An anonymous poster has challenged Ann Coulter’s rebuttal of Darwin in her recent book "Godless," as described in my previous post. This post will add additional source m
aterial as to why Ann Coulter is right and anonymous is wrong.Anonymous poo-poos Coulter’s use of the Cambrian period as proof that the appearance of new species in the fossil record were often sudden and vast, not steady and gradual as in Darwin's theory.
Here’s what Wikipedia says about the Cambrian period – pretty much the same way it is described by Coulter.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Cambrian is a major division of the geologic timescale that begins about 542 mya (million years ago) at the end of the Proterozoic eon and ended about 488.3 Ma with the beginning of the Ordovician period (ICS, 2004). It is the first period of the Paleozoic era of the Phanerozoic eon. The Cambrian is the earliest period in whose rocks are found numerous large, distinctly-fossilizable multicellular organisms that are more complex than sponges or medusoids. During this time, roughly fifty separate major groups of organisms or "phyla" (a phylum defines the basic body plan of some group of modern or extinct animals) emerged suddenly, in most cases without evident precursors. This radiation of animal phyla is referred to as the Cambrian explosion.
As for the mathematical possibility that life on earth evolved by random chance, Coulter quotes some very distinguished scientists who reject Darwin’s theory.
The first of these scientists is Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, who wrote a book called “Darwin’s Black Box.” Behe describes various “irreducibly complex” mechanisms (of which there are thousands) whose creation by chance is mathematically absurd. These include complex cellular structures, blood clotting mechanisms and the eye, among others. Coulter quotes several other prominent scientists conceding points to Behe, i.e there is no comprehensive and detailed explanation of the probable steps in the evolution of these mechanisms.
Two other distinguished scientists who have demonstrated the statistical impossibility of Darwin’s evolution are Cambridge astrophysicist Fred Hoyle and his collaborator Chandra Wickramasinghe. Hoyle and Wickramsinghe were awarded the Dag Hammarskjold Gold Medal for Science in 1996. Hoyle won several medals on his own, including the Oxford Prize and the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society. Wickramasinghe holds the highest doctorate degree from Cambridge and is professor of applied mathematics and astronomy at Cardiff University.
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are both atheists. I doubt that they believed the earth was created in six days or that it is only 6,000 years old. Anyone who disputes evolution is often categorized as a Christian fundamentalist. As Ann Couter puts it, "You will begin to notice that the Darwiniacs' answer to everything is to accuse their opponents of believing in God - and a flat Earth for good measure - even when responding to an argument based on chemistry, physics or mathematics."
Hoyle & Wickramasinghe calculated the mathematical probability that the basic enzymes of life arose from random processes. They found the odds to be 1 to 1 followed by 40 zeroes. This was, as they said, “so miniscule as to make Darwin’s theory of evolution absurd.”
Their opinion was shared by Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize for his codiscovery of DNA. Crick said “The probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd.”
David Raup, a geologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago states that Darwin was embarrassed by the lack of fossil evidence to support his theory, and devoted a long section of his Origin of Species to rationalize the difference. Raup wrote, “There were several problems, but the principal one was that the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”
My anonymous poster also disputes the reality of the ACLU suing to keep information on Chinese research into the Cambrian period out of the classroom. However, they did just that. A high school biology teacher, Robert DeHart, of Burlington-Edison High School in Washington State, was their target. DeHart liked to supplement his curriculum with newspaper articles from the Boston Globe and the New York Times about the Chinese fossils of the Cambrian period. He never mentioned God. After the ACLU threatened to sue, the school removed DeHart from his biology teaching position and replaced him with a recent teaching graduate who had majored in physical education. Coulter concludes: “Thus were the students of Burlington-Edison High School saved from having to hear scientific facts that might cause them to question their faith in the official state religion.” Amen to that!
Mr. Anonymous has concluded that Coulter’s new book is nonsense and not worth reading. Don’t keep a closed mind like Mr. Anonymous. Buy and read the book. It is highly informative and funny as hell.
24 comments:
I got this from the same source you’re using
The Cambrian explosion refers to the geologically sudden appearance of complex multi-cellular macroscopic organisms between roughly 542 and 530 million years ago. This period marks a sharp transition in the fossil record with the appearance of the earliest members of many phyla of metazoans (multicellular animals) including the first vertebrate (Myllokunmingia). The "explosive" appearance of this adaptive radiation results both from rapid evolutionary change and the limits of previous technology to appreciate microfossils which formed the foundation of the fossil record before this time.
From the modern point of view, the apparently explosive radiation from obscure beginnings was partly an artefact of disregarding microfossils, which were scarcely detectable with 19th-century technology, and concentrating solely on the hard-shelled macrofossils that defined the phyla well established by 19th-century biologists, all of which were multiple-celled metazoa. Apparently abruptly, many kinds of fossils appearing in the Burgess Shale were seen showing obvious skeletal body features, whereas the traces of the hard-to-analyze "small shelly fauna" of Cambrian beginnings were ignored.
With time, advanced microscopy has gradually revealed the range of earlier microfossils. Prior to the discovery in 1909 of the Burgess Shale—incompletely published at the time and largely forced into existing categories as "precursors"— no fossilizations of early soft-bodied organisms had been published, and the vast reach of undiscovered earlier life was consigned to an enormous space of time— the "Pre-Cambrian" of old-fashioned schoolbooks.
More recent microfossil finds have shown "Pre-Cambrian" life consisting of more than single-celled organisms or simple diploblastic fauna. In 1994, phosphatized triploblastic embryos were discovered in rocks from southern China (Xiao et al. 1998). Evidence for Ediacaran triploblasts was available long before this discovery.
Causes of the Cambrian explosion
There is no universally accepted cause, and the matter is the subject of ongoing debate within the scientific community. A wide range of biological and geological factors have been proposed as possible triggers for the explosion. These range from ecological competition, hox genes and the breakup of Rodinia. Recently scientists have suggested major climatic changes, including a near-global glaciation, may have played a role.
The Cambrian explosion may have been precipitated by several environmental changes occurring in and just before this period. First the Varangian glaciation gave rise to a Snowball Earth in which all, or nearly all, of the oceans are covered entirely with ice. This was followed by a deglaciation and rapid global warming just before the beginning of the explosion itself. In modern Arctic environments, single-celled organisms often form mats on the underside of ice sheets in order to maximize their exposure to sunlight. It is possible that adaptations useful to the maintenance of such colonies also assisted in the formation of the first triploblastic animals estimated to be 570 million years of age (Xiao et al. 1998). In addition, the Snowball Earth environment would have given rise to relatively few ecological niches, so the subsequent deglaciation and global warming may have provided an impetus for rapid evolution to fill many new environments.
Now let me address some specifics in your post:
Anonymous poo-poos Coulter’s use of the Cambrian period as proof that the appearance of new species in the fossil record were often sudden and vast, not steady and gradual as in Darwin's theory.
Please quote the part of Darwin’s theory that says the appearance of new species must be “steady and gradual”.
On Behe: reknown Professor of Biochem at the Illustrious Lehigh University (excuse me? where?)
Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures.
Behe had published his ideas on irreducible complexity in a book called Darwin's Black Box, which was a public and critical success. The response from the scientific community was considerably harsher. Scientists argued that Behe's arguments and examples were based on nothing more than a refined form of personal incredulity, rather than any demonstration of the actual impossibility of explanation by natural processes. Furthermore, they asserted that he deliberately aimed the publication of this book at the general public in order to gain maximum publicity while avoiding any peer-reviews from fellow scientists or performing new research to support his claims.
Nevertheless, Behe's purportedly more secular arguments and credentials as a published biochemist gave the intelligent design movement its first major mainstream proponent.
Unlike many in the intelligent design movement, Behe seems to accept the common descent of species, including the common ancestry of humans and other apes. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the Universe.
More on Behe:
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense, and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges that they say further undermine his claims about irreducible complexity and intelligent design. Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred". [4] Under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible. [5] Behe's testimony was cited several times in the final ruling.
On Fred Hoyle (Sir Crackpot) Winner of the Prestigious Dag Hammarskjold Gold Medal (that’s way better than the Nobel, by the way)
In his later years, Hoyle became a staunch critic of theories of chemical evolution to explain the naturalistic Origin of life. With Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the theory that life evolved in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on earth is driven by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets.
Notice that Hoyle BELIEVES evolution, but just that it originated in space, not on the earth.
more on Hoyle:
In his 1981/4 book Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), he calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup wouldn’t have a chance. He claimed:
The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.
Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously. [1]
These analogies have been rejected by biologists as a straw man argument. Richard Dawkins, for example, wrote in The Blind Watchmaker:
If he'd said 'chance' instead of 'natural selection' he'd have been right. Indeed, I regretted having to expose him as one of the many toilers under the profound misapprehension that natural selection is chance.
On Francis Crick (another space alien advocate)
Crick speculated about possible stages by which an initially simple code with a few amino acid types might have evolved into the more complex code used by existing organisms [19]. At that time, everyone thought of proteins as THE enzymes and ribozymes had not yet been found. Many molecular biologists were worried about the origin of a protein replicating system as complex as what exists in organisms currently living on Earth. In the early 1970s Crick and Orgel further speculated about the possibility that maybe the production of living systems from molecules was a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed it could be spread by intelligent life forms using space travel technology, a process they called “Directed Panspermia”[20]. In a retrospective article[21], Crick and Orgel noted that they had been overly pessimistic about the chances of life evolving on Earth when they had assumed that some kind of self-replicating protein system was the molecular origin of life. Now it is easier to imagine an RNA world and the origin of life in the form of some self-replicating polymer besides protein.
On David Raup (where’d you find this guy, there is very little on him)
Raup was heavily involved through his career in joint programs with biology and in promoting training of paleontologists in modern marine environments. In 1994, he retired to Washington Island in northern Lake Michigan. Currently, he assists the Santa Fe Institute to develop methods and approaches to dealing with the evolutionary exploration of morphospace.
But it does not seem he has given up on evolution.
Question you ignore:
Why would God do “Creation Part II” in the Cambrian? Regardless of the time scale involved, be it billions or hundreds of years you should explain why it happened TWICE.
Finally I said MOST creationist believe in a young earth, that is a true statement whether Coulter believes it or not. And I said I would not buy Coulter’s book, but I did not say that I would not read it. If I find some one who has it, I will read, but Ann Coulter won’t buy any peroxide on my dime.
Anonymous, you're whipped and you know it. Your personal religion has been examined and found wanting. You can attack evolution's adversaries, but you haven't said one word defending the improbable theory itself. Name one thing about evolution that you know to be true. You can't.
Remember, if you are advancing a weird theory, the burden of proof is on you, not on the rest of the world to disprove you. You have not made your case in 150 years since "Origin of Species" was written.
You make too much out of research being "peer reviewed." The South Korean scientist who faked his cloning research was "peer reviewed." Big whoopee.
Yes, there were microfossils in the preCambrian period - a few worms, nothing more. You have not said one word explaining the Cambrian explosion except to give a lot of rationalization.
As for Darwin, it was he himself who stated that the fossil record should prove his theory, showing transitional forms and a steady evolution of one animal to another; indeed the whole theory rests on slight genetic mutations over millions of years, but the fossil record just doesn't beat this out. Darwin spends a lot of time trying to explain the lack of fossil evidence and writes that future scientists will discover the fossils supporting the theory. They haven't done so.
You insult Hoyle, but you aren't good enough to carry his text books. Yes, he did come up with the panspermia theory, and as Coulter points out, it may be nutty but unlike evolution, it has the advantage of not being "demonstrably false."
You have said NOTHING to refute Behe, just that a lot of your fellow evolution-co-religionists didn't like what he had to say. You have not addressed one of his points. Name one highly complex biosystem that has been shown to have evolved from a simple system and the path it took to get there. With all your phony biology terms, you can't answer the question.
No matter how virulently you attack Hoyle, BeHe and others, you still cannot defend the theory of evolution. You can only offer rationalizations and what-ifs.
The theory of evolution is weak and unsubstantiated, and there is absolutely no reason why it should be taught in schools as FACT as it is now, with alternative viewpoints suppressed.
As for your comments about peroxide, fuck you. And next time use your real name, you coward and intellectual phony.
you have really stomped on the toes of "the birds of the air" and they are trying to shut you up. Keep exposing their lies.
Your skills in rational discourse are only superceded by your artistic talent...
Stogie Chomper, can I assume that is your real name?
Oops forgot
please please tell me
Why did creation happen twice?
Call Ann Coulter for help
Darwin 1
Coulter 0
I'm, not "virulently attacking anyone" I'm just cutting and pasting wikipedia articles just like you.
Most importantly I have refrained from the ad hominem that YOU give "so virulently" to me.
It's obvious that you feel threatened....
relax
You are entirely incorrect the theory of evolution is not
"taught in schools as FACT as it is now,"
It is a theory NOT a fact, and is presented as such. You are completely wrong, and so is your little minion eyesallaround (real name I suppose).
Last thing you guys are tiring...
You know, the icons you boys choose say alot about yourselves,
Stogie, you are filled with pride in your “artwork,” so much so, that you use this self-portrait as your icon. But much like yourself, this portrait is flat and 2 dimensional. Lacking in perspective and dimension, you are totally thick-skulled and dogmatic and can only perceive the world in sharply defined ways. You have no imagination and you believe anything Ann tells you, poor kid.
Eyesallaround, exactly like your chosen representation, you are a lap-dog, nervously yapping at anyone who you perceive as a threat to your master.
good luck boys
I’ll see you around
The Devil
I invite the evolution "skeptics" (Oh, what an inappropriate application of that word! Shame on me!) to visit Pharyngula to read a recent post that rips Ann Coulter's sad "arguments" against evolution to shreds.
Anonymous said...
I’ll see you around
The Devil
Probably the only true thing this scum said
You're pretty obtuse bro'
So while stogie and doggie are getting their "shit together" at the "bath houses on Castro"
You are a bro' in what respect? You chose it, I'll let you define it.... a bro' in Islam perhaps?
Anonymous said...
You're pretty obtuse bro'
It is obvious who you serve. And he has already lost.
LUKE 4 v 8 : And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Sorry all.. I just have an inferiority complex so I like to pretend I'm smart.. I'm actually a pimple faced 16 year old.
Anonymous said...
Sorry all.. I just have an inferiority complex
bro says
Too late you have already revealed
too much. Your master will not be pleased.
2nd thessalonians 2 v 8 v 8: And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
I believe in the literal creation account found in the book of Genesis. Here is a great site for anyone interested in the evidence of a young earth. 10,000 or less years. www.answersingenesis.org. Everyone play nice!!
Lawdy Stogie! What in the hail is goin' on over heah, darlin'???
Sigh...looky silly pets of evolution, evolution has become yore religion.
Iffin' ya'll was truly scientiific, ya'd know that science has limits and that a true scientific mind notes the conflictin' data and therefore remains open---ain't no proof or consensus on evolution--so jes' be open minded iffin' ya wants ter pretend ya's "scientific".
Check out Stanley Jaki--double Ph.Ds, physics and philosophy, Templeton Prize winner, lectures at Oxford, Cambridge, U of Edinburgh, post doctoral work at Yale, Princeton...
He wrote the Limits of a Limitless Science. Get some scientific--not ideological--perspective.
(Stogie, btw, one of those anon's seems vaguely familiar in syntax and attitude...maybe not so vague.)
Stogie, there is substantial consensus in the scientific community not only about the reliability of the theory of evolution, but also that this process happens in a punctuated, and not a slow and gradual, fashion. To the extent that Ms. Coulter has claimed that there is no consensus in the scientific community about the existence of evolution, she is simply incorrect. There simply is no competing theory worth considering. The lack of consensus is not on whether evolution happens, but rather how and why it happens.
No credible scientist suggests that life evolved randomly. Evolution is not a random process. Not even Darwin suggested that evolution happened randomly. Darwin's ideas, of course, have long been refined to the point of being superceded; much like Newton's contributions to physics have been. That Newton's physics have been superceded by newer, better expressions of the ideas does not mean that Newton was wrong.
Evolution is not a religion. Evolution does not require faith to fit within one's world view. Evolution does not posit the existence of any supernatural entity or supernatural activity; like all good scientific theories, it eschews reliance on supernatural forces to explain observed natural phenomena.
Faith in the Christian God is entirely compatible with incorporating evolution into one's world view -- unless you are a Biblical literalist. Evolution may easily be considered the study of how God created man. Evolution does not purport to address the existence of God at all. Genesis is a creation myth. Please note that by "myth" I do not mean an untruth or a fiction -- I mean a story whose literal truth is of miniscule importance compared to its emotional value, and I do not use the word "myth" in a disparaging fashion. But I do intend to distinguish the realm of mythology from the realm of rational fact.
Ms. Coulter is attacking a straw man, and so are you by adopting and parroting her position. This does not surprise about a political pornographer like Coulter who shamelessly panders to her audience shamelessly, feeding only pleasing pablum devoid of substance or critical thought.
I had higher hopes for you, though; you seem capable of critical thought and intellectually curious. I think that it would profit you to take a closer look at what evolution is really all about before dismissing it as incompatible with Christian mythology. I suggest reading some Stephen Jay Gould on the subject as a counterbalance to what Coulter has written in Godless, and trying to keep an open mind until you have got a fair understanding of both sides.
You have to have a lot more faith to believe, from the goo to the zoo to you, than the biblical account of creation found in Genesis. The fossil record comes from a world wide flood.
With regards to Genesis being mythologhy Jesus Christ himself talked of the judgment that came on the ancient world where Noah and his family were saved. Matt 24:37-38.
Jesus Christ, the savior of the world recited many old testament books. He is the one who inspired the prophets to record the history of the world, including the creation account, the fall of man where sin and death entered the world, and the redemption of man through the death of God's only begotten son, Jesus Christ.
I'm going with Jesus. People throughout history who were once skeptics and sought to discredit the Bible become christians and are then God's advocates for truth. 66 books, 40 authors, written over a period of 1500 years, in 3 languages, and on 3 continents, with one central theme, and no contradictions! How is that possible? Because God wrote it!
I strongly recommend the following books by former skeptics. "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell. "The Case for Christ", and "The Case For Faith by Lee Strobell".
Continued:
I also recommend "The Farce Of Evolution", by Hank Hanegraaff.
I don't have to believe in "goo to zoo to you" any more than I have to believe the sun rises in the east. I can observe it.
If your disbelief in evolution is so strong, then take this challenge. Next time you're sick and you need antibiotics, ask your doctor to give you the same kind and strength that you have been given in 1970.
If you think you can prove evolution is a fact, Dr. Kent Hovind of www.drdino.com has made an offer of I believe it was $250,000 if I remember right, for years for anyone who would like to take up the challenge. Email him on this on his website. No one has ever collected. We are both convinced of our positions and one day when we die we'll all find out for sure. The more important issue is where you stand in your relationship to God. Consider Jesus. John 3:16, For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. Take a look at some of the websites by christian scientists. www.ansersingenesis.org, and www.icr.org.
Makes you wonder why so many have a need for you to accept evolution. Could it be once you reject it the scales will drop off your eyes about other more important deceptions?
eyesallaround, I'd agree to your proposal IF you'd agree that "intelligent design" and other forms of crypto-creationism should ALSO be confined to college-level instruction. Deal?
Bro, I don't have a "need to accept evolution" any more than I have a need to accept gravity.
Post a Comment