hypotheses which have come anywhere close to a published and generally recognized âabiogenesis theoryâ. Also, Iâm unclear why any Christian would oppose the concept of abiogenesis, âbiological life from non-biologically-living ingredientsâ, when that is exactly what the Bible describes. Does not Genesis state that âthe dust of the groundâ provided the ingredients for life? The Bible clearly states that all living things come from dust. (See Ecclesiastes.)
So, if you deny the idea that there was some point in the past when biological life began and the ingredients for that biological life were non-living materials from the earthâs crust, you are denying BOTH the Bible and modern Science.
Iâve always found it interesting that anyone would be fine with life coming from the non-living âthe dust of the groundâ but get upset when some water is added and somebody calls it âprimordial oozeâ. Whether we talk about âthe dust of the groundâ, mud, dirt, the earthâs crust, or the chemical elements, living things are made of non-living ingredients. And unless you believing there was NO beginning to biological life and it always existed, then you must acknowledge that there was some point in the past when the first living things came into existence by means of non-living ingredients from the earthâs crust.
The Bible and Science certainly agree on (1) biological life had a beginning, and (2) the ingredients from which biological life is composed come from the chemical elements of the earthâs crust.
Anybody who opposes the idea of abiogenesis needs to read Genesis as well as a biology textbook. You will find abiogenesis---- biological life from non-living ingredientsâin both. (Obviously, the question of whether a deity was involved is not a question of science but theology/philosophy. It canât be a scientific question because the Scientific Method lacks any tools and procedures which could detect and investigate deities.)
Seeing how this threadâs question of âDoes evolutionary theory provide any useful scientific benefits?â has been answered repeatedly and with profuse examples, Iâd suggest that Johnz consider starting a new thread asking why Bible-affirming Christians shouldnât be emphasizing that the Bible and modern Science agree that biological life had a beginning and the ingredients for life were âthe dust of the ground.â
Perhaps if we could all agree on a common starting point like that (i.e., that the Bible and modern Science agree on the reality of abiogenesis sometime in the earthâs past), there could be more harmony and less laughter.
No, I am not. Abiogenesis is usually a subset of evolutionary theory, not a replacement nor an equivalent for it. But, leaving abiogenesis aside, the truncated definition is still not accurate, since a change in alleles is only part of the process, only a necessary condition, and is not the entire process, not the entire thing, since it neglects the main thing, which is the development of vastly new and different species, genera, and families over eons of time. The truncated definition completely misses the larger aspect of evolution theory, and thus equates metaphorically speaking, defining a man as a set of intestines or a collection of appendages.
In this case, your sight is confused. Your diversion into abiogenesis makes this abundantly clear.
This might be a valid statement (in contrast to some others you have made). But I suppose it was made (some time agoâŚ) because evolutionary theory has actually made bad analysis and predictions, and has led to unnecessary problems, and slowed down scientific endeavor.
Two examples: one is vestigial organs. Because the theory assumed all kinds of vestigial organs, various organs were thought to be useless in their present condition. Thus the appendix and the tonsils were readily removed and assumed to be useless. If they had been assumed to be useful, and not vestigial, their benefits would have been discovered sooner.
The same is true for useful vs non-useful dna. Merely because much dna did not appear to be replicated, or to direct the formation of protein, it was thought to be non-functional, merely evolutionary relics. Yet, in spite of this, not because of evolution theory, it was soon discovered to perform functions after all, and to be very useful. The question of useless relics, vs expectation that everything that is not an abnormality having a useful purpose, has not been helped by evolutionary theory, but hindered.
In comparison, how has evolutionary theory provided scientific benefit that would otherwise not have been discovered or utilized? In order to qualify, the benefit must derive not from incidental scientific activities, but from the essentials of the theory itself. Nor can the benefits be merely beneficial to the theory, but must be beneficial to something external to the theory.
No. No scientists familiar with the term âvestigialâ though it meant âuseless in their present conditionâ. This sounds like something picked up from a Young Earth Creationist anti-evolution website.
This was NOT a conclusion of the Theory of Evolution or evolutionary biologists. This was a judgment call by physicians who assumed that painful and swollen tissues could be removed and the pain and swelling solved. Donât assume that all physicians are scientists. Also, thousands upon thousands of fundamentalist Christian physiciansâmost of whom hated the Theory of Evolutionâregularly removed the appendix and tonsils. And they still do! (It is always wise to think through the popular mantras one finds on Ken Hamâs website before retelling them. Apply the âcommon sense testâ and see if they can withstand scrutiny. )
I knew a retired physician who went absolutely ballistic when a âcreation scienceâ speaker came to his IFCA church and unknowingly spewed that traditional âDarwinâs theory and those godless evolutionists were at fault for cutting out your tonsils and appendices!â argument, not realizing that there were real live surgeons in the audience who werenât that gullible. (My physician friend was every bit a 6,000 year old earth, take-no-prisoners Young Earth Creationist but he was not about to have some clueless whipper-snapper tell him that Darwin had talked him into removing tonsils and appendices!)
That infamous tidbit has been especially popular at The Discovery Institute. I suggest that readers investigate the Encode Project and learn from journalists misrepresentations of the science and even the definition of the word âfunctionalâ. Even Wikipedia has a section on the controversy arising from inaccurate âspinâ.
@Johnz, both of your attempts at refutation place you many years behind and clearly in the anti-evolution disinformation camp. Indeed, these are the kinds of amateur arguments that the most honest evolution-deniers no longer use.
Yes, they work well with general audiences who donât understand the science but I suggest you try those on your first year biology teacher at any major university. Better yet, I suggest you try submitting those amateur claims to an academic journal and see how far you get.
I do realize that they sound viable to you. (I donât deny your sincerity.) But in the science academy, terminology and evidence matter. Propaganda arguments donât determine how the textbooks are written and they wonât win you any attention from scientists.
Whether its repeating an ancient classic or the more recent spin from anti-evolution websites, it is worth your time to check all such factoids and quote-mines from a reference resource like TalkOrigins.org or even some of the university evolutionary biology websites. Even if you deny everything you find there, wouldnât it make more sense to deal with the current items of contention and not the old arguments that were discredited long ago?
Again, I hope you will actually consult a biology textbook so that you can discover that abiogenesis is NOT part of the Theory of Evolution. There isnât even any standard âtheory of abiogenesisâ because scientists just donât know a lot about how the first biological organisms originated. (âGod made themâ is a theological claim, not a scientific one.)
Please cite a university science textbook which makes such a claim. I still have a few on my bookshelves so a page number would be appreciated. What is the name of this abiogenesis-evolutionary theory and what scientist(s) is credited with its publication?
Iâd really like to know how abiogenesis could be part of ANY theory when nobody has published an explanation for the first life that has survived falsification testing and peer-review. Do you think it likely that you would know of such a theory but the science academy failed to notice it? (Iâve noticed a pattern where you claim to know a lot of important things which the worldâs scientists do not. Is that because they are all fraudulent? That is NOT a facetious question. My pastor of long ago basically said that often from the pulpit. He told us that the evil in the scientistsâ hearts corrupted their minds and made them blind to even obvious science facts. Is that your view?)
Again, Iâd like to see you go ahead and start a new thread on your alleged theory of abiogenesis-evolution.
By the way, hereâs another instance where the correct definition of biological evolution as expressed in the Theory of Evolution would have eliminated the popular but mistaken claim that abiogenesis is part of that theory. Evolution is the changes in allele frequencies in populations over time. That makes absolutely no sense when speaking of abiogenesis. That because abiogenesis deals with the ORIGINS of biological life, not changes in living things over time.
The reason that evolution-denial ministries work so hard to confuse abiogenesis with the Theory of Evolution is so they can then make the illogical claim, âThe Theory of Evolution doesnât even have a good explanation for how life on earth began!â That makes no more sense than complaining that The Germ Theory of Disease doesnât explain how the first microbes came to be or complaining that the Theory of Photosynthesis fails to explain how the sun produces light.
âAn organ that is functionless and generally reduced in size but bears some resemblance to the corresponding fully functioning organs found in related organisms. Examples include the wings of flightless birds, the limb girdles of snakes, the appendix and the ear muscles of humans, and the scale leaves of parasitic flowering plants. The presence of vestigial organs is thought to indicate that the ancestors of the organism possessed fully functioning organs ⌠.â5(Tootill, E., The Facts on File Dictionary of Biology, Facts on File, New York, p. 318, 1988)
Half right, oldtimer. It was a conclusion of evolutionary thought. But of course, physicians would not remove without cause. On the other hand, evolutionary thought would not lead physicians or others to assume that these organs would have a countervailing purpose. Naturally, your physician friend, not accepting evolution, would be likely to assume that such an organ did have a purpose, even if he did not yet know what it was, or if he did know it had a purpose, would possibly still remove some organs, because the tradeoff benefit would be thought to be bigger than the benefit of leaving it in place. Even many evolutionary physicians would be cautious, wondering whether the theories of any particular supposedly vestigial organ would be accurate.
Apparently, of a list of about 180 possible vestigial organs in 1890 has shrunk to 0 in 1999. (Sixteen years ago) So vestigial organs are not pushed so much by the evolutionary community, and they are downplayed as a vestigial remnant of older evolutionary thought. Nevertheless, the logic of vestigial organs within the evolutionary theory is sound⌠and this is why they are still promoted by a few, but with a different definition.
Any part of an organism that has diminished in size during its evolution because the function it served decreased in importance or became totally unnecessary. Examples are the human appendix and the wings of the ostrich.(Martin, E., Dictionary of Biology, Warner, New York, p. 250, 1986)
The evolutionary spin is marvelous. Of course it is always misrepresentation, and then the defintion of âfunctionalâ⌠really. I do not deny that evolutionists have revised their language, and have revised their theory on vestigials as well. But the revision was based on evidence, which forced them to change. The theory and these implications were logical and rational, yet wrong. The argument is not whether the theory cannot be corrected. The argument is that the theory leads to wrong conclusions because of its redirection away from design and purpose. The evidence shows that it did this.
This is false of course. Propoganda has been the meat of many elementary and highschool textbooks when it comes to discussing evolution. The amount of time it took to change or eliminate Haeckels drawings of embryos in these textbooks, even many years after they were proven fraudulent, is a perfect example. And his drawings were nothing more than pure propoganda themselves. The pictures of human ancestors, the lines and arrows between supposed ancestral lines were nothing more than pure propoganda, to the point that the present day population has been so brain-washed from such an early age, that it is difficult for them to distinguish fact from conjecture.
There is validity to this, and it should be done. It would be good if evolutionists would do the same, and would omit reiterating arguments that have been disavowed by creationists many years ago now. But the point of this argument is not that evolution still identifies 180 vestigial organs. The point is that the theory led them to do so, and not until these organs were examined in more detail, were they found to have viable purposes. The argument against vestigial organs is a good argument for purpose and design, and not an accidental retention of useless organs which one might reasonably expect under evolution. This argument is a very good argument, because even evolutionary scientists agree that these organs are not really vestigial in the sense of being discardable without effect. They have a purpose. Thus they are indistinguishable from other organs or appendages that also have a purpose.
It seems perhaps that you do not fully understand what abiogenesis is. It is simply a formation of life from non-life. The law of biogenesis says that life forms from life. Abiogenesis is life forming from non-life. The fact that there is no detailed theory is irrelevant⌠there are certainly variations of speculation and hypothesis. But more than that is the belief that life formed from non-life by some ânaturalâ process that we simply donât yet understand. Just as the expansion of the universe, the birth and death of stars, planets, asteroids, solar systems, galaxies are assumed to be part of the general evolutionary process, so is abiogenesis. (Still, abiogenesis is a diversion⌠not sure why you keep coming back to it.) www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis* Oct 20, 2014 - Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and ⌠In what became known as the Miller-Urey experiment,âŚ
This has often been stated. It is a claim by some evolutionists. It is particularly a claim by those who want to separate abiogenesis from genetic change because of the lack of evidence that it could happen. I strongly suspect that if abiogenesis could be demonstrated in a lab, that it would not be so quickly disavowed as part of the evolutionary theory. Of course abiogenesis deals with orgins of life⌠that is its definition. Stating the obvious⌠why? And yet, trying to reduce evolutionary theory to merely allele changes within a population⌠wow. By using such a definition, are evolutionists trying to exclude the aspects of species change? Are they trying to exclude the development of new organs, appendages, sexual development, plumage, speech, from evolutionary theory? Are they trying to exclude the hierarchical tree of life? Are these things all vestigial aspects of the old definition, which was found to be inferior and excessive? Amazing.
Thatâs just a category difference. Itâs like sayingâby saying that pie has filling and thatâs what distinguishes it from cake, are you just avoiding the question of whether or not pie qualifies as food?
It is important to make the right comparison, fmiddel. So it is a category difference, but your analogy would be more correct if you said, by saying that the definition of pie is the filling, are you avoiding the question of whether or not the crust is necessary for a pie to be a pie?
JohnZ definitely likes to work with analogies. Yet the question remains: Do analogies determine whether evolutionary theory provides any useful scientific benefit?
Meanwhile, entire industries develop products based on evolutionary theory. Should we assume that billions of dollars are being spent on products which are either without âuseful scientific benefitsâ and not based on evolutionary theory? Evolutionary biologists are being hired by these new companies and industries. Which seems more likely? ===> (1) the companies know what they are doing and they are hiring PhD evolutionary biologists for good reasons OR (2) those who deny the Theory of Evolution on theological grounds and have no standing within the relevant fields of the scientific academy tells us theyâre wrong.
Itâs not a tough call. Evidence matters.
[quote=âjohnZ, post:236, topic:548â]
This has often been stated. It is a claim by some evolutionists.[/quote]
Hello JohnZ,
What has often been stated by whom? Letâs keep in mind that OldTimer is challenging your false claim that âAbiogenesis is usually a subset of evolutionary theory,â OK? You seem to be running away from that.
Do you have any idea how easily your kids will see through your empty bluffing? Your only chance for putting things like that over on them is that they have terrible science teachers.
No, itâs simply not part of evolutionary theory and it has nothing to do with the definition of evolution as changes in allele frequencies in populations over time. When you butcher that as âmere allele changesâ or âchanges in allelesâ you reveal that you donât know what you are talking about.
However, you do understand the meaning of âalleleâ but seem reluctant to apply it to reality. What proportion of functional genetic differences between you and a mouse is allelic, and what proportion is not? You should know this if you have the knowledge to claim that the definition is âfraudulent,â should you not? Do you realize that this is independent of how you believe the allelic differences were created?
No one is disavowing anything, John. Itâs simply not part of the theory, nor is it part of the definition.
Yes, and thatâs not the definition of evolution. Easy!
Wow is right. Youâre flailing so much that you canât even state the definition youâre arguing against properly. Itâs âchanges in allele frequency,â not âallele changes.â
No, John, this is something that you might just begin to understand if you answered my question: what proportion of the differences between you and a mouse are merely allelic? You are of a different species than a mouse, correct? Do you realize that Iâm trying to show you how the definition is highly accurate across genuses, families, and orders, which go far beyond species?
Not at all! But then youâd know that if you had even the vaguest idea of the proportion of functional genetic differences between you and a mouse that were merely allelic!
[quote]Are they trying to exclude the hierarchical tree of life? Are these things all vestigial aspects of the old definition, which was found to be inferior and excessive? Amazing.
[/quote]What old definition? On what date are you alleging that the definition was changed, and from what previous definition? Whatâs amazing is that you will literally accuse others of fraud when you donât know what you are talking about and refuse to learn before accusing.
Again, if evolution is such an existential threat to you, it would seem you should feel an incredibly urgent moral duty for you to know what evolutionary theory and evolution really are instead of throwing up absurd straw men. Given your rhetoric, Iâm not seeing any urgency at all.
And YECs havenât started a single biotech or pharmaceutical company AFAIK to put their allegedly superior understanding of biology to practical use. Amazing!
Hello fmiddel,
I donât see how itâs a category difference at all. Would you please explain?
Sorry, but thatâs not analogous at all. If you really believe that it is, please identify the filling (allelic differences, aka different versions of the same gene) and the crust (other genetic differences that you seem reluctant to specify) when it comes to the functional genetic differences between you and a mouse, even though all of the relevant information is at your fingertips.
Likewise, Iâve wondered why Young Earth Creationists donât apply their âflood geologyâ knowledge to oil exploration. Can you imagine how many YEC âcreation scienceâ research projects could be funded by the massive profits âflood geologyâ could produce if it indeed is the best explanation of the earthâs history! (After all, if conventional oil exploration geologists are all distracted by a false history while the âflood geologistsâ know the REAL story of oil and can thereby predict why/when/where oil deposits formed, guess who will produce the best results for profit-seeking oil exploration companies? Of course, those who know the story of ex-YEC oil geologist Glenn Morton donât like to talk about him.)
Benkirk, these topics concern me on several levelsâincluding the ethics of denying the reality of what is happening in these industries. Yes, denying evidence is always easier than actually engaging the evidence. It reminds me of the âscienceâ of the Tobacco Institute in the 1970âs. I was teaching as a state university at the time and was amazed how much money was offered to both faculty and university computer center staff to start new careers promoting the pre-determined âscienceâ that ignored all evidence and claimed that cigarettes had never been found harmful to human health. Representatives of the Tobacco Institute were always on call for TV talk shows and news programs. They could always point to Tobacco Institute âpeer-reviewed researchâ and when presented inconvenient evidence, they simply denied that the evidence existed! It was maddening to watch----but it bought the tobacco industry many years of relative stalemate and an eventual financial settlement which allowed the industry to buy what was virtually a free pass to continue making billions of dollars (especially overseas, even with continued taxpayer help.)
For years many of us have been asking Young Earth Creationists to rank the top three âcreation scienceâ discoveries of the past year, decade, and century. If they are truly engaged in valid scientific research, shouldnât we expect some useful scientific benefit? Yet NOT ONCE has anyone nominated a valid scientific discovery. (My favorite answer was: âAll valid scientific discoveries are based on creation science.â)
The contrasts between the valid science and the sham science couldnât be more obvious. And that is why their focus is entirely on pretending that the Theory of Evolution has produced nothing of scientific importance. It is the proof of their concession that they have nothing to show for all that campaigning about their superior grasp of science and the history of the earth.
So ultimately, it is an honesty issue.
No they donât. But your bait and switch is very interesting. Or perhaps I sense that you agree with my analogy, and so thanks for that.
You make the claim about benefits, without providing details that can actually be discussed. âWhole industriesâ, âbillions of dollarsâ, âevolutionary biologists being hiredâ, âgood reasonsâ⌠none of this is demonstrable evidence. It is just-so stories, assumptions, and more assumptions. The benefits themselves you have not mentioned.
[quote=âjohnZ, post:244, topic:548â]
No they donât. But your bait and switch is very interesting. Or perhaps I sense that you agree with my analogy, and so thanks for that. [/quote]
I donât think so.
We just did. Where are the creationist biotech and pharma companies? Where are the creationist oil exploration companies? Why do we make only a couple of vaccines to eradicate DNA viruses, but yearly ones to control segmented RNA ones?
The first three are easily demonstrable. The difference between the numbers of dollars invested in biotech companies run by those who accept and employ evolutionary theory and the numbers of dollars invested in creationist biotech companies is easily quantifiable, donât you think?
When are you going to offer the evidence to support your claim that defining evolution as changes in allele frequencies in a population over time is âfraudulentâ? Thatâs quite a serious charge.
Well, the way I see it, a strict definition of evolution in terms of alleles does not deny broader definitions that may include physiological changes, hereditary trees, etc.
Whatâs the definition of a truck?
It is -
A vehicle like a car but bigger with carrying capacity for cargo.
But it is also -
A cargo vehicle that travels on land, as opposed to one that travels on water or through the air.
Further, it is -
An inanimate means of locomotion as opposed to, say, a mule.
Itâs not like one of those definitions is âwrongâ because the other is âright.â