Reconciling scientific order of events with Genesis

[OldTimer]

Yes, I understand why various messages “coach” us in order to encourage more readable and better organized threads. But the editing problem produces an ERROR MESSAGE, something like: “Oops. Your comment could not be saved.”

If no one else is having this problem, I wonder if there might be a compatibility issue with the Opera browser I’m using.

I have no problems when posting/saving a new comment. But if I use the edit feature, everything works fine until I finish the editing and the browser has to send the information to the Biologos server—and the server apparently sends a failure message but provides no details that would make diagnosis obvious.

[I was surprised that Mervin thought that I couldn’t find the pencil icon for editing, because I had tried to be explicit when I posted a description of my problem. I had seen some general mention somewhere on the Biologos website that some sort of server problem was being addressed, so I posted my specifics in case a moderator would find them relevant or technically revealing and forward the issue to a technician.]

[Chris_Falter]

Thank you for the kind words, piopio. I have very much enjoyed our conversation so far, and I’m sure God will help us continue in the same spirit of humility and joy.

Grace and peace,

Chris Falter

[Joao]

@johnZ

and he wrote this: "‘Mutations are word-processing errors in the cell’s instruction manual. Mutations systematically destroy genetic information—even as word processing errors destroy written information. While there are some rare beneficial mutations (even as there are rare beneficial misspellings), bad mutations outnumber them—perhaps by a million to one. So even allowing for beneficial mutations, the net effect of mutation is overwhelmingly deleterious.

The fact that Sanford wrote it doesn’t make it true, John. If you were really concerned about truth, you would go for evidence, not just hearsay that agrees with what you wish to be true.

I suggest that you look into the history of the wheat that most of us eat every day. It comes from massive amounts of X-ray mutagenesis and intergeneric hybridization–two things that shouldn’t have worked if creationist dogma is correct.

I’d say that the existence of today’s wheat in the real world trumps Sanford’s computer simulation. Wouldn’t you?

[Joao]

@johnZ

Dawkins’ science is almost as flawed as his philosophy.

I don’t think you’re familiar with his science. His science is not what’s in the books he has written since his retirement as an active scientist.

If you disagree, maybe you could comment on this paper:
R. Dawkins & M. Impekoven (1969) The ‘peck/no-peck’ decision-maker in the black-headed gull chick.
Animal Behaviour 17, 134-141

[Joao]

@GJDS

I will remind people that no other discipline in the Natural sciences spends 5 minutes considering biological evolution - for the simple fact that it is not an ubiquitous theory for the sciences and indeed, philosophically, it leaves much to the imagination and not to testable science.

GJDS,
Common descent makes eminently testable mathematical predictions that are tested every time a molecular biologist clones a gene for the first time. Most of those molecular biologists eagerly check those evolutionary predictions without being evolutionary biologists. No philosophy involved.

[Joao]

@OldTimer

And nobody is criticizing the fundamentals of evolutionary biology on a scientific basis because 99.9% of the opposition has always come from those with religion-based reasons for opposing it.

@johnZ

This is part of your paradigm, old timer, that opposition to evolution based on faith cannot critique evolution on a scientific basis. This is false facts and false reasoning. It is interesting also how evolution also has “fundamentals”, which is obvious to me, and which leads me to conclude that there are evolutiionary fundamentalists also.

That’s not what OldTimer wrote. He never wrote anything about can vs. cannot, he wrote about where it actually comes from, which is correct.

And it’s not at all interesting that evolution has fundamentals, because every field does. What’s far more interesting to me is that you prefer to twist OldTimer’s words instead of learning the fundamentals of something you fear as a threat to your faith. What are you afraid of? Why do you keep the fundamental evidence, provided by God, at arm’s length and pretend that it’s all about hearsay instead of evidence? Clearly, OldTimer has been there and has a deep understanding of your fear of evidence.

[Joao]

@OldTimer

It can be very easy to let pride overshadow the scientific evidence.

This says it all. One might also modify it to:

It can be very easy to let pride lead to fear of examining the scientific evidence for yourself.

[GJDS]

@Joao

Common descent makes eminently testable mathematical predictions that are tested …

You keep making these pronouncements as if you have performed all sorts of experiments. Please let us know of your eminently testable predictions, and what you and your co-workers and colleagues have said about your work, so that we may marvel and learn from your great knowledge of these matters.

[Joao]

@GJDS

You keep making these pronouncements as if you have performed all sorts of experiments.

I’d say that you are projecting your predilection for making pronouncements onto me. Note your pronouncement to which I was taking exception:

@GJDS

I will remind people that no other discipline in the Natural sciences spends 5 minutes considering biological evolution…

Do you have any evidence for that? I will be happy to provide evidence contradicting your global negative claim when you do so.

[Patrick]

Here is another new conclusion on the origins of life in the universe. Science or pseudoscience?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151013175916.htm

[GJDS]

I suggest you make an effort to understand the difference between speculation in science, and tested, verified, reproducible science. This sort of thing has gone on for decades - a useful review has been written by Davies et al, and chirality is a major area that these people have tried to tackle with little success (as well as autocatalysis, template, various clays as catalysts - the list goes on). Chemists have known how to synthesise a mixture of any number of optical isomers as a mixture, and also how to separate them. At no point has any serious worker used conditions (or made any such claims) to synthesize mixtures, let alone optically pure isomers, that are even vaguely similar to what is supposed to have existed in a primal earth.

[GJDS]

Frankly I think you are making remarks for the sake of it - just for anyone who is serious, the disciplines that have never referred to neo-Darwinian thinking include: all disciplines and sub disciplines of chemistry (e.g. theoretical, analytical, physical, organometallic, organic, catalytic, environmental, and the rest), all sub disciplines of physics, geochemistry (albeit geological ages are relevant), coal science, to name a few. In response to another strident proclaimer, I looked up the courses taught by all Universities in my country (and these include those ranked in the top 50 worldwide) and could only find one that included a course in evolutionary biology, and this was part of the Zoology Department. I will not make any further remarks to you as it is clearly a waste of time.

[Chris_Falter]

Dr. Schaffner,

I saw your presentation on evolution and the human genome…'twas marvelous and enlightening! I would be interested in reading about specific cases of beneficial mutations being driven to high frequency. Could you provide a couple of links for the curious?

Thanks!

Chris Falter

[Chris_Falter]

@GJDS - Dr. Steve Schaffner, who has made several comments in this thread under the moniker “glipsnort,” is a researcher on genetics and evolution at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT. Since you asked about the empirical predictions the theory of evolution would make with regard to genetics, you would definitely be interested in this YouTube video of a presentation he made on the subject.

Do tell me what you think after you watch it.

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

EDIT: Fixed URL. Thanks for pointing that out, Dr. Schaffner (glipsnort)

[Chris_Falter]

@GJDS - You seem to conclude that evolution is not critical to science based on the fact that only one university course in your country has the words “evolutionary biology” in it. If I am not understanding your argument, please excuse my misunderstanding.

But if I have understood it correctly, I will go on to say that your methodology is quite suspect. Just because the word “evolution” is not in the title of a biology class does not mean the class does not consider evolution as an important topic.

So I decided to look at some university biology classes in my home environment, South Carolina (USA). For my sample, I tried to determine how many of the biology classes offered at the University of South Carolina do not consider evolution as an important topic. Not having time to look at the entire catalog, I just chose the first 7 that appear in the catalog:

BIOL 110 - GENERAL BIOLOGY
Doesn’t have evolution in the title. However, the course overview states: “The student will have the opportunity to learn about three of the most important sub-disciplines within biology that impact our daily lives; inheritance, evolution, and ecology.”

PHIL 524 - PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY
“Examination of major conceptual, theoretical, and methodological issues in biological science. Topics include reductionism, units of selection, adaptationism, relations between evolutionary and developmental biology and between biology and society.” Doesn’t have “evolution” in the title, but clearly it is a major topic in the course.

BIOL 120 - Human Biology
“Fundamental principles of human biology.” No mention of evolution in the course title, but according to the course overview, “Topics will include…role of genetics and evolution on humans.”

BIOL 571 - Conservation Biology
Doesn’t include evolution in the title. But according to the course description, “The objectives of this course are to teach students to (1) apply an understanding of ecological and evolutionary processes to problems in conservation biology at the scale of individuals to landscapes…”

BIOL 546 - Biochemistry/Molecular Biology I
I spent 20 minutes trying to find a course overview, but couldn’t. But I would note that molecular biology is at the heart of Michael Behe’s books that dispute evolution and propose intelligent design as an alternative.

BIOL 630 - Biology of Birds
“Biology of birds at molecular, organismal, and population levels, emphasizing unique adaptations of the class of Aves.” When you talk about adaptations, you’re definitely talking about evolution.

BIOL 652 - Evolutionary Biology
Obvious.

From this little survey: I would conclude the following:

(1) You can easily find university biology courses without “evolution” in the title.

(2) You cannot teach most (if not all) of those courses without discussing evolution.

Grace and peace,

Chris Falter

[johnZ]

sorry to insert here, but there is a difference between teaching a course which assumes evolution vs a course that requires evolution in order to understand or utilize the subject matter. It’s a bit like saying you cannot study theology without discussing evolution. This would be true in the sense that evolution is hard to ignore . But the subject matter itself does not require evolution in order to understand it. You have mentioned biology texts and courses, and of course, evolution is the religion of biology. But remember physics, inorganic and organic chemistry, nuclear chemistry, medicine, dentistry, agronomy, mechanical engineering, civil engineering… there is lots of science. Not just biology. Besides this, it is not just bringing up the theory, but the application of a theory to practical results that is really the issue.

The leader of CMI for example is a medical doctor who sees no relevance of evolution .
I’m sure GJDS will provide a better response than mine.

[beaglelady]

You are so right. Evolution is the foundation of the biological sciences. And of course evolution is part of the Next Generation Science Standards

[johnZ]

Biological sciences existed long before evolution, so it would be difficult to sustain that evolution is “the foundation”. It’s an add-on.

[Patrick]

Yes, like genetics is an add-on too.

[beaglelady]

We could study earth science before we knew about plate tectonics, but now plate tectonics is the foundation of earth science. So these theories have greater explanatory power and have been adopted. Unless somebody has a superior explanation for for dew claws on cattle and splint bones, ergots and chestnuts on horses, we understand them to be vestigial structures from these animals’ evolutionary past.