How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

My point with "something out of something" is that this could occur without violating the ideas of ID.

very true... i don't see anything wrong with ID as a concept... i think it is important to think about the philosophical side of science from time to time... the only problem i see is when people try do define ID as science

[Nurvingiel]

I fail to see why ID (according to some, anyway) needs to be a scientific theory. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with it as a philosophical idea, or world view. Philosophy is just as good an outlook as science. They can't answer all the same questions, but one isn't better than the other.

[Jonathan]

I’d like to dig up one of RÃ*an’s post from 2003 in the Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution thread.
If you hate lengthy posts (most of it being boring bioinformatics) I suggest you stop reading now

The post is about homology, which means that one biological structure (an limb, an enzyme, a gene etc.) has a common evolutionary origin as another biological structure. Homologous genes happen to be the thing about evolution that interest me the most, since by comparing two homologous genes in two different species, you can tell how closely related the species are from an evolutionary point of view and even estimate how long ago the two species separated (when one species was split into two).

RÃ*an said in her post:

... However, there is data that flatly contradicts the evolutionary common ancestor idea. If the common ancestor idea is true, then the common traits MUST be in a branching, unbroken line. However, this is NOT always the case by any means. For example, some shrimp-like creatures that live in the deep ocean have compound eyes, and their supposed close evolutionary relatives have totally different eyes. And some other animals that are NOT supposed to be close have the same eyes. And the hemoglobin in red blood cells – it occurs randomly in invertebrates, not in a direct branching line. Hemoglobin is in nearly all vertebrates, but also in some earthworms, some starfish, some mollusks, and some insects. It is NOT in a direct line branching pattern at all in these cases, and it must be consistently this way for evolutionism to be true. Looking at different traits, you can claim that humans are closely related to many different animals! One trait says we’re most closely related to chickens (lysozume), another says that we’re most closely related to insects (hemoglobin). They can’t both be right.

RÃ*an is right when she says that homologous traits should be in a branching unbroken line. And as far as I know, the existence of a broken line has ever been proved. RÃ*an mentions how “animals that are NOT supposed to be close have the same eyes”. I think she is referring to the fact that even though vertebrates and octopuses aren’t that closely related, they have strikingly similar eye structures. This would be a problem for ToE if the eye structures were homologous! But they aren’t - the eyes of octopuses and vertebrates do not share the same origin. The eye structures are instead analogous which means they have similar functions. It is very important to keep the terms “homology” and “analogy” apart.

Homology = Same origin
Analogy = Same function (without the same origin)

Even if the octopus and vertebrate eyes are stunningly alike, there are major structural differences (as you will expect since they’re not related to one another). Non-homologous genes in octopuses and vertebrates code for construction of their eyes, whereas the “eye genes” in for example cat and dog are homologous.

RÃ*an also mentions hemoglobin and that human hemoglobin shows more similarity to hemoglobin found in certain insects than to hemoglobin in other animals (animals that should be more closely related to us). Now the first thing I thought when I read this was “Is there any insect that has hemoglobin at all? Insects don’t have blood!” After some quick searches on Google it turned out a small number of insects do in fact have hemoglobin precursors. That was news to me

I decided to check for myself whether this claim by RÃ*an was correct or not. I searched through online protein databases to see if I could find hemoglobin homologues in insects. In humans, there are different types of hemoglobin. I searched the databases for hemoglobin alpha and beta, which are both redundant in our red blood cells. I even searched for homologues to the more rare variants gamma, delta and theta.

What results did I get? Did I find any homologues? As I expected - no, I didn’t. There were no homologues of human hemoglobin in insects. And mind you that the databases I used are pretty darn large and contain basically every gene and protein that has ever been sequenced (including the full human genome and the full genomes of many popular model systems, such as E.coli, mouse, rat and zebrafish). If someone had found a hemoglobin in an insect that looked like human hemoglobin, they would have had to sequence the protein and if they had done that, they would most likely also have submitted the sequence to a database. If this form of insect hemoglobin existed, I would have found it.

In RÃ*an’s post there is also a mention of a chicken lysozyme that is more similar to human lysozyme than the lysozyme of any other animal. I scanned the databases for such a protein as well. And what do you know, I found some homologues! Not surprising though – all vertebrates have lysozymes. What is interesting is that human lysozyme and chicken lysozyme weren’t that similar as RÃ*an had claimed at all. Only about half of the amino acids were the same in both enzymes. When I compared human lysozyme to lysozyme found in chimpanzees, they showed 99% similarity.
Conclusion? We are more closely related to chimpanzees than chickens. The statement that chicken lysozyme suggests we’re evolutionary closer to chickens is simply not true.

Also, do please check out Cirdan’s link which presents other proofs that the chicken lysozyme claim is wrong -
Full text on why "chicken lysozyme theory" is nonsense.


To Creationists and IDists, I’d like to say – please be critical of your sources! Don’t be so quick to swallow everything that looks scientific at the first glance! Don’t trust controversial “facts” without doing some proper research first! RÃ*an’s sources about hemoglobin and lysozyme were evidently wrong. I can see how people with poor knowledge in biochemistry can fall for these kinds of erroneous assertions but for someone who knows more on the subject can easily prove such statements wrong.


RÃ*an – when it comes to homology, in your post you gave creationism a “good grade” and you gave evolution a “mixed grade” with the explanation: “there are some good parts, but some fatal flaws.” Despite this being two years later, I hope you would reconsider your grade seeing as these fatal flaws didn’t exist after all

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I fail to see why ID (according to some, anyway) needs to be a scientific theory.

ID as a "scientific theory" is a result of a political desire to validate the bible through a strictly literal interpretation. It is a failure to acknowledge that most of the biblical text was intended to be metaphorical, and that this is where it's higher meaning and purpose is found.

I getting ready to read "The Heart of Christianity" by Marcus J. Borg which, from what I have read so far, is an interesting source on the subject.

Hi Nurv, Thought I would drop in for the Holidays and see how the Moot is doing.

I agree that elements of ID are more suited to a philosophical discussion, but I also think that the most appropriate place to discuss it is in the context of government and politics. It's story of the evolution (couldn't resist) of the Creationism/ID movement is much more interesting than any "science" this cultural phenomenon has offered to date.

The greatest failure of ID is that it has no useful purpose in furthering understanding of the natural world from a research perspective. If all questions are answered with "it was an act of god" then eventually people will stop asking questions. You may as well teach basket weaving in science classes. At least you would have a basket when you finished.

Any discussion of abiogenesis versus creationism/ID should be left out of the science classroom. There isn't time enough in the day for such a pointless debate.

mmmmmm..... rambling

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

To Creationists and IDists, I’d like to say – please be critical of your sources!

Well, I'd say that to evolutionists, too ... especially those that rely heavily on sources like TalkOrigins whose stated purpose, IIRC, is to uphold evolution (as opposed to, say, keeping an open mind)

RÃ*an – when it comes to homology, in your post you gave creationism a “good gradeâ€� and you gave evolution a “mixed gradeâ€� with the explanation: “there are some good parts, but some fatal flaws.â€� Despite this being two years later, I hope you would reconsider your grade seeing as these fatal flaws didn’t exist after all

Yes, I will - thank you for your research and data! I'll have to reread your post more carefully, as I don't have a biochemistry background. And I've written in some corrections in some of my books in the past. I think there are still some problems with homology, and I'll have to brush up on that subject again.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

ID as a "scientific theory" is a result of a political desire to validate the bible through a strictly literal interpretation.

interesting opinion, especially given that some IDers are agnostics. And you're wrong in another case, too - mine. In my case, I think it's an interesting new topic to study (esp. given my math/simulation/computer background) and it's a welcome trend back towards openmindedness and exploration in the scientific study of origins.

It is a failure to acknowledge that most of the biblical text was intended to be metaphorical ...

You know that "most of the biblical text was intended to be metaphorical" ... how, exactly? Certainly not by talking with the authors! Another interesting opinion of yours, and I have a different one, altho IMO there is certainly a lot of metaphor in the Bible. But that has NOTHING to do with ID.

It's story of the evolution (couldn't resist) of the Creationism/ID movement is much more interesting than any "science" this cultural phenomenon has offered to date.

I certainly agree that the evolution of the movement is fascinating. Personally, I think most of it is a reaction against elitist über-evolutionists who, during discussions, descend to calling IDers names like first-graders on a playground. Thank goodness most evolutionists are NOT like this, but some certainly ARE. And a lot of us are getting angry at it.

The greatest failure of ID is that it has no useful purpose in furthering understanding of the natural world from a research perspective. If all questions are answered with "it was an act of god" then eventually people will stop asking questions.

The only place where I see IDers represented as answering "it was an act of god" like this is from evolutionists.

Jonathan - I dug up a bunch of links for you on ID, I'll post them a bit later on.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Well, I'd say that to evolutionists, too ... especially those that rely heavily on sources like TalkOrigins whose stated purpose, IIRC, is to uphold evolution (as opposed to, say, keeping an open mind)

Of course. Everyone should check their sources twice

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes, I will - thank you for your research and data! I'll have to reread your post more carefully, as I don't have a biochemistry background. And I've written in some corrections in some of my books in the past. I think there are still some problems with homology, and I'll have to brush up on that subject again.

If there are more problems with homology that the IDists have found, I'd be happy to learn about them

Btw you wouldn't know if there are any scientifically written articles out on the internet that deals with intelligent design in biology - say the discovery of a structure that seems to be the work of a designer? I've searched for articles on PubMed but, needless to say, they don't accept works that they consider "substandard".

[edit]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Jonathan - I dug up a bunch of links for you on ID, I'll post them a bit later on.

Oh. Jolly good

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

I have a theory that the moon is made of cheese. And it's scientific, too. See, I'm wearing a lab coat and I'm holding an Erlenmeyer flask. It is based on research done by Wallace and Grommit.

Even the Vatican gave ID the thumbs down. *ouch*

I like a nice bit of cheeeese[/wallace]
Hi Mark.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I fail to see why ID (according to some, anyway) needs to be a scientific theory. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with it as a philosophical idea, or world view. Philosophy is just as good an outlook as science. They can't answer all the same questions, but one isn't better than the other.

my sentiments exactly nurv!

why can't we all just get along?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Personally, I think most of it is a reaction against elitist über-evolutionists who, during discussions, descend to calling IDers names like first-graders on a playground.

Well thats hardly a basis to found a scientific theory on now is it. Being resentful of mean (german? ) scientists who dont think the same way you do?

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

Even the Vatican gave ID the thumbs down. *ouch*

When?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well thats hardly a basis to found a scientific theory on now is it. Being resentful of mean (german? ) scientists who dont think the same way you do?

but that's the way most new religious sects are founded... it's in the blood

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

interesting opinion, especially given that some IDers are agnostics. And you're wrong in another case, too - mine. In my case, I think it's an interesting new topic to study (esp. given my math/simulation/computer background) and it's a welcome trend back towards openmindedness and exploration in the scientific study of origins.

There are IDists that are agnostics, others are Muslims, some may be Buddhists. However I really doubt there would even be an ID movement if it hadn't been for the preceding Christian creationists who sparked the debate as to whether evolution should be taught in schools. I positive non-creationists are a small minority of the ID movement.
So I think there's definitely some truth in what Cirdan said. IMO it's a truncated form of creationism that was created only to appeal more to society than regular creationism ever could.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

You know that "most of the biblical text was intended to be metaphorical" ... how, exactly? Certainly not by talking with the authors! Another interesting opinion of yours, and I have a different one, altho IMO there is certainly a lot of metaphor in the Bible. But that has NOTHING to do with ID.

Whatever the original intent of the bible texts, the creationist IDists () interpret them quite literal. In the Romance countries of Europe, the bible texts are generally considered metaphorical. A lot of this likely has to do with the Pope and Vatican acknowledging that the bible shouldn't be taken literally (and in the Protestant European countries... well, people there are often not that religious anyway ). This is probably why there hardly is any ID movement in Europe. It's an American phenomenon.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think most of it is a reaction against elitist über-evolutionists who, during discussions, descend to calling IDers names like first-graders on a playground.

Not to be rude or anything, but the people involved in doing research on ID - are they mostly biologists (or are they in a field they know little about)? Because personally I haven't seen much evidence of the former and that's too bad if it was the case.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The only place where I see IDers represented as answering "it was an act of god" like this is from evolutionists.

Since many IDists are creationists, that's not too far from the truth. If you're an IDists and also a creationists, wouldn't it be natural to believe that any intelligent design in biology is an act of God?

[edit]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

When?

When did the Vatican did ID thumbs down? I posted about it a few pages back. Check out this link -
Evolution in the bible, says Vatican

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

When?

Vatican rejects ID as Science

[brownjenkins]

“Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends to be,� the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. “If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.�

wow... i never thought i'd say this but i agree completely with the vatican

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well thats hardly a basis to found a scientific theory on now is it. Being resentful of mean (german? ) scientists who dont think the same way you do?

No, that's not why it was founded. It's only why they're fighting.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

wow... i never thought i'd say this but i agree completely with the vatican

LOL!

Well, I don't take what the Vatican says one way or another. I think about it myself and make my own decisions.

[Curubethion]

Ok...I know that Benedict XVI issued a statement against evolution (atheistic, that is). Don't mistake a Vatican astronomer's stance for the Vatican's stance.

[Nurvingiel]

It doesn't really matter if the Vatican rejects ID or not, unless you're Catholic. Then it's up to you how much it matters.
This doesn't say anything for or against it as a world view or a scientific theory. After all, the Vatican rejected Copernicus' theory that the Earth revolves around the sun in the early 16th century.

I was going to add more, but it's better off in "Evidence for Evolution".

[Curubethion]

Let's get something straight. Just because the Pope doesn't approve something doesn't mean it has to be doctrinally accepted by all Catholics. It just carries with it a great deal of influence. And the Pope didn't condemn heliocentrism. He merely discouraged the teaching of it because it would have resulted in the "Enlightenment" in the 15th century. Remember also that they had just gotten over Luther...