Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, and head of the nation’s human genome project, claims there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries bring man “closer to God”. And he’s written about it in his new book, The Language of God : A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.
This is interesting to me on many levels. First, his daughter (whose name now escapes me) actually worked for me in the labs at UNC-CH when she was an undergrad. Sometimes I wish I would have exploited that friendship to get a job with her Dad on the genome project. We were both Christians, and she told me about her Dad’s strong faith even back then (1990).
But secondly, it is is interesting because he is a theistic evolutionist – that is, he believes that evolution happened, but that it was somehow used or guided by God. From a recent interview, he seems to believe this for many reasons, including the incredible information content of DNA – one of the arguments that IDers use (I TOLD you IDers weren’t just creationists):
"When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind.”
Collins joins a line of scientists whose research deepened their belief in God. Isaac Newton, whose discovery of the laws of gravity reshaped our understanding of the universe, said: “This most beautiful system could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”
Interestingly, he sees evolution as having reached it’s apex! That has many interesting ideological consequences. You can read another good interview with Collins at PBS, where he discusses The Question of God, and his conversion via C.S. Lewis’s book Mere Christianity.
I wanted to move the post below here so it can be addressed in this thread as well.
Creationists have not come up with a way to falsify creationism or ID yet. So, do you admit that they don’t qualify as scientific theory because they can’t be falsified?
Of course genetics equals evolution. You mentioned passing blue eyes down to children. Eye color is a genetic trait correct? Albinism, like eye color, is also a trait that is passed down from parents to children, though its a rarer trait.
(From Wikipedia) Albinism (from Latin albus, meaning “white”) is a lack of pigmentation in the eyes, skin and hair. Albinism is an inherited condition resulting from the combination of recessive alleles passed from both parents of an individual.
Now for the clincher, since albinism is a trait passed down from parents to offspring, how do you explain the occurrence of this trait in other species? Here are some pictures if you don’t believe they occur in many species…
Albino squirrel
Albino gorilla
Albino Slow Loris
Albino rattle snake
Albino kangaroo
Albino alligator
And finally Abino human
Sure species change and adapt. Yes, parents pass on their genes to their children. Tell me again how this proves that we used to be a single-cell organism. –Aaron
The fact that the albino gene can only be passed from parent to child, and the fact that humans share the gene with many other species, should prove to you that we share common descent!!! It’s an INHERITED gene so the only way we have the abino gene is if we inherited it from, say it with me, “a common ancestor.” Dang it, it’s as self evident as the theory of gravity. Don’t stick your head in the sand on this one.
Furthermore, I can see gravity at work in real time. If I drop a rock, it falls. That is easily provable…I cannot and have not seen any type of animal change into another type of animal, neither have you or any scientist. -Aaron
What about this?
Butterfly effect: New species hatches in lab
“The creation of a new species, something that scientific orthodoxy says should take thousands of years of genetic isolation has been achieved in the lab in just three months…”
Now for the clincher, since albinism is a trait passed down from parents to offspring, how do you explain the occurrence of this trait in other species?
I dunno. Isn’t albinism merely caused by a genetic deletion? That could happen to any species.
The fact that the albino gene can only be passed from parent to child, and the fact that humans share the gene with many other species,
Not necessarily. It could mean that they are subject to similar degregdations (deletion) in the genome.
Of course genetics equals evolution.
Wow, talk about non sequiturs. Genetics = the study of the genome. I’m not just playing semantics here – what you wrote makes no sense.
The creation of a new species, something that scientific orthodoxy says should take thousands of years of genetic isolation has been achieved in the lab in just three months
Speciation does not prove evolution. As I have repeatedly said, adaptation, natural selection, and speciation are consistent with creationism. Just because two butterfly populations can’t copulate doesn’t mean they aren’t still both just butterflies. Speciation isn’t leading to any kind of genetic advancement, it’s just a change within an existing kind of creature.
I dunno. Isn’t albinism merely caused by a genetic deletion? That could happen to any species.
Read the definition of albinism.
Of course genetics equals evolution. Passing on of traits. You know what I meant.
Speciation does not prove evolution. As I have repeatedly said, adaptation, natural selection, and speciation are consistent with creationism. Just because two butterfly populations can’t copulate doesn’t mean they aren’t still both just butterflies. Speciation isn’t leading to any kind of genetic advancement, it’s just a change within an existing kind of creature.
Read the article.
Some animals have blue eyes like humans … we must be related.
You have to be joking that you think albinism proves that we all evolved from a single cell organism, right?
Did I miss something on the butterfly? I don’t mean to be sarcastic, but this is why this debate doesn’t go anywhere. I say that I have never seen one type of animal become another type of animal and you say that you prove me wrong by showing that butterflies produce different butterflies (through intelligent design I might add).
And the headline is very misleading because according to the story they didn’t actually produce a new butterfly species, they simply sped up the process for making an already exsisting type.
I thought it was funny how the Guardian went ahead and made editorial comments about how this was damaging to ID or creationism, instead of merely reporting the news. Commenters or editorialists, like Cineaste, can take this information and say it supports this or hurts this, but a news reporter should simply report what happened or at the very least quote a scientist that says this hurts ID and helps evolution.
You have to be joking that you think albinism proves that we all evolved from a single cell organism, right?
Nope, if a gene, such as the gene for albinism, can only be passed on from parent to child then one must ask, why do other species share that gene? Answer, common ancestry.
As for the article, I knew you wouldn’t like it but here it is…
But Chris Jiggins at the University of Edinburgh and his colleagues were able to recreate butterflies with the same characteristics as H. heurippa after just three generations of breeding in the lab between two related parent species – H. melpomene and H. cydno.
They evolved butterflies in the lab. That’s what you asked for.
No I talked about changing one animal into another kind of animal. If the made a butterfly into a cat, now you got me in a bind.
Common ancestry is an explanation of albinism and other things, but you can’t say that is the only explanation because you don’t know. You make the jump that says I think this fits, so everything else is wrong. That is not science.
I find the article interesting. I did not dislike it, but as I quoted them before:
1) They didn’t even make a new species of butterfly. They simply sped up the process, or at least they think they sped up the process because they don’t actually know how many generations it takes to get to that point unless they observed them.
2) Nothing about that article does anything about ID or creationsim. If anything it leans toward ID since it took intelligence (scientists) to simply speed up a process of changing one type of butterfly to another. But somehow this proves that no intelligence was required to make the butterfly initially or every other animal.
We must be very clear on our definitions. Did they evolve butterflies in a lab? Okay, I guess you can say that. But they did microevolution which everyone (creationist, ID’ers, evolutionists) support. No one is doubting that you can make butterflies produce different kinds of butterflies. That has never been our point.
We are clearly taking around one another now and this is geting frustrating (for you as well I assume). We do not doubt that you can make dogs produce different types of dogs. Or even horses reproducing with horse-like animals (donkey, zebra(?), etc.)
What we disagree with is that there is proof that at some point dogs came from something besides a canine or horses came from something besides an animal in the horse family. I hope that is clear now.
This is what you said “It is virtually (if not actually) impossible to prove it (evolution) in a lab”
This is what I said “They evolved butterflies in the lab. That’s what you asked for.”
If the made a butterfly into a cat, now you got me in a bind.
Don’t be ridiculous.
As to your points…
1. They didn’t even make a new species of butterfly. Yes, they made a new species of butterfly.
2. Nothing about that article does anything about ID or creationism. Of course not, ID and Creationism are not science, they deal with the supernatural, so they can’t be falsified. If anything it leans toward ID since it took intelligence (scientists)…changing one type of butterfly to another (new species of butterfly) It also took intelligence (scientists) to clone Dolly the sheep. Dolly’s creation leans no more toward ID than does making new butterfly species.
We do not doubt that you can make dogs produce different types of dogs. Or even horses reproducing with horse-like animals (donkey, zebra(?), etc.)
Why do you stop with horse, donkey, zebra? Why not continue up the family tree? What about hippos? boars? rhinos? If you admit that evolution occurs in an animal family why in heck would evolution not also occur at the order, class, and phylum levels? That you refuse to recognize that evolution does indeed occur at all levels and not just in the dog genus, is why I think creationists are display abject ignorance.
Aaron, you also mentioned microevolution. Does this statement sum you thoughts up…
The genetic variation exhibited in microevolution was deliberately put in place by the creator in advance, and did not arise from mutation.
Here is why this thinking is erroneous…
“(i) Since the kinds of creationists who tend to make this claim also tend to be Biblical literalists, it is worth pointing out that the claim cannot be true if the story of Noah’s Flood is true. According to the Flood story, only two of each kind of creature (or at least of most kinds: there is disagreement between certain verses of Genesis) were taken onto Noah’s boat, while God sent the rest to a watery grave. Since individual organisms can have at most two alleles for each gene locus (we are excluding plants and assuming that Noah did not have Klinefelter syndrome), this means that each surviving kind of organism could have at most four alleles after the Flood, regardless of how many alleles were created by God in the beginning. But we now see far more alleles per locus for many loci in the populations of most organisms, which means they could only have come into existence by mutation.
In fact, the creationist claim is even incompatible with the story of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve could at best hold four alleles per locus in their combined genome. But, as a typical example, locus HLA-DRB1 (one of the genes in the human leukocyte antigen complex) has 59 alleles (Ayala et al. 1993:78). If all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, at least 55 of these alleles must have been generated by mutation in their progeny.
(ii) More importantly from a scientific standpoint, experimentation with bacteria has shown that antibiotic resistance can and does arise from beneficial mutation, rather than being already present in the bacteria. Douglas Futuyma explains:
Joshua Lederberg did an experiment in which he grew thousands of colonies of genetically identical bacteria from a single bacterial cell that was unable to survive in the presence of streptomycin. He divided each colony of cells in two, and grew one half with and one half without streptomycin. A few of the colonies survived on streptomycin, because they carried new mutations for streptomycin resistance. (Futuyma 1983:137)
Since the bacterium from which the resistant colonies evolved was not itself streptomycin resistant, Lederberg’s experiment proves that such resistance is the result of one or more mutations.” -Mark I. Vuletic
Read the article.
I did. He said the process “may explain the remarkable diversity among Heliconius butterflies.” Start with butterflies, end with butterflies. Hence my contention that he didn’t prove any kind of evolution at all – merely a type of speciation. Doesn’t contradict creationism, and doesn’t prove any kind of evolution to another creature.
Read the definition of albinism. Of course genetics equals evolution. Passing on of traits.
Passing on traits is not evolution – it’s merely inheritance. What you have failed to prove is that you have increased information – all you’ve done is mess up the ability to make a certain functional protein. That’s evolution?!? No wonder you believe in “evolution” – heck, I believe in that too! It’s called genetic degredation, exactly what is predicted by the creation model.
NEXT!
BTW, any comment on the original post?
Read the article.
I did.
You must not have understood the part that said, “New species hatches in lab” And how did the new butterfly species “hatch?” Answer: evolution.
Start with butterflies, end with butterflies.
Did you know that there are different species of butterfly? It goes species, genus, family, order, class, and phylum. You admit that evolution occurs on the species level (dogs) and on the genus level (butterflies) so it’s common sense that evolution occurs at the other levels as well.
It’s called genetic degradation, exactly what is predicted by the creation model.
You have a short memory. We discussed genetic degradation in this post
Mutations do add information to the genome.
BTW, any comment on the original post?
All these post topics are really the same debate. Is creationism valid? Unfortunately, there is no evidence for creationism and also, it can’t be falsified. Creationism is not really worth discussing on a scientific level since, well, it’s supernatural. We are able to discuss evolution scientifically so that’s why you always post about it, right?
Isaac Newton, whose discovery of the laws of gravity reshaped our understanding of the universe
…And Darwin would have probably reshaped Newton’s understanding of life. He was a logical thinker, after all.
Here is why I said they didn’t create a new species. I was just reading what they said in the article, besides the attention-grabbing headline and lead:
But again it wouldn’t bother me if they did make a new species, nothing about that tells us anything about the overall theory of evolution, ID or creationism.
As to why I don’t go beyond different types of animal kind in evolution – I have seen no evidence or proof for it. I have seen horses mate with donkeys. I have seen dogs mate with wolves. (Well not personally seen it, but you get the idea.) That is demonstrable – science. Anything beyond that is conjecturer and guesses. Some may be fairly educated guesses, but there is no hard evidence that supports the claim.
See for you it is “common sense” that evolution goes farther that what is observed. Is that “common sense” scientific? Can you quantify “common sense?”
That is my point, you take leaps beyond the observable evidence and call it common sense and stare in wonder when we don’t make the same leap. We take leaps past the evidence and call it faith and you stare in wonder that we would do such an unscientific thing.
Regarding genetics, evolution theorists would argue that laboratory observations can be used to extrapolate to the past. Pseudogenes are shared by humans and chimps, and their formation can be seen in the lab. The relatively random insertions by endogenous retroviruses also provide evidence, especially when matched with the fossil record.
Similar arguments could be made for the efficacy of radiometric dating. Obviously one cannot observe an element decaying over millions of years, but lab rates and astronomical observations provide worthwhile baselines that match our current understanding. The advantage that evolution, old-earth geology, astronomy, etc. have is that they can observe the present and compare with evidence from the past. God has not created planets with the appearance of age or new species out of the dirt, so the best answer from a the perspective of most scientists is that the current observations match the past and genetic similarities are the result of common descent rather than God forming similar creatures with similar genetic oddities.
I don’t find too much of a problem with that IE.
I think there are holes in the things you give as evidence, but it is evidence none the less. I think there is evidence that points the other way, you probably disagree. I have no problem with that.
I don’t mind scientists looking at the evidence and saying I think evolution explains this better. I do mind someone saying because you don’t agree with my interpretation you must be ignorant.
Aaron, you have my curiosity burning but if you don’t mind, I want to go deeper in the evolutionary debate so we can get to things that have not been covered before. What you say here…
As to why I don’t go beyond different types of animal kind in evolution – I have seen no evidence or proof for it. I have seen horses mate with donkeys. I have seen dogs mate with wolves. (Well not personally seen it, but you get the idea.) That is demonstrable – science. Anything beyond that is conjecturer and guesses. Some may be fairly educated guesses, but there is no hard evidence that supports the claim. -Aaron
This essentially translates to, “No one has ever seen one species arise from another.”
Here is the response…
(i) As one example, in 1964, Dr. D. J. Reish removed 5 or 6 polychaetes (Nereis acuminata) from Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor, and grew his sample to a size of thousands. in 1986, four pairs from this group were brought to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; the population at Woods Hole thus had gone through two bottlenecks, which are supposed to help drive evolution through genetic drift. In 1977-1978, two new cultures of N. acuminata were gathered from nearby Long Beach and Newport Beach, and grown under the same conditions as the Woods Hole sample. The three populations were later crossed, and it was found that the only crosses that would not produce viable offspring were the crosses involving the Woods Hole culture and the two new cultures. This signifies nothing less than speciation, and all in the laboratory as well. (Weinberg et al. 1992)
(ii) The young-earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis has has declared this an argument that “should definitely not be used.”
Now, even YEC’s don’t use your rational.
Another point I would like to address is that you accuse me of calling you ignorant because I don’t agree with your interpretation. This is false. Here is why, and it goes beyond ID to belief in God.
“The burden of proof is on the god believer to prove that a god exists. It is not up to the atheist to disprove what has never been established in the first place. So often, I am told, “You cannot prove that there is no god.” This is backwards reasoning. I am not obligated to disprove that a leprechaun is standing beside you. You must first prove to me that one is there. Otherwise, I am under no obligation to accept your leprechaun hypothesis. The default position would be “anti-leprechaunism,” you could say. Is it possible that a leprechaun is next to you? Sure, but I have no reason to believe such a thing, and until I do, I will keep being an “anti-leprechaunist”! The same applies to gods and goddesses of all varieties. On all counts, the theist fails to meet his burden of proof and therefore, atheism stands by default.”
This applies to ID and creationism as well. I am calling you abjectly ignorant because I don’t see the metaphorical leprechaun you claim is standing next to you. Please understand that I do not mean this as an insult. I simply don’t see any evidence for the leprechaun and therefore I conclude that you don’t have the information/knowledge to back it up. Your viewpoint is all supposition.
What I would suggest is that the posts here stop attacking evolution and start supporting creationism/ID so readers can actually know where you guys are coming from. Until you do, it will always be like you are claiming there is a leprechaun next to you and I will continue to call this ignorance on your part. I don’t intend this as an insult, I’m just being truthful. I hope you can understand.
This essentially translates to, “No one has ever seen one species arise from another.”
No, your translation is in error, and so now when you quote the YECs as saying “this is a bad argument”, you have destroyed your straw man, but not the argument that Aaron makes.
He argues that speciation is observed, but this genetic change can not be extrapolated to the point of common ancestry or evolution as an explanation of origins. I mean, you could make such a guess, but you can’t observe such, and there is no direct evidence for such. In fact, in general, it contradicts the many processes that exist to help repair and preserve the genomes. While change happens, the projected increase in functionality, radical change from one genus to another (or class) is just outside of normal variation.
Seeker, my translation is correct. Look…
“I say that I have never seen one type of animal become another type of animal.” -Aaron
This essentially translates to, “No one has ever seen one species arise from another.” See? Species=”type of animal”
I’ll keep hoping for a logical response to this point. I also hope that you don’t ignore the rest of what I said in my post. I put some thought into it because I hardly ever accuse people of ignorance and I want to be sure I have a really good reason to do so.
The short answer is, we have a definitions problem here. When Aaron says “type of animal” or “kind”, he does not mean species, he means something higher, something more like Family. However, our classification system is based on morphology rather than genetics, so the correlation between what creationists call “kinds” and say, the Family level of taxonomy is not really equivalent. You can read this the excellent primer Variation, information and the created kind. I will be writing a post on it next week.
So to follow up, variation within a species, genus, or even a family is not evidence of an increase in complexity, and is not evidence of evolution – it’s merely adaptation and variation within a kind. You’ll never get a human from an ape that way.
When Aaron says “type of animal” or “kind”, he does not mean species. -Seeker
We are arguing semantics now which is useless.
Variation within a species, genus, or even a family is not evidence of an increase in complexity, and is not evidence of evolution – it’s merely adaptation and variation within a kind.
Evolution means change. If you see variation and adaptation occuring in a “kind” of animal that means it’s changing. That’s evolution.
You’ll never get a human from an ape that way.
Apes and humans are primates. That means we had a common ancestor. You do believe in taxonomy right?
In future posts, I hope you present some evidence for the leprechaun (creationism, ID) you say is standing next to you but that we
evolutionistsanti-leprechaunists fail to see.We are arguing semantics now which is useless.
No, not at all. Your defeatist tone means that YOU are bailing out of the discussion. I provided a link with good logic, and you dismiss it as “semantics.” Your refusal to answer my claims with logic is one reason we don’t go anywhere, so don’t think you are not part of the breakdown in communication here.
I am saying that variation within a species, or within a genus, or even a family, is merely variation, and not evolution in the sense that we have increased complexity and evolved. Speciation is not evidence for evolution – it merely means that the two populations can no longer mate, not that they have “advanced.” You only extrapolate on these minor changes, thinking you have proved something bigger – you may or may not be right, but you have no proof, only assumptions! All you can prove is speciation happens. We agree on that – we just disagree on what that means. You should read the article I referenced.
Evolution means change
This is a problem arguing with evolutionists. Evolution means everything from minute changes in the genome to speciation to natural selection to the grand theory of common descent and orogins. You should know damn well by now that such a generic definition of evolution (“change”?) is not what creationists object to. Nobody is objecting to “change, for God’s sake.
Neither do creationists object to speciation, adaptation, many types of gene transfer such as viral insertion, gene duplication, etc. They don’t even object to natural selection. What they object to when they use the term evolution is the macroevolution that is meant when we refer to origins – common descent of all living things. That huge leap of faith from the established processes mentioned above may be correct, but it is not science, it is an educated guess which creationists contend disagrees with what we see in the disciplines of genetics, paleantology, and many other disciplines.
Apes and humans are primates. That means we had a common ancestor. You do believe in taxonomy right?
As far as I know, modern taxonomy is just an organization scheme based on common morphology. You could do that whether things are related or not. In fact, genetics shows that many of our phenotypic taxonomies are incorrect. But even genotypic similarity means only that – similarity, not necessarily relatedness – that’s the evolutionists assumption about similarity.
And within related species, that might not be a bad conclusion – even in the creationists model, many of today’s species come from root kinds (so they are related), but they don’t believe that ALL life originated from some similar point. Nor, conveniently, do they believe that men and apes descended from some common ancestor. But maybe that’s just their theology speaking ;)
In my business, we use taxonomies for organizing job titles. We organize them that way because they are similar, but not because they have common origins. A taxonomy may be a convenient way for us to organize things, but creationists have also suggested some simple taxonomies. Do I believe that taxonomies represent historical “truth”? No. They are a nice organization scheme, nothing more.
I’ll start off with more evidence of evolution for you to deny. You don’t even have to read the article to know you will deny it do you?
Ancestor of modern birds believed found
No, not at all. Your defeatist tone means that YOU are bailing out of the discussion.
Have it your way. You yourself have not addressed many of the points I have made above. I’ll go over them again…
1. If a gene, such as the gene for albinism, can only be passed on from parent to child then one must ask, why do other species share that gene? Your answer was It could mean that they are subject to similar degradations (deletion) in the genome. You would have to prove that this was so in all cases.
2. “The burden of proof is on the god believer to prove that a god exists. It is not up to the atheist to disprove what has never been established in the first place. So often, I am told, “You cannot prove that there is no god.” This is backwards reasoning. I am not obligated to disprove that a leprechaun is standing beside you. You must first prove to me that one is there. Otherwise, I am under no obligation to accept your leprechaun hypothesis. The default position would be “anti-leprechaunism,” you could say. Is it possible that a leprechaun is next to you? Sure, but I have no reason to believe such a thing, and until I do, I will keep being an “anti-leprechaunist”! The same applies to gods and goddesses of all varieties. On all counts, the theist fails to meet his burden of proof and therefore, atheism stands by default.”
This applies to ID and creationism as well. I am calling you abjectly ignorant because I don’t see the metaphorical leprechaun you claim is standing next to you. Please understand that I do not mean this as an insult. I simply don’t see any evidence for the leprechaun and therefore I conclude that you don’t have the information/knowledge to back it up. Your viewpoint is all supposition.
3. Aaron, you also mentioned microevolution. Does this statement sum you thoughts up…
The genetic variation exhibited in microevolution was deliberately put in place by the creator in advance, and did not arise from mutation. Seeker, since you want to argue semantics I’ll assume it does sum Aarons thoughts up so address it or I’ll assume you have a defeatist tone.
Here is why this thinking is erroneous…
“(i) Since the kinds of creationists who tend to make this claim also tend to be Biblical literalists, it is worth pointing out that the claim cannot be true if the story of Noah’s Flood is true. According to the Flood story, only two of each kind of creature (or at least of most kinds: there is disagreement between certain verses of Genesis) were taken onto Noah’s boat, while God sent the rest to a watery grave. Since individual organisms can have at most two alleles for each gene locus (we are excluding plants and assuming that Noah did not have Klinefelter syndrome), this means that each surviving kind of organism could have at most four alleles after the Flood, regardless of how many alleles were created by God in the beginning. But we now see far more alleles per locus for many loci in the populations of most organisms, which means they could only have come into existence by mutation.
In fact, the creationist claim is even incompatible with the story of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve could at best hold four alleles per locus in their combined genome. But, as a typical example, locus HLA-DRB1 (one of the genes in the human leukocyte antigen complex) has 59 alleles (Ayala et al. 1993:78). If all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, at least 55 of these alleles must have been generated by mutation in their progeny.
(ii) More importantly from a scientific standpoint, experimentation with bacteria has shown that antibiotic resistance can and does arise from beneficial mutation, rather than being already present in the bacteria. Douglas Futuyma explains:
Joshua Lederberg did an experiment in which he grew thousands of colonies of genetically identical bacteria from a single bacterial cell that was unable to survive in the presence of streptomycin. He divided each colony of cells in two, and grew one half with and one half without streptomycin. A few of the colonies survived on streptomycin, because they carried new mutations for streptomycin resistance. (Futuyma 1983:137)
Since the bacterium from which the resistant colonies evolved was not itself streptomycin resistant, Lederberg’s experiment proves that such resistance is the result of one or more mutations.” -Mark I. Vuletic
4. It’s called genetic degradation, exactly what is predicted by the creation model. -Seeker
Basically, degradation because “Mutations never increase the amount of genetic information.”
“It is unclear how to evaluate this claim without a definition of “genetic information.” If the term simply refers to any functional sequence of DNA, then mutations that duplicate functional sequences of DNA obviously can very easily increase the amount of genetic information in a genome. If novelty is also required, then it is worth noting that point mutations to the duplicate sequences can generate novel functions without impairing the original function. This is, in fact, how hemoglobin evolved.” -Mark I. Vuletic
You notice I quote Mark Vuletic’s guide a lot. I love it because it’s as if he went to the YEC site and addressed everything point by point and it puts the ball back in the YEC court so to speak. I’ll address your points now…
I am saying that variation within a species, or within a genus, or even a family, is merely variation, and not evolution in the sense that we have increased complexity and evolved. Speciation is not evidence for evolution – it merely means that the two populations can no longer mate, not that they have “advanced.” You only extrapolate on these minor changes, thinking you have proved something bigger – you may or may not be right, but you have no proof, only assumptions! All you can prove is speciation happens. We agree on that – we just disagree on what that means. You should read the article I referenced.
This is a problem arguing with evolutionists. Evolution means everything from minute changes in the genome to speciation to natural selection to the grand theory of common descent and origins. You should know damn well by now that such a generic definition of evolution (“change”?) is not what creationists object to. Nobody is objecting to “change, for God’s sake.
What they object to when they use the term evolution is the macroevolution that is meant when we refer to origins – common descent of all living things. That huge leap of faith from the established processes mentioned above may be correct, but it is not science, it is an educated guess which creationists contend disagrees with what we see in the disciplines of genetics, paleontology, and many other disciplines. -Seeker
… And what you said above is like the Variation, information and the created kind link you referred me to. It all comes down to the issue of the inability for us to observe evolution happening on a large scale as opposed to the changes/evolution we see happening in the “created kind.”
Macroevolution remains unproved because no one has observed it. In fact, macroevolution is in principle unobservable, so evolution is unscientific.
Although information in experimental science is acquired through observation, the observation of a great amount of indirect evidence of a process makes as good a scientific case as the direct observation of a process. As Michael Ruse asks, “[t]he evidence that I have a heart is all indirect, neither I nor anyone else ever seen it, but does anyone really believe that it is not a fact that I have a heart?” (Ruse 1982:58). In the same way, there is sufficient evidence for macroevolution that it can safely be considered a fact without direct observation of the process occurring in our time. We need not, as many unsophisticated creationists put it, observe cats changing into dogs right before our eyes, in order to have a good case for macroevolution.
Next!
“We need not, as many unsophisticated creationists put it, observe cats changing into dogs right before our eyes, in order to have a good case for macroevolution.”
Or a butterfly into a cat for that matter! :)
If the made a butterfly into a cat, now you got me in a bind. -Aaron
1. If a gene, such as the gene for albinism, can only be passed on from parent to child then one must ask, why do other species share that gene?
I have not studied albinism in detail, but let me say this. The relevant basic assumption behind evolution is that if two organisms are similar in genotype, they must be related. Not a bad assumption, but not provable. Creationists say that if they are of the same “kind,” they came from a common ancestor. But if not, they were created similarly by the same designer. Nice assumption, but again, not provable. And arguably less scientific and unfalsafiable.
But look. All of these animals produce pigment. A simple gene deletion can disable the pigment and cause albinism. We have genetic deletions and mutations going on all the time. If a simple deletion can cause loss of pigment, that would explain similar phenotypes among unrelated organisms, whether or not their pigment-producing genes were similar. However, sharing the same gene really goes back to the central assumption of evolution – that sharing genes means sharing ancestry.
But let me ask you a question. How could you falsify the assumption that common genes means common ancestry?
The burden of proof is on the god believer to prove that a god exists. It is not up to the atheist to disprove what has never been established in the first place. So often, I am told, “You cannot prove that there is no god.”
I agree that you can neither prove nor disprove God. So each may believe as he or she wishes. Nor can I prove that similarity is due to a common designer. You are right, common ancestry is a much more reasonable, naturalistic explanation.
However, regarding ID, they make good use of information theory and statistics to provide a significant challenge to evolution’s claims. But they can’t disprove it, nor do they try to. They are at least saying that current evolutionary theory can not explain the complexity we see. So maybe there was an intelligence – but if we can’t prove it, what good is such a claim? It would be safer to assume there is some naturalistic mechanism at work (let’s ask Wolfram ;).
I do think that Creationism must be careful to not pass of untestable or unfalsifiable assumptions as science. However, evolutionists must to the same. They must admit that common ancestry, while perhaps the best naturalistic explanation we have, is not proven.
And there is contrary evidence and lack of data. And that evidence and lack of data is important for two reasons. First, if the faithful are correct, then we have made a grave error in undermining people’s faith. But that is not really the concern of science. Teh real reason to be circumspect is that, if our theory is wrong and a much better theory is out in the future, our hubris at assuming so much with so little may keep us from the true mechanism. Honesty about the grave weaknesses and limits of current evidence and evolutionary theory is a smart move for the true scientist.
The genetic variation exhibited in microevolution was deliberately put in place by the creator in advance, and did not arise from mutation.
I can tell that you wrote this, rather than Aaron or I. It is a blatant misunderstanding (read “straw man”).
I would say that the genetic variation we see in microevolution has two origins – one, in the built-in mechanisms for adaptation and gene repair (so yeah, the Designer), and the inadvertent mutation (almost always deletrious) caused by the degredation of the genome, and various vectors in the wild.
Look, it is 4am. I’ll get back to you next week. The alleles argument is a good one, and I’ll research it. As to macroevolution, I am glad that you are at least admitting that it is not observable, so you make assumptions about it. But I believe there is evidence supporting the fact that, while organisms can vary, they do so around a mean, and when they get too far away from their “mean genotype”, they regress back towards that mean, rather than jumping to some next level of evolution. I.E. your assumption about what happens if lots of little mutations are put together may be incorrect, and since you can’t observe it, you might as well admit that you may be wrong about evolutionary origins.
In the meantime, you can digest this article about how the human genome points to a recent “population bottleneck”, i.e. modern humans may have recetly descended from a very small group of humans, proably less than 50 (and maybe the family of Noah).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/events.asp
bump
Sorry I missed the argument over what I meant.
Cineaste, I have repeated said I was speaking of something different than species. In this case seeker was right about what I was talking about. Type of animal does not equate with species of animal. If I was not clear about that I apologize. I am well aware that differing species of animals arrives and disappears. But this does not equate with macroevolution.
What I found so funny was your argument about proving God and then your quoting of Ruse about proving macroevolution.
Cineaste wrote at the beginning of the post:
“The burden of proof is on the god believer to prove that a god exists. It is not up to the atheist to disprove what has never been established in the first place. So often, I am told, “You cannot prove that there is no god.” This is backwards reasoning. … On all counts, the theist fails to meet his burden of proof and therefore, atheism stands by default.”
At the end of the post you quote Ruse:
“[t]he evidence that I have a heart is all indirect, neither I nor anyone else ever seen it, but does anyone really believe that it is not a fact that I have a heart?” (Ruse 1982:58). In the same way, there is sufficient evidence for macroevolution that it can safely be considered a fact …”
I would argue that you could substitute God for macroevolution.
So on one hand you argue that theists have not given you (and others) enough proof that there is a God, so atheism is the answer by default. Then you argue that just because you can’t see macroevolution doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
I would apply your case against God to macroevolution. The burden of proof is on the one trying to prove that something unseen exists. I have often heard it said, “You cannot prove that there is no macroevolution.” This is backwards reasoning…
This is so frustrating!
Cineaste, I have repeated said I was speaking of something different than species.
We already went past this. You meant “kind” didn’t you?
You didn’t address any of issues I raised. Why do you even bother to reply when you have no point! Seeker accuses me of having a defeatist attitude when I throw my hands up in frustration with you guys. So I take the time to write huge post and all I get back is sophistry!
I feel like Michelle Goldberg debating a fundamentalist on a radio show. Goldberg made the point that Jesus Christ is not mentioned in the constitution. So the fundamentalist anwers triumphantly, that the Constitution is signed “in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven.” Does it matter to the fundamentalist that it wouldn’t make sense to use the Chinese year for keeping time? No, it does not matter to him that westerners use AD and BC to mark years, Christ is now constitutional :P Here is the thread thread that discusses how frustrating it is talking to people like you and Seeker.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/6/16/161640/668
Seeker did make an attempt to answer my points but it was late at night for him. I am waiting for him to complete his posts before my rebuttal. Aaron in the meantime, I think we should just cover the ground you know best which is biblical verse. The following is something that perhaps we can discuss if my understanding of biblical interpretation permits.
Earth’s Age: Does Genesis 1 Indicate a Time Interval?
This nonsense about God or (macro)evolution is stupid. Evolution can be seen through evidence, or at least until a better explanation can be found. God can never be seen, either because (s)he doesn’t exist. That is really, really simple. Stop pretending like the debate is about anything but evidence or faith. There is evidence for evolution. There is faith in God. But there is no evidence in God. All of you know that.
Seeker did make an attempt to answer my points but it was late at night for him. I am waiting for him to complete his posts before my rebuttal.
Your allele argument is compelling. Answers in Genesis does have a reply, but I don’t quite understand or buy it. How do they make the jump to 10^30000 possibilities?
Interestingly, they also mention that common descent is part of their view, but only from created kinds, so that complicates things.
Funny thing is, OEC’s criticize them for “sharing evolutionary processes” AND attack their theory in that it requires rapid speciation after the flood of Noah in order to get the current number of species. Of course, we saw in Cineaste’s recent post that scientists now have evidence of rapid speciation – funny how this bit of “evolutionist news” fits well into the YEC model.
But I’m still considering your argument – I’m not convinced, but I admit, not compelling rebuttal has appeared in my spare time to research this. Let me chew on it for awhile.
Regarding the time interval theory, I don’t buy it. A much simpler answer is that these passages are not meant to both be chronolocial, necessarily. Many have made such an argument.
Genesis contradictions?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp
Creation Compromises: Gap Theory, Theistic Evolution, Progressive Creation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/compromise.asp
How about the “Ancestor of modern birds believed found” article? I know you (Seeker) have already decided to deny this without reading it, but I am curious as to what form your denial will take. You have not responded to point 4 either. What was so frustrating about Aaron’s reply, in addition to a lack of a point, is that he blindly ignored what was being said by Mark Vuletic, even though I put it in big bold letters. It was the first thing Sam Wilkinson noticed. His (Aaron’s) mind is so closed to evolution that valid arguments don’t even register. Truely, I am a latter day Don Quixote chasing creationist windmills. I love this comparison; it’s accurate. Sam already thinks I’m crazy for even speaking about this at such length with fundamentalists who’s mind is already made up who don’t put any thought into the conversation anymore.
I know you (Seeker) have already decided to deny this without reading it, but I am curious as to what form your denial will take.
Trust me, I am not in denial, just in a time crisis. But I may refuse to read it just because you have such a cynical attitude about me ;p (earned or not).
Basically, degradation because “Mutations never increase the amount of genetic information.”
This is your point 4 you want addressed? Easy. While mutations may change the data, they usually destroy useful information by disabling function. Even such touted cases as malaria resistance due to sickle cell are really not novel information or function – they have increased resistance because their hemoglobins are carrying less oxygen. That’s not new information, but “degredation.”
AIG has an interesting piece on genetic information which I mostly agree with, here and here. Or, as reported in this article:
Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc. do not help — they represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information—these create nothing new. Macroevolution needs new genes (for making feathers on reptiles, for example).
In plants, but not in animals (possibly with rare exceptions), the doubling of all the chromosomes may result in an individual which can no longer interbreed with the parent type—this is called polyploidy. Although this may technically be called a new species, because of the breeding isolation, no new information has been produced, just repetitious doubling of existing information.
This whole “novel information” argument has been carried out in detail in other forums, I don’t want to duplicate it here. Needless to say, the basic creationist argument is that what evolutionists often tout as “evolution creating information” is with rare exception merely copying or deleting function, not creating. Even nylase falls into this category.
Sam W wrote:
Evolution can be seen through evidence, or at least until a better explanation can be found. God can never be seen,
No, evolution can be inferred from the evidence, but not seen or proven. And in fact, it may be totally incorrect. I have yet to investigate this, but I think the whole macroevolution inference from what we see can be destroyed in one fell swoop by showing that gene variation actually regresses back to the mean after a certain amount of change, rather than making the quantum jumps required by “macro” evolution.
Creationists are not trying to prove that God exists, but that the evidence supports a rapid appearance of organisms fullly formed (created?). While they don’t have a naturalistic explanation for this formation, we can examine the evidence (information in DNA, fossil record, existing natural processes) to see if the data supports this contention. That is what Creation Science is about – not proving God, but proving that living organisms were created, rather than evolved.
I understand how this first creation event may be considered unscientific because it is not naturalistic, but rather supernatural, but just like trying to prove or disprove the big bang, we can look at the data to see if it supports such a contention. Can we PROVE such a contention beyond a doubt? Probably not any more than we can prove that macro evolution occured. But we may be able to determine that either scenario is unlikely. This is what both sides claim about the other.
Sam already thinks I’m crazy for even speaking about this at such length with fundamentalists who’s mind is already made up who don’t put any thought into the conversation anymore.
Sam is 90% correct ;). But of course, he too is a fundamentalist – I mean, anyone who is an atheist is just not living in reality ;)
But I may refuse to read it just because you have such a cynical attitude about me ;p
Cynical and accurate though? I think you are waiting to see what the official rebuttal of the YEC’s will be so you can be on the same page.
About point 4. This whole “novel information” argument has been carried out in detail in other forums, I don’t want to duplicate it here.
Fair enough, this is what that guy from Cornell was arguing anyway and as usual our conversation about it went nowhere fast.
No, evolution can be inferred from the evidence, but not seen or proven.
When creationists say something crazy like this I think “abject ignorance.” Here is why. I have learned from this thread that fundamentalists admit to evolution but only within the “created kind” (species and genus levels in taxonomy) and that to them it would be a “leap of faith” for evolution to also be taking place at the kingdom, phylum, class, order, and family levels.
Fundamentalists make this leap thousands of times a day with the theory of gravity. Fundamentalists admit to gravity taking place here on planet earth but though they have never seen it and it can’t be proven, only “inferred from the evidence,” I bet they believe gravity takes place on other planets. That’s why it’s ignorant to believe that evolution takes place only in one or two levels of biological classification and not the others. It’s no wonder that I didn’t catch on to the “created kind” thing Aaron was talking about, it’s absolutely ridiculous. Any informed person would have interpreted “type of animal” as simply “species.”
I think you are waiting to see what the official rebuttal of the YEC’s will be so you can be on the same page.
What’s wrong with that? I don’t have time to do this professionally ;)
as usual our conversation about it went nowhere fast.
(Eyes rolling)
Your characterization of “fundamentalists” is interesting since it relfects how you see things, but I don’t think you are seeing things correctly because you make no distinction between generic change, speciation, adaptation, natural selection, mutation, and macro evolution. To you, they are all one and the same. If you’ve proved one part, you’ve proved them all. The problem with your logic is that you think if I agree that natural selection happens, that I have agreed that macro evolution happens. But that’s an inference that I don’t make, and you take that leap of faith. That’s fine for you, but you call it fact and then seem confused when I don’t make that same leap.
Any informed person would have interpreted “type of animal” as simply “species.”
Yes, Aaron should have made that more clear, it would have avoided confusion. As always, definition of terms is critical. But now you know what creationists mean. You may find it incredible, and that’s OK. But at least now you have first understood.
One more thing – don’t put too much confidence in our taxonomies. While useful, they are predominantly built on similar morphology, which when examined from a genetic point of view, has often been incorrect.
They are merely an organizational schema. Now, those who believe in common descent of all living things may also look at the taxonomies as an iheritance chart, but that is somewhat speculation on their part, not based on actual inheritance (genetics), but morphology.
Now, genetics most certainly can cofirm or deny the similarity of organisms, and YECs might agree that within a Family or some other mid-level taxonomy, their might be a shared ancestor. However, to say that all creatures came from one primordial soup is quite a leap – possible, but not proven in any real sense.
And again, we must look at other disciplines besides genetics, such as paleantology, information science, and current natural processes to find evidence for common or uncommon ancestry.
How many times do I have to explain this: I’m not an atheist. I do not care about what, or how, the universe was created, because it doesn’t matter. I also don’t care about what happens after I die, because I’ll be dead. I don’t misrepresent your belief in God Seeker, so please don’t dare suggest that I care enough about God existence to claim that (s)he doesn’t. I just DON’T care.
The problem with your logic is that you think if I agree that natural selection happens, that I have agreed that macro evolution happens. But that’s an inference that I don’t make, and you take that leap of faith.
Seeker, it is not a logic issue. I am stating fact. Here is the dictionary definition…
natural selection
n.
The process in nature by which, according to Darwin’s theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.
By definition, if you believe natural selection you are an evolutionist. What you, Aaron and other creationists believe is evolution happens in one place and not in others. As I pointed out, it’s akin to believing gravity takes place only on Earth and not on other planets and you call this a “leap of faith” you are not wiling to make. I just wanted to point this out to readers who may be confused by the creationist charge that evolution is a “leap of faith.” It’s a leap of faith that I don’t strap myself to the bed at night just in case gravity fails.
Fundamentalists admit to gravity taking place here on planet earth but though they have never seen it and it can’t be proven, only “inferred from the evidence,”
This is untrue. Gravity can be directly measured. You see, this is the problem – evolutionists confuse empirical evidence with historic, the latter of which is open to interpretation. Your comparison shows that you misunderstand creationism, and empirical science.
The process in nature by which, according to Darwin’s theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.
By definition, if you believe natural selection you are an evolutionist.
Now we are getting down to it. No, if I believe that natural selction happens, I agree with Darwin on this one point. To say that the species is ADVANCED by natural selection requires one to also believe in beneficial mutations and quantum genetic leaps. Darwin may have also believed those, but I don’t.
So I can agree with darwin on some observations, while denying his other assertions that have no ground in observation or fact.
And this is why we get nowhere. To you, natural selection is evolution. Speciation is evolution. Mutation is evolution. Adaptation is evolution. And that other quantum genetic leap that creationists call “macro” evolution (since evolutionists fail to make any distinctions because they are unwilling to) is the real thing that makes you an evolutionist or not.
This is untrue. Gravity can be directly measured.
Only if there is another mass near enough to be affected. If not, it’s a “leap of faith” in the creationist sense of the term, that gravity exists around that object.
We are entering the realm of semantics again.
So I can agree with darwin on some observations, while denying his other assertions that have no ground in observation or fact.
This is where you are in denial. Creationists are “thought stoppers” when it comes to this because, as you well know, their are “mountains of evidence” for macro evolution. As a creationist you must refute each and every single fossil that comes along or your house of cards falls down. You must even refute how albinism, and other traits, are inherited since it points to a common ancestor among species. Is there any doubt in your mind that the Ancestor of modern birds believed found article will be refuted by YECs? Of course, not.
I am sure we can expect a post on it once the YECs formulate an official denial.
If not, it’s a “leap of faith” in the creationist sense of the term, that gravity exists around that object.
No, that’s your straw man. This is not semantics, this is you confusing empirical science with interpretation of historical data. I expect more from you, but nothing else from typical evolutionists.
as you well know, their are “mountains of evidence” for macro evolution. As a creationist you must refute each and every single fossil that comes along or your house of cards falls down.
You assertion is without merit. The existence of fossils neither proves nor disproves evolution. It is your interpretation which is at fault, and creationists most certainly have done an admirable job of offering logical alternatives to the often illogical conclusions of evolutionists who must often change their model significantly or misinterpret fossils to fit their model. Your ballywhooing about mountains of evidence is all bluster and no substance.
You must even refute how albinism, and other traits, are inherited since it points to a common ancestor among species.
No, I must refute your argument that similarity means relatedness. I already argued that a simple deletion event can produce albinism, and that you need not inherit it from a distant monkey to get it. But maybe I’m not getting you.
Just because a trait is passed down means nothing regarding evolution.
Is there any doubt in your mind that the Ancestor of modern birds believed found article will be refuted by YECs? Of course, not.
Of course not. Supposed “missing links” have been found and refuted before. Is there any doubt in my mind that evolutionists will counter the YEC arguments? Of course not. Does that make them disingenous?
Your argument is silly, especially since creationists are not in the business of merely refuting everything that evolutionists say. Creationists admit to verfiable processes like natural selection, but object to the evolutionary *interpretation of historical evidence* like this fossil because that is not empirical science, it is historical science, which is much more open to interpretation and spin (from both sides) based on your adopted world view.
I wish that you would demonstrate to me that you agree or disagree about the difference between historical and empirical data and their interpretation.
The straw man has everything in common with creationists. I honestly see no difference between creationists denying evolution and denying the theory of gravity. I don’t don’t know if you have read Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time” but in that book he shows how E=mc2 changed the Newtonian theory of gravity and that the theory is still incomplete. Scientists are still searching for a Universal Theory of Gravity because there are still things Einstein and Newton can’t explain. So, there are “holes” in the theory of gravity just as there are “holes” in evolutionary theory. The difference is, you junk one and not the other.
Your ballywhooing about mountains of evidence is all bluster and no substance.
Bull shit.
I already argued that a simple deletion event can produce albinism
And I already told you that you need to prove this in all cases of albinism. As it stands, there is a gene for albinism that must be carried by both parents to produce an albino child/squirrel/gorilla/snake/kangaroo etc. The only way this does not point to a common ancestor is if you believe in genesis from the bible. In other words, if you believe in a religious creation myth no different than thousands of others used throughout history by thousands of primitive cultures to explain the unknown. For all people of don’t take genesis literally, shared inherited genes in different species point to common ancestry. It’s no coincidence that we share so many genes with apes.
creationists are not in the business of merely refuting everything that evolutionists say
You could have fooled me.
I wish that you would demonstrate to me that you agree or disagree about the difference between historical and empirical data and their interpretation.
As Michael Ruse asks, “[t]he evidence that I have a heart is all indirect, neither I nor anyone else ever seen it, but does anyone really believe that it is not a fact that I have a heart?” One need not use a stethoscope to be scientific about drawing this conclusion. One may also look at the historical data, evidence of other humans and animals having a heart, to scientifically conclude Ruse also has a heart. Historical (meaning paleontological) evidence IS empirical evidence because it is derived from observation. If you are trying to trap me in a “history is determined by the victors” type of argument, forget it.
You have proved that you do not understand the difference between empirical science and the historical sciences. It is no wonder you see things the way you do.
Apparently not. I couldn’t find the term in the dictionary or the encyclopedia. Historical science must be a creationist term then, meaning it’s bogus. Let me know how the YECs deny the Gansus bird fossils found in China.
Cineaste, I'm sorry you think I ignored your comments. I didn't.
You wrote that we don't need to see a cat turning to a dog to prove macroevolution, Okay, now what? If we don't have to see that what do we have to see. I have a high standard for proving that macroevolution exists, you have a lower standard.
Just as with the Gansus bird (I read both the articles you linked to), it doesn't prove that lizards turned into birds. It points to one type of bird developing into other types of birds. I don't have a problem with that. I do question the leap from there to – this proves all of evolution.
I'm sure this cements my status as an unintelligent bumpkin to you, but so be it. You believe I make leaps of faith, I believe you do the same. I'm not if this song and dance can end (or really begin). But I honestly do enjoy discussing things with you.
Do you believe I have a heart? In order for you to believe I have a heart you must infer.
Not really. I can measure it's affects in real time. I can also cut you open. That's called experimentation.
Now, if I find your bones out in the back yard, with no meat on them, I will have to infer that you had a heart. That would be a good inference, based on the fact that I can observe in real time, other similar beings.
Unfortunately, your metaphor is mistaken. You can't observe evolution in real time, so you can't confidently affirm it in history.
stop attacking evolution and start supporting creationism/ID so readers can actually know where you guys are coming from.
We provide plenty of data supporting creationist contentions, from astronomy to genetics. But you don't like them, and some of them directly contradict evolution, so even when we are not attacking the weaknesses of evolutionary dogma, just stating our case does so indirectly.
Do you believe I have a heart? In order for you to believe I have a heart you must infer. -Cineaste
Not really. -Seeker
Fool
Monkey.
Yes, you too LOL!
Yes, that is your claim.
Sam Harris eviscerates this book, The Language of God by Francis Collins.
The Language of Ignorance
In this essay, the bestselling secularist author of The End of Faith delivers a scathing review of The Language of God, a new book by Human Genome Project head Francis Collins that attempts to demonstrate a harmony between science and evangelical Christianity.