RE: [asa] (macroevolution) (was: The term Darwinism)

Ian said:
"By the same analogy, a micro-evolutionary event such as chromosome fusion does not, in itself present conclusive evidence of macro-evolution. As I said before, one could argue that a 48 chromosomed human had the fusion event."

Ok- this is your main point. I admit, in all my studying on this issue, this is a new argument that is anti-macroevolution. I'm glad you raised it. As far as I know, none of the YEC or OEC leaders have raised it, so it is curious. It is something for me to dig in and learn more about. I'm also very curious as to why the YEC/OEC creationists don't use it (I suspect the consequences aren't good, and they've analyzed it, and rejected it for those reasons). In the book from RTB "Who was Adam" they admit they have no defense- yet- for the macroevolutionary evidence of pseudogenes, and they didn't touch fused chromosome 2 because I don't think it was known at the time of the writing for that book.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Iain Strachan [mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 1:33 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa
Subject: Re: [asa] (macroevolution) (was: The term Darwinism)

OK, since you've taken the trouble to go over the maths in the
analogy, I'll try and make the point of the analogy clear. I'm still
completely astounded that someone on a science list working for a
high-tech company appears incapable of interpreting an equation with
three terms in it that is taught in basic pre-university physics, but
perhaps I have assumed too much of what you understand.

First point to make is I guess there is some confusion of
"extrapolating to infinity". Newtons second law does indeed predict
that on application of a constant force the speed increases without
limit. However it is only necessary to extrapolate to three hundred
thousand kilometers per hour (the speed of light is just lower than
this) to see that the second law breaks down.

Call that (extrapolation to the speed of light) the "macro-acceleration law".

The law also predicts that a 1Kg mass on a frictionless surface will
move half a metre when a constant force of 1 Newton is applied for 1
second, and at the end of that it will be moving at 1 metre per
second.

Call that the "micro-acceleration law".

The micro version of Newton's law has an astonishing amount of
evidence to support it - motion of billiard balls, the oscillations of
a pendulum - oscillations of a weight on a spring, the pitch of note
emitted when the hammer hits the piano string - all these are
accurately predicted by Newton's second law.

However, none of these evidences of the truth of the law can be taken
to be "conclusive evidence" (your phrase) that the law holds at all
speeds.

By the same analogy, a micro-evolutionary event such as chromosome
fusion does not, in itself present conclusive evidence of
macro-evolution. As I said before, one could argue that a 48
chromosomed human had the fusion event. (David Campbell suggested a
YEC might argue it was someone close to Adam or Noah).

Now, of course, it is evidence that is entirely consistent with
macro-evolution. So are pseudo-genes. But I think you are
exaggerating when you say this is "conclusive evidence", just as it
would be jumping the gun to say all the evidences for Newton's second
law in what we observe in mechanical systems is conclusive evidence
that unlimited velocities (certainly above 300K kilometers per second)
are achievable.

All the evidences for macro-evolution have to be taken as a whole, and
not just from a few examples. There are still huge gaps in our
knowledge. Last year a paper purporting to describe step-wise
formation of the Bacterial Flagellum was published. As such it would
be very interesting and a huge blow against the ID community. But it
was in fact torn to shreds by Nick Matzke on Panda's Thumb, and PZ
Myers warned against it as "poor science" on his blog. So the truth
is we still don't know how the flagellum evolved, and to assert that
there is conclusive proof that it did looks suspiciously like
"evolution of the gaps".

My acceptance of macro-evolution is based partly on the evidences we
have (pseudo-genes chromosome fusion) but also on the fact that it
seems to be the best explanation in naturalistic terms that we have,
and that for theological reasons I don't believe that God meddles in
creation to help evolution along. The purpose of miracles in the
bible is for God to reveal himself to his people and to us all, not to
fix sterile nature.

I sincerely hope that clarifies matters and doesn't prompt you to have
another go at me because your attacks are rather tiresome.

Iain

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Dehler, Bernie<bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
> I looked at your email over and over and now I understand your math (it is 25 yrs. since I did this stuff in college). So I now see your math. However, I don't see your analogy- the second part of my email is still valid... esp. since I granted your math- what was the point and how does it relate as an analogy?
>
> As I said,
> " Macroevolution, as a philosophy without facts, is subject to your analogy, but not macroevolution with the scientific facts of DNA supporting it. That's why I rejected macroevolution until I was faced with the data."
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iain Strachan [mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:49 PM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa
> Subject: Re: [asa] (macroevolution) (was: The term Darwinism)
>
> This will definitely be my last post to you.
>
> You completely astound me with your willful ignorance of basic physics.
>
> Newton's second law says a steady force gives a constant acceleration
> (F=ma). A constant acceleration is the same as linearly increasing
> velocity.
>
> Perhaps it's English comprehension you struggle with, rather than
> physics. Either way it's a futile exercise attempting to communicate
> with you.
>
> Iain
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Dehler, Bernie<bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
>> Ian -
>>
>> First you said:
>> "Newton's second law also predicts that if you apply a steady force that the velocity will increase without limit."
>>
>> Then you said:
>> "Constant acceleration means velocity increases linearly,
>> independently of time, hence without limit."
>>
>> So the first time you said 'a steady force results in increasing velocity' (which makes no sense in physics I think), then you said a constant acceleration means velocity increases (which is obvious).
>>
>> Then you conclude with:
>> "As we know, it's wrong as velocity approaches the speed of light."
>>
>> And I agree with your point that it can't be extrapolated up to infinity. But what is your point? It appears that you are using that as an analogy against macroevolution, yet you said you accept macroevolution. So then I suppose it is an analogy against the DNA evidence I say is evidence of macroevolution, yet I don't see how that is analogous. Macroevolution, as a philosophy without facts, is subject to your analogy, but not macroevolution with the scientific facts of DNA supporting it. That's why I rejected macroevolution until I was faced with the data.
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Iain Strachan [mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:26 PM
>> To: Dehler, Bernie
>> Cc: asa
>> Subject: Re: [asa] (macroevolution) (was: The term Darwinism)
>>
>> I don't know really why I'm bothering with you at all.
>>
>> F = ma
>>
>> Newton's second law. If F is constant, and m is constant then a is
>> constant. Constant acceleration means velocity increases linearly,
>> independently of time, hence without limit. That is the clear
>> prediction of Newton's second law. As we know, it's wrong as velocity
>> approaches the speed of light. My point was to illustrate the danger
>> of extrapolating from a few observations.
>>
>> But if you're incapable of understanding elementary physics then I'm
>> clearly wasting my time.
>>
>> Goodbye. I'm certainly not going to waste any more time on you.
>> Cameron decided to do this earlier. I decided I'd give you one more
>> chance. But since you steadfastly refuse to see the point, there is
>> no point in continuing. Arguing against you is exactly like arguing
>> with a YEC. They also, as I have found, steadfastly refuse to see the
>> point. You may have completely rejected YEC-ism, but you still argue
>> like one. Perhaps you'd like to take note of these observations of
>> mine, and take more care how you come over.
>>
>> Iain
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Dehler, Bernie<bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
>>> Ian said:
>>> "I don't believe in creation by poofing. I accept evolution"
>>>
>>> Then why am I wasting my time trying to convince you of macroevolution when you already accept it? Ok, I suppose you might disagree with me about the evidence for macroevolution, and accept macroevolution for other reasons- fine. In that case, we don't need to discuss it anymore, because my goal is to get evolution deniers to see the evidence for macroevolution. (In short- wiping out scientific ignorance amongst YEC's and OEC's.)
>>>
>>> Ian said:
>>> "Do you think that the evidence for Newton's second law of motion is conclusive evidence that we could travel faster than light simply by having a big enough fuel tank on the rocket?"
>>>
>>> I didn't understand what you meant when you said a constant force would result in ever increasing velocity. That doesn't make sense to me- so you have to better explain that for me to see your point.
>>>
>>> And I also don't understand what your point is because I thought you were using it as an analogy to disprove macroevolution yet you just admitted that you accept macroevolution. So if you accept macroevolution, what is the point you are getting at? Is it simply that I just have a bad argument for macroevolution because there are better arguments for macroevolution? If so, what are those better arguments, in your opinion?
>>>
>>> ...Bernie
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Iain Strachan [mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 12:48 PM
>>> To: Dehler, Bernie
>>> Cc: asa
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] (macroevolution) (was: The term Darwinism)
>>>
>>> Really Bernie,
>>>
>>> That personal attack was completely unnecessary. "I hope you're not
>>> like Cameron ... etc" disparaging us both.
>>>
>>> I don't believe in creation by poofing. I accept evolution. But I
>>> don't think you have an effective argument against creation by
>>> poofing. Is that clear enough for you? I really shouldn't have to be
>>> spelling things out like this.
>>>
>>> Now please answer my question. Do you think that the evidence for
>>> Newton's second law of motion is conclusive evidence that we could
>>> travel faster than light simply by having a big enough fuel tank on
>>> the rocket?
>>>
>>> If you don't then what is the difference between that argument and
>>> yours that pseudogenes and the fusion of chromosome 2, both evidences
>>> of small micro-evolutionary steps, is conclusive evidence of
>>> macro-evolution?
>>>
>>> Please explain.
>>>
>>> Iain
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Dehler, Bernie<bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
>>>> Ian said:
>>>> "And it seems (even from Wikipedia, not just creationist websites) that
>>>> pseudo-genes are increasingly being found to have some function, to do
>>>> with gene regulation."
>>>>
>>>> I think finding some functions for pseudogenes is irrelevant. The point is that the gene is fully formed in lower animals, and retarded in other descended animals (truncated, etc.). The enzyme for asorbic acid (vitamin c) doesn't work for us and apes, but does for lower lifeforms- and I don't think that retarded gene has any other use. But even if it does something, it seems obvious the main function was to create vitamin C, and so we can't while lower lifeforms can. (This was explained rather well in RTB's book "Who was Adam"). We eat vitamin c, so we don't get scurvy.
>>>>
>>>> Ian ssaid:
>>>> " Now you know I don't believe in creation by Poofing"
>>>>
>>>> If you don't believe that humans were created by poofing, then you must accept evolution (humans created from apelike creatures- which is macroevolution). What other alternative is there? I don't get it- please explain.
>>>>
>>>> You have to get it straight- are you defending 'poofing' or not?
>>>>
>>>> I hope you're not like Cameron who argues both sides at the same time, IMO.
>>>>
>>>> Ask Cameron if he accepts DNA evidence for human evolution from apelike creature, and you won't get a clear answer. If he says yes- he just accepted macroevolution. If he says no, he rejects the DNA evidence and he knows that it is wrong. So he argues both, in long-essay form.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry- Cameron- just my impression of you... And I know you won't comment to me, so I can get away with it ;-)
>>>>
>>>> ...Bernie
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Iain Strachan [mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:37 AM
>>>> To: Dehler, Bernie
>>>> Cc: asa
>>>> Subject: Re: [asa] (macroevolution) (was: The term Darwinism)
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Dehler, Bernie<bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Ian-
>>>>>
>>>>> You said:
>>>>> "you're being self-contradictory here. On one post you concede that the chromosome fusion is a micro-evolutionary step and in this one you claim that it conclusively demonstrates that macroevolution happened. You can't
>>>>> have it both ways."
>>>>>
>>>>> Every evolutionary step is a microevolutionary step. If a fusion happened at one point, that is a microevolutionary event. Now when you say "prove macroevolution happened" I would say that the fused chromosome (and thousands of pseudogenes too) are obvious evidence of macroevolution from apelike creature to human. These two DNA things show the path through lifeforms, disproving the idea that man was biologically made unique by 'poofing' things into existence. (The alternative hypothesis to evolution, common descent, is creation by poofing).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now you were the one who said it "conclusively demonstrates macroevolution".
>>>>
>>>> I agree it's strong evidence. And the pseudo-genes - I'll have to
>>>> think about that - it certainly adds to the evidence. Does it
>>>> conclusively prove macro from a number of instances of micro? And it
>>>> seems (even from Wikipedia, not just creationist websites) that
>>>> pseudo-genes are increasingly being found to have some function, to do
>>>> with gene regulation. Now you know I don't believe in creation by
>>>> poofing, but I'm sure a creationist with more knowledge than me about
>>>> pseudogenes could construct an argument for it, based on the notion
>>>> that they have a function. What pseudogenes and chromosome fusion
>>>> show is evidence that is consistent with evolution, (evolution
>>>> predicts pseudogenes and fusions etc) but you can't necessarily turn
>>>> the arrow round the other way.
>>>>
>>>> Let's take another example.
>>>>
>>>> You know the equation F = m . d^2x/dt^2
>>>>
>>>> It's Newton's second law of motion. It allows you to compute the
>>>> motion of an object of mass M through time. It's a simple
>>>> differential equation that is easily solved. It predicts that if you
>>>> start with a 1 Kg object at rest on a frictionless surface and apply a
>>>> force of 1 Newton to it for 1 second that it will move half a meter in
>>>> the time. Just as failure to find evidence of chromosome fusion would
>>>> completely sink common ancestry of us and apes, so if you conduct the
>>>> above experiment and find the object moves three metres, then you will
>>>> have effectively disproved Newton's second law.
>>>>
>>>> But you carry out the experiment and the prediction of the equation is
>>>> verified. In fact you can vary the masses and always verify that the
>>>> equation is true to within the limits of your measurement devices.
>>>> There is in fact a massive amount of evidence that Newton's second law
>>>> is true - you can observe it in the motion of a pendulum, the
>>>> elliptical orbits of planets, the motion of billiard balls and so on.
>>>>
>>>> Newton's second law also predicts that if you apply a steady force
>>>> that the velocity will increase without limit.
>>>>
>>>> Since your experiment has so conclusively demonstrated the predictive
>>>> power of Newton's second law, you've also conclusively demonstrated
>>>> that if a constant force is applied that the velocity of the object
>>>> will increase without limit, right?
>>>> It seems Kirk, Spock and co didn't need warp drive - just a
>>>> sufficiently powerful thruster would have eventually done the trick.
>>>>
>>>> Iain
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -----------
>>> Non timeo sed caveo
>>> (\__/)
>>> (='.'=)
>>> (")_(") This is a bunny copy him into your signature so he can gain
>>> world domination
>>> -----------
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -----------
>> Non timeo sed caveo
>> (\__/)
>> (='.'=)
>> (")_(") This is a bunny copy him into your signature so he can gain
>> world domination
>> -----------
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -----------
> Non timeo sed caveo
> (\__/)
> (='.'=)
> (")_(") This is a bunny copy him into your signature so he can gain
> world domination
> -----------
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

--
-----------
Non timeo sed caveo
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is a bunny copy him into your signature so he can gain
world domination
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.