tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post7108290479185860429..comments2024-01-10T17:36:15.040-07:00Comments on The Lippard Blog: The Voyage That Shook the WorldLippardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-34548915963993630762009-11-16T09:39:57.764-07:002009-11-16T09:39:57.764-07:00I don't generally post emails without permissi...I don't generally post emails without permission of the sender.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-43298200803333569562009-11-15T20:19:07.805-07:002009-11-15T20:19:07.805-07:00Could you post the email responses instead of givi...Could you post the email responses instead of giving us your summary of them. Thanks :)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06958142116317213591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-7585015363907266002009-09-04T05:44:41.932-07:002009-09-04T05:44:41.932-07:00"I almost had the impression that I was witne..."I almost had the impression that I was witnessing the evolution of a new form of creationism-as-hyperevolution"<br /><br />If I correctly recall, Hugh Ross has named young earth creationists as "short term macroevolutionists". <br /><br />nice review.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05811831790566180266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-24418696878853154222009-08-10T15:30:32.878-07:002009-08-10T15:30:32.878-07:00Abel's comments seem to be assuming some kind(...Abel's comments seem to be assuming some kind(s) of dualism or irreducible intentionality (like John Searle), and I don't think it's a response to my point that GA can demonstrate an increase in information without intelligent design. To argue that a computer simulation is smuggling in "know-how" is a flawed argument addressed back in Philip Kitcher's _Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism_ regarding creationist arguments about thermodynamics. Whether GA is an accurate *model* of the details of biological evolution is a separate issue.<br /><br />The "Origin-of-Life Foundation" he is associated with seems to be promoting a hodge-podge of <a href="http://lifeorigin.info/rul_sugg.htm" rel="nofollow">recommended readings</a>, that don't appear to have been selected on the basis of quality--it's a mix of self-published nonsense, popular works, serious works, and creationist works.<br /><br />They're purportedly offering an <a href="http://lifeorigin.info/rul_priz.htm" rel="nofollow">"Origin-of-Life" prize of $1M</a> (payable as a $50,000/year annuity over 20 years), but the Foundation's Form 990s show FY 2007 revenue of $12,923 ($12K from David L. Abel and $923 in interest), expenses of $10,453 (mostly office- and website-related), and net assets of $25,031. So obviously they can't pay that prize out of their assets.<br /><br />It doesn't appear to be actually funding any real research.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-39993924751938678352009-08-09T16:35:53.697-07:002009-08-09T16:35:53.697-07:00Copernic spruiketh:
“Miller and Urey did not atte...Copernic spruiketh:<br /><br />“Miller and Urey did not attempt to demonstrate a naturalistic origin of life. They instead provided evidence that a naturalistic origin of life was possible by demonstrating that complex organic compounds (amino acids) can be formed naturaly [<i>sic</i>] from inorganic compounds and simpler organic precursers [<i>sic</i>] (CH3 [<i>sic</i>] for instance).”<br /><br />Funny, this sort of experiment is <i>often</i> touted as proof for chemical evolution (aka abiogenesis). But a major problem is that the amino acids are too dilute, contaminated and racemic to progress further. No wonder evolutionist Robert Matthews said:<br /><br />“The scientists themselves seem convinced that they have made a big breakthrough in solving the mystery of life’s origins. But coming to that conclusion from the discovery of a single amino acid is like believing that if you find a metal bolt, you’ve made a big breakthrough towards building yourself a Porsche.” [Beware of over-hyped breakthroughs: The media can hardly be blamed if scientists give their findings more spin than Rafael Nadal, <i>BBC Focus</i> <b>200</b>:98, March 2009.]<br /><br />As for genetic algorithms, David Abel states:<br /><br />“All too many evolutionary computationists fail to realize the purely formal nature of GA procedures. GAs are not dealing with physicodynamic cause-and-effect chains. First, what is being optimized is a formal representation of meaning and function. A representation of any kind cannot be reduced to inanimate physicality. Second, “potential solutions” are formal, not merely physical entities. Third, at each iteration (generation) a certain portion of the population of potential solutions is deliberately selected by the agent experimenter (artificial selection) to “breed” a new generation. The optimized solution was purposefully pursued at each iteration. The overall process was entirely goaldirected (formal). Real evolution has no goal [refs.]. Fourth, a formal fitness function is used to define and measure the fittest solutions thus far to a certain formal problem. The act of defining and measuring, along with just about everything else in the GA procedure, is altogether formal, not physical [refs.].<br /><br />“Despite the appealing similarities of terms like “chromosomes”, GAs have no relevance whatsoever to molecular evolution or gene emergence. Inanimate nature cannot define a fitness function over measures of the quality of representations of solutions. GAs are no model at all of natural process. GAs are nothing more than multiple layers of abstract conceptual engineering. Like language, we may start with a random phase space of alphabetical symbols. But no meaning or function results without deliberate and purposeful selection of letters out of that random phase space.” [The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity, <i>International Journal of Molecular Sciences</i> <b>10</b>:247–291, 9 January 2009 | doi:10.3390/ijms10010247 ]Ktisophiloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16718156076583190052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-53211777361119221462009-08-04T17:30:17.802-07:002009-08-04T17:30:17.802-07:00PlagioCase: I read and replied to your previous co...PlagioCase: I read and replied to your previous comment.<br /><br />You are mistaken to equate atheism and evolution--although scientists, and biologists in particular, are less likely to believe in God than the general population, even a majority of theist biologists accept evolution.<br /><br />As for trying out the biblical worldview, I <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Leaving-Fold-Testimonies-Former-Fundamentalists/dp/1591022177/jimlippardswebpaA" rel="nofollow">already did that for about a decade</a>. I think there is ample evidence that Christianity is a diverse set of mutually inconsistent false religious sects.<br /><br />I don't doubt that there can be cases of rapid change, though I'd want to see support from a peer-reviewed journal before accepting a creationist web page description at face value. But speciation has been observed in both laboratory and the wild.<br /><br />This doesn't really help young-earth creationism, since there is overwhelming evidence of the great age of the earth, the falsity of flood geology, and common ancestry of all life on the planet.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-69590625331324343142009-08-04T16:58:37.654-07:002009-08-04T16:58:37.654-07:00It seems my post yesterday may have fallen through...It seems my post yesterday may have fallen through the cracks.<br /><br />Jim: We can go down all sorts of rabbit trails but I wanted to reply to your statement: "... rapidity of evolution that evolutionary scientists would reject as implausible."<br /><br />I gave you a link to real-life scientific examples that show rapid post-Flood speciation IS plausible. And when we are talking about the past, plausibility is as far as we can go.<br /><br />This is a worldview issue. That is, it is not primarily about the evidence, although the evidence is important. It is about how the evidence is interpreted. Those who are committed to atheism will invent arguments that discredit the biblical record. And if one argument does not work they will look for another. That is what they are looking for. That is what motivates them. Those who are committed to a biblical worldview do the same thing. <br /><br />So I would like to offer you a personal invitation. For a little while, step inside the biblical worldview. Assume it is true, just for a little while. Have a look at how it explains the evidence. See what the problems are. See how many answers there are to many of those problems. <br /><br />So, instead of saying "I reject that as implausible" I would invite you to ask instead, "What sort of processes could be invoked to explain this evidence from within the biblical worldview." Instead of looking for problems, try for a little while to find some answers.<br /><br />I don't need to mention that this is a huge issue culturally and personally, which, no doubt, is why you are so involved in debating it. <br /><br />If there is NO God then none of us will have to give any account for anything we do when we leave this planet. We're just worm fodder and that is it. <br /><br />But if God is real, if he in fact created, then the consequences are very different. That is why questions about where we came from and why we are here refuse to go away.PlagioClasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582171143335991684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-37803856495352307302009-08-04T16:47:26.122-07:002009-08-04T16:47:26.122-07:00Physicalist doesn't know what he's talking...Physicalist doesn't know what he's talking about. <a href="http://creation.com/genesis-questions-and-answers#fathers" rel="nofollow">All the church fathers and reformers believed in a young earth</a>, and most believed in creation in 6 normal-length days, as per a grammatical historical (originalists/textualist) hermeneutic (I don't know who these "literalists" are). But much of the Church of England had capitulated to Hutton and Lyell by Darwin's day, which is how I took Bowler's comment as "largely settled".<br /><br />BTW, a professor in a British Commonwealth country is the highest rank of lecturer, unlike in America where it's used of any lecturer. This means Burgess is very high up in his field.<br /><br />Also, <a href="http://creation.com/emil-silvestru" rel="nofollow">Silvestru was head scientist at the world’s first Speleological Institute in Cluj</a>. So don't denigrate him because he <i>chose</i> a career change in working for CMI; he is a genuine scientist with many published papers in his field (caves and karst.).<br /><br />As for the rapid speciation, more likely: anticreationists try to overload the Ark by imputing the "fixity of species" nonsense to the biblical account. Woodmorappe was hardly the first to show up this fallacy (much better to read the book rather than rely just on hostile reviewers).Ktisophiloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16718156076583190052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-82026440709341961452009-08-03T20:27:15.179-07:002009-08-03T20:27:15.179-07:00Blyth's theory was a theory of elimination rat...Blyth's theory was a theory of elimination rather than selection, though he <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precursnatsel.html" rel="nofollow">subsequently became a supporter of Darwin</a>.<br /><br />Perhaps John Wilkins or John Lynch can comment further on Blyth's views and how they changed after Darwin.<br /><br />In any case, Blyth's original view was incorrect.<br /><br />As for fixity of species, there were certainly creationist advocates of the view in the 19th century (e.g., Agassiz and Cuvier). Modern young-earth creationists like Henry Morris argued that natural selection is a passive conservative process that eliminates variation and can never produce new variants, which appears to rule out speciation. If you took a poll of creationists in the audience at any "Back to Genesis" seminar and asked, "is it possible for one species to evolve into another," I suspect you'd get a nearly unanimous "no" answer, with perhaps a rare few saying "maybe, if the species are within the same kind or baramin."<br /><br />Creationists have long argued that there are no transitional forms at any level of taxonomy, <a href="http://www.icr.org/living-fossils/" rel="nofollow">not even between species</a>. (Is the ICR a "straw man"?) The pseudoscience of "baraminology" didn't appear until what, the 1990s?<br /><br />And there's still no good creationist argument or evidence for limits on evolutionary change.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-28074720459979133412009-08-03T18:47:10.643-07:002009-08-03T18:47:10.643-07:00Jim: Progress being made? Let's dispense wit...Jim: Progress being made? Let's dispense with this "creationists believed in the fixity of species" strawman. You saw the comment by Carter on The Voyage about Edwin Blythe and natural selection and the other discussion on the Galapagos about this?PlagioClasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582171143335991684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-1425446161509456992009-08-03T18:21:53.881-07:002009-08-03T18:21:53.881-07:00PlagioCase: Glad to see there's some progress ...PlagioCase: Glad to see there's some progress being made and that creationists now all agree that new species can arise by natural selection, and therefore there's no reason not to think that human beings are descended from other species of Homo, for which we have ample fossil and genetic evidence. Right?<br /><br />But seriously, your comment doesn't really take note of the severity of the problem for a post-Noah's flood view--see <a href="http://ncseweb.org/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark" rel="nofollow">the Robert A. Moore article</a>, which I also cited earlier in this comment thread along with the exchange between John Woodmorappe and Glenn Morton.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-38592859708608717502009-08-03T17:59:41.170-07:002009-08-03T17:59:41.170-07:00Jim, you said "The film suggests that ... the...Jim, you said "The film suggests that ... the wide diversity and geographic dispersal of living things emerged in the last few thousand years since the flood of Noah, which entails a rapidity of evolution that evolutionary scientists would reject as implausible."<br /><br />It does happen quickly as has been documented. This article gives a host of examples. http://creation.com/speedy-species-surprise<br /><br />When you consider the mechanisms involved in these examples it is clear why rapid speciation occurs.PlagioClasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01582171143335991684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-1999860953471234752009-08-02T14:32:13.258-07:002009-08-02T14:32:13.258-07:00valdemar: Corrected! Thanks.valdemar: Corrected! Thanks.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-55850360203708895632009-08-02T12:43:08.626-07:002009-08-02T12:43:08.626-07:00English bore here with a minor correction. Darwin ...English bore here with a minor correction. Darwin sailed aboard HMS Beagle. She was not 'the HMS Beagle', because the letters stand for 'His/Her Majesty's Ship'. <br /><br />Yeah, I know. But would you write 'the HIV virus'?valdemarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03829872956512652469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-32179062270945213102009-08-01T19:43:02.382-07:002009-08-01T19:43:02.382-07:00Hurricane: Of course they're not magic. But th...Hurricane: Of course they're not magic. But they can produce new information.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-23820070500936950752009-08-01T19:19:32.270-07:002009-08-01T19:19:32.270-07:00Genetic algorithms are pretty cool, and can be ext...Genetic algorithms are pretty cool, and can be extremely useful in certain situations. They're not magic.OneFishWithTwoScaleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04623105715397695284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-40122222461665370832009-08-01T18:05:36.825-07:002009-08-01T18:05:36.825-07:00Physicalist: That makes sense. It would be inter...Physicalist: That makes sense. It would be interesting to hear if Bowler considered *that* statement of his to have been taken out of context or misrepresented.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-5283186968134303212009-08-01T17:16:55.581-07:002009-08-01T17:16:55.581-07:00{I}t makes an odd assertion that the great age of ...<i>{I}t makes an odd assertion that the great age of the earth was a settled question in Darwin's time, unlike today. . . . Particularly odd was that this remark came from historian Peter Bowler.</i><br /><br />He may have been referring to the fact that there really wasn't a young-Earth creationist movement in the mid-19th century, even among the hard-core religious.<br />Biblical literalism (and with it, young-Earth creationism) only took off in the early 20th century.<br /><br />(You're of course correct that scientists then and now recognized that the Earth is quite old.)Physicalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13517496497063768807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-49476994810758367232009-08-01T11:55:23.659-07:002009-08-01T11:55:23.659-07:00The onus is on the creationist to give a formal de...<i>The onus is on the creationist to give a formal definition of information and demonstrate that it cannot be increased through well-known biological processes</i>.<br /><br />As <a href="http://evolvingthoughts.net/2009/07/07/informational-caloric/" rel="nofollow">Wilkins reported</a> they seem to think information is some sort of semantic phlogiston or computational caloric.John Pierethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336244849636477317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-65920401899837773792009-08-01T11:52:53.354-07:002009-08-01T11:52:53.354-07:00sez 'Duke of Earl': "Data corruption,...sez 'Duke of Earl': "Data corruption, mutations, do not increase the information quality of the program..."<br />Got a question for you, Duke: How do you determine the "quality" of information in a genetic sequence? Just to make it a bit easier for you to answer that question, I'm going to provide a pair of genetic sequences so's you can determine the "quality" of the information in each sequence, and thereby determine which sequence has information of higher "quality". Here are the two sequences...<br /><br /><b>Sequence 1</b>: cag tgt ctt ggg ttc tcg cct gac tac gag acg cgt ttg tct tta cag gtc ctc ggc cag cac ctt aga caa gca ccc ggg acg cac ctt tca gtg ggc act cat aat ggc gga gta cca agg agg cac ggt cca ttg ttt tcg ggc cgg cat tgc tca tct ctt gag att tcc ata ctt<br /><br /><b>Sequence 2</b>: tgg agt tct aag aca gta caa ctc tgc gac cgt gct ggg gta gcc act tct ggc cta atc tac gtt aca gaa aat ttg agg ttg cgc ggt gtc ctc gtt agg cac aca cgg gtg gaa tgg ggg tct ctt acc aaa ggg ctg ccg tat cag gta cga cgt agg tat tgc cgt gat aga ctg<br /><br />I await your answer, 'Duke'. Thanks in advance!Cubisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18112097625072217558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-87712167709757378142009-08-01T10:52:00.105-07:002009-08-01T10:52:00.105-07:00Jeff: Thanks for your comment--I was going to ask...Jeff: Thanks for your comment--I was going to ask you to throw in your two cents regarding the information remarks in the film.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-42336525495929732012009-08-01T10:41:08.396-07:002009-08-01T10:41:08.396-07:00It is true that the film makers should have spent ...<i>It is true that the film makers should have spent more time defining information in the genetic sense. It is akin to the information sequence in a computer program that provides a series of instructions for the assembly of living organism. I'd liken it to a CAD/CAM program. Data corruption, mutations, do not increase the information quality of the program, they might, through random chopping and changing, increase the quantity. Much as if I copy/pasted this comment you would have "more" information but it wouldn't give you anything you didn't have already.<br /></i><br /><br />Look, mathematicians and computer scientists have been working with formal definitions of information for 50 years now. Measuring information is well understood, and we do <i>not</i> talk about "quality of information". Furthermore, it is well known that processes like mutation, recombination, and gene duplication can generate information in the mathematical sense.<br /><br />The onus is on the creationist to give a formal definition of information and demonstrate that it cannot be increased through well-known biological processes. This creationists have consistently failed to do.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-14637059615814312092009-08-01T10:38:19.548-07:002009-08-01T10:38:19.548-07:00Jim,
Nice write-up. I suppose some creationists m...Jim,<br />Nice write-up. I suppose some creationists may find this a "fair minded" review only because you omitted the name calling they may have expected. The review, however, does expose their dishonesty and self-imposed ideological brain clamps nonetheless.<br /><br />Duke of Earl asserts that the Miller–Urey Experiments attempted to demonstrate the "naturalistic origin of life", and that he "corrected" a contributor. I find this laughable. Miller and Urey did not attempt to demonstrate a naturalistic origin of life. They instead provided evidence that a naturalistic origin of life was possible by demonstrating that complex organic compounds (amino acids) can be formed naturaly from inorganic compounds and simpler organic precursers (CH3 for instance). This is a completely different claim.<br /> <br />As for DofE's statement that mutations do not increase the quality of information (he's wrong, of course), perhaps he feels comfortable discounting the entire field of study of gene duplication/amplification. Why bring this up other than show his ignorance of genetics? Darwin certainly didn't know about it, thus his evidence and propositions did not address the field of genetics.<br /><br />DoE expresses certainty on two subjects he clearly doesn't know anything about. He should perhaps put some qualifiers in front of his statements next time, such as "I don't believe.." and "as far as I know..." and "my religion keeps me from accepting...". We could then have a more honest discussion.<br /><br />JJason Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03095564035556355920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-45147434131613686712009-08-01T09:44:15.219-07:002009-08-01T09:44:15.219-07:00John: You're correct that creationists have ar...John: You're correct that creationists have argued that microevolution within "kinds" since the ark allowed for fewer, broader "kinds" to have to use the available space, but I don't recall seeing a version of creationism that relied only upon a young earth as the argument that there must have also been special creation. And, of course, I still haven't seen that, since the "limits to change" and "no new information" arguments both came up in this film.<br /><br />The implausibility of post-Noah creationist hyperevolution is a point I've seen made before, as well, e.g., by <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html" rel="nofollow">Glenn Morton in response to Woodmorappe</a>, and by Robert A. Moore in his <a href="http://ncseweb.org/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark" rel="nofollow">"Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark"</a> article from Creation/Evolution, which was the driver for Woodmorappe's article.<br /><br />I should also link to <a href="http://home.entouch.net/dmd/woodrad.htm" rel="nofollow">Morton's reply to Woodmorappe's response</a>.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-43659409897947646532009-08-01T09:00:06.692-07:002009-08-01T09:00:06.692-07:00Good write up, Jim. The Creationist movement is be...Good write up, Jim. The Creationist movement is becoming more subtle in how it delivers its message. The production standards are much better with every passing year as well.<br /><br />At this point, it seems to me that the goal is to hook people who are maybe skeptical of evolution and exploit that skepticism. <br /><br />It seems like creationists are determined to be a permanent part of the debate though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com