Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Darwin's statue

A large statue of Charles Darwin was installed in the main foyer of the London's Natural History Museum in 1885—just a few years after Darwin's death. It was removed in 1927 and replaced by a statue of Richard Owen who was no fan of Darwin.

The museum came to its senses in 2009 and put the statue back in it's original position. (It had been in the cafeteria in the basement.) Read the story at: Moving Darwin.

Owen was the man who founded the museum and he was also known for his support of structuralism—the idea that basic body plans cannot be easily explained by evolution. Structuralism is the new buzzword among Intelligent Design Creationists. They don't understand the concept but they're certain it refutes evolution and supports goddidit.

Michael Denton is upset about the statue [see Conversations with Michael Denton: You Can Move the Statue if You Wish...]. Watch the video ...



52 comments :

  1. Well, no he's not upset. He is just showing how much of an opiate darwinism is.

    Skeptics can't consume enough of darwin.

    So good ideas literally get pushed aside.

    At least we have Denton showing what crassness darwin's meme get squeeze out of people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Such a projective fantasy world you occupy, Steve.

      Delete
  2. What I think seriously bothers Larry is that Denton could easily go toe to toe with him on a one-on-one debate and swipe that perennial smerk off Larry's face.

    How about it, Larry? We set up a one-on-one debate. Denton vs. Moran.

    Debate of the century!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "What I think seriously bothers Larry is that Denton could easily go toe to toe with him on a one-on-one debate and swipe that perennial smerk off Larry's face."

      Denton couldn't even match me in a debate. And I am definitely a lightweight here. Probably a featherweight.

      Delete
    2. I'd debate Denton. And Behe and Dembski, all 3 against me and an internet connection.

      Whenever I say this, every creationist changes the subject.

      P.S. Spearshake is no lightweight.

      Delete
    3. "What I think seriously bothers Larry is that Denton could easily go toe to toe with him on a one-on-one debate and swipe that perennial smerk off Larry's face."

      You are a child.

      Delete
    4. Is this the same Denton that totally screwed up basic phylogenetics in his first book? THAT Denton?

      Delete
    5. Yes, that Denton. After he was totally embarrassed by numerous people pointing out how silly his mistake was, creationists continued to point to it as a good argument.

      I've been intrigued by what he would say about this fiasco in the new book. "OK, I made a boo-boo"? Or say nothing?

      However, I'm not intrigued enough to buy the book. Perhaps it will appear on the New Arrivals shelf at my local library. If someone here has read the new book, perhaps they could enlighten us on this point.

      Delete
    6. Please read my description of Denton's argument based on what he wrote in Nature's Destiny at: Michael Denton and Molecular Clocks.

      If you go back and read Evolution: A Theory in Crisis you'll see that what he said in the first book is consistent with the view he expressed (better) in the second book. I believe that his critics have misunderstood Denton's views about the molecular clock and they have unfairly criticized him for something he did not mean.

      Most of Denton's critics have not read his book or they would appreciate that his 33 page chapter is actually an argument against the common interpretation of the molecular clock and not a "silly mistake" about basic phylogenetics.

      His argument was that the constancy of change (molecular clock) in the face of differing mutation rates and differing generation times suggests some underlying principles other than simply evolution.

      Hofmann has reached a similar conclusion, noting that it was the widespread misinterpretation of Denton's ideas by creationists that prompted such a strong reaction from evolution supporters. Those supporters, many of whom were scientists, should have read Denton's books.

      Hofmann, J.R. (2014) A Tale of Two Crocoducks: Creationist Misuses of Molecular Evolution. Sci. & Educ. 23:2095-2117. [doi: 10.1007/s11191-014-9696-8]

      Delete
    7. I agree that Denton did spend more time on the issue of constant molecular clocks than he did on the very bad argument that there should be a cytochrome c somewhere in between extant eukaryotes and extant prokaryotes. Nevertheless, that argument was indeed very bad and it is still repeated by creationists. Denton has never corrected them. All he says about the issue in his new book is the following:

      "I also have omitted discussion of the problem of the equidistance or equal isolation at the molecular and genetic level of the members of specific clades from particular outgroup species. While this fascinating phenomenon is still as challenging as ever to the Darwinian narrative, it has been reviewed in detail by Shi Huang in a number of recent papers. He has shown that the equidistance phenomenon can only be accounted for if the origin of the different Types involved causal factors in addition to cumulative selection and drift and if the origin of the major types was saltational rather than the gradual process described by defenders of Darwinian orthodoxy."

      Disappointing

      Delete
    8. "While this fascinating phenomenon is still as challenging as ever to the Darwinian narrative, it has been reviewed in detail by Shi Huang in a number of recent papers"

      Still silly times two.
      That Denton thinks Shi Huang fluff has merit makes my opinion of him even less charitable.

      Delete
  3. I don't agree Owen or Darwin are great biologists if they study the origin of biology results. Biologists study actual biology and accomplishment in those days must be graded on that. Origin biologists is another species of/within biology.
    Anyways
    I thought dEnton made good/funny points.
    Structure probably is a forgotten, but reviving from Denton in fame, roadblock to the evolutionary option that ignores structure constraints and origins.
    It was tiny circles DECIDING the truth here and so its tiny circles today deciding anew the truth. Maybe one day a statue of Denton will replace Darwin.
    It could be or probably will be.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Indeed. the idea that basic body plans cannot be easily explained by evolution. Thats not a claim just of creationists, but a wellknown and acknowledged fact amongst professional evolutionary biologists. Nothing new here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Counterintuitive non-sense from Rasmussen.

      if the explanation is complicated, you don't understand it.

      You are only nibbling around the fuzzy edges. You mistake fuzzy for complicated and haven't considered you need to stop nibbling around the edges.










      Delete
    2. "if the explanation is complicated, you don't understand it. "

      Thank you for making your encephalitic subnormality all the more obvious.

      Delete
  5. "Development is possible," writes Arthur (2000), "only if cells 'know' what to do in all these respects," i.e., assign their planes of division, tendencies to move, directions and rates of movement, modes of differentiation into particular cell types, and cell death (apoptosis). "So the key question," Arthur continues, "becomes 'how do they know?', and the whole of developmental biology could be regarded as an attempt to answer this question." If the question "How do cells know?" is to be answered by developmental biology, its sister (and far more difficult) question "How did cells learn what they know?" must be addressed by evolutionary (or historical) biology.

    And here serious, and currently unanswered, questions arise. "How cell types of multicellular organisms came to be differentiated," notes Schlichting (2003), "is still an open issue...the origins of differentiation remain unclear."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ahh the quintessential creationist appeal to ignorance. We don't know everything at every level of detail - therefore god.

      Delete
    2. "How did cells learn what they know?" must be addressed by evolutionary (or historical) biology.

      It amazes me the extent to which supporters of teleology believe that cells, bacteria, and viruses "learn" like humans.

      Have they got little classrooms, blackboards, and desks? Or have they graduated to little cell-sized iPads now?

      Delete
    3. It amazes me how people can believe that humans can learn but cells can't.

      It seems their Luddite tendencies are hard to overcome; like believing that learning only happens in the confines of brains.

      Its the cell that learns, not the brain...duh!

      Delete
  6. Larry,

    You are not a DARWINIST!!! Do you get it? You said it yourself many, may times over. Why would you insist on the statue of Darwinists' god to be put in there if you absolutely had not connection with any kind of Darwinism?

    I don't think I need to post the details about your evolutionary views but most people know what they are

    BTW: They will not comment because all of your "evolutionary relatives" agree on one thing first and foremost: There is no gods.

    After that is easy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Evolution is no threat to belief in God. I may threaten some people's notions of the bible but those people to go to a good seminary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Theology can always come up with ideas convoluted and poorly defined enough to accommodate any aspects of reality, if sufficient motivation exists to do so. The question remains: What is the point?

      Delete
    2. It all depends what one means by evolution.

      The bible indirectly alludes to "evolution" or change within kinds after the flood.

      One can see the example of it in my neck of the woods.

      There are coyotes mixed with wolfs and dogs right out side of my backyard fence. This is an example of evolution or change within a kind.

      Delete
    3. Eric, please prove that 'Biblical kinds' exist.

      Are they defined by structure or common descent? If common descent, then evolutionary theory *forbids* (does NOT require) change of kinds.

      If they are defined by structure, what's the definition? How is a human not the same 'kind' as a chimp or an Australopithecus?

      Prove 'kinds' exist. Do not use examples, 'For example, cats and dogs are different kinds!' Nope, they're both carnivora. Examples are not a definition.

      Delete
    4. Diogenes,

      "Eric, please prove that 'Biblical kinds' exist."

      The bible does not provide such details but the coyote/dog/wolf mix gives us a clue that some kind of evolution within kinds, call it dog-like-kind is possible. Same for the cat-like-kind.

      "Are they defined by structure or common descent? If common descent, then evolutionary theory *forbids* (does NOT require) change of kinds."

      You'd have to clarify exactly what you mean by it. Sorry.


      "If they are defined by structure, what's the definition? How is a human not the same 'kind' as a chimp or an Australopithecus?"

      Similar structure doesn't necessarily mean common descent does it?

      You know very well that there are many "novel genes" you call the pseudo genes, that you can't account for, between the last blah blah blah and homo sapiens?

      WHY DOES homo sapience have a chin and chimps don't? How did it evolve? Why did it evolve in the first place?

      I'm sure you don't have any real answer for this phenomenon, so I will not make you to come up with a bad one.

      Delete
    5. Eric,
      From those "kind" standards, bonobo/chimp/human/gorilla should be acceptable for you as a biblical "kind" (maybe orang-utan too).

      Delete
    6. I asked Eric to define 'kind' and of course he did not even try. I pointed out that creationists respond with examples, "dogs and cats are different kinds", but examples are not a definition.

      So he responds that dog/wolf/coyote mix is proof of evolution within kinds. Nope, because "kinds" don't exist. He'd might as well call it evolution within garzaplexes.

      And then there's this treasure:

      You know very well there are many "novel genes" you call the pseudo genes, that you can't account for, between the last blah blah blah and homo sapiens?

      Jesus.

      1. "Novel genes" are not pseudo genes. Pseudo genes are typically shared by related species. E.g. humans and chimps share pseudogenes for olfaction and vitamin C synthesis that were broken long ago in a mutual ancestor. "Novel genes" allegedly appearing in humans but not chimps are a whole other subject.

      2. There are different estimates of the number of "novel" genes in humans, but generally the number is small. Some of the "novel" genes are short bits of non-coding RNA genes that are transcribed into short bits of functional RNA. Short bits can be created by random mutation.

      3. There are ORFans which are mostly not really genes, just candidates. Is that what you meant? God only knows.

      4. There may also be longer "de novo" bits including genes that code for protein and whose origin in non-coding DNA can be traced. But current research indicates that "de novo" protein coding genes originate from non-coding DNA more often than was previously thought. Functional protein-coding sequences are rare, but not as rare as we once thought.

      Your writing is terribly garbled. You're trying to use jargon but you don't know what the jargon means. If you need to make claims about "de novo genes", please cite actual scientific articles so I can read professional writing by people who know what the jargon means.

      Delete
    7. And stop givinge examples of alleged "kinds". Examples are not a definition. Prove that kinds exist.

      Delete
    8. Although the Bible actually provides some hints as to what the KINDS might be and where the division between them might constituted, I don’t believe any Bible expert can provide the clear-cut definition of KIND based solely on the Bible.

      Here is just one key point (possibly of many more) that gives us a clue as to what KIND might mean in biblical sense;


      “The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.”

      Another point;

      ”. Breeding experiments have demonstrated that appearance is no criterion. Man and the chimpanzee may look somewhat similar, have comparable types of muscles and bones; yet the complete inability of man to hybridize with the ape family proves that they are two separate creations and not of the same created “kind.”

      Delete
    9. Eric writes: WHY DOES homo sapience have a chin and chimps don't? How did it evolve? Why did it evolve in the first place?

      So that the humans who wrote the bible would have something to scratch while thinking about what to write next.

      Seriously... trying to make sense of biology using the bible as a guide? Is this the year 1500 or what? What an embarrassment to the human intellect.

      Delete
    10. Correction!!!

      pseudo genes-should be-orphan genes

      Diogenes,

      I've told you that there is no clear definition of kind from a biblical point of view just like there is no clear definition of life from scientific point of view.

      If you really what to debate the origins of life, you'd better start with making sure that some people in the audience agree with your definition of life or you are going to get stuck on this issue alone ;-)

      Delete
    11. SRM,

      If biology make sense, you shouldn't be threaten by biblical statements, should you?

      If evolution is true as well as common descent, I'm sure evolutionists will make some sense as to why they have chins and their ancestors as well as chimps, gorillas and the like don't beyond just claiming that chins must have evolved somehow lol

      Delete
    12. Newbie,

      Can you point in my bible where exactly are the "hints" to what the biblical kinds might be?

      I might agree with some of your claims but I'm not sure I will find evidence for it in my bible lol

      Delete
    13. If biology make sense, you shouldn't be threaten by biblical statements, should you?

      No one, dummy, I repeat, no one is threatened by biblical statements save those who have been put to death on their basis.

      And the chin again? Why don't you compare the skull of a bulldog with that of a german shepherd if you want to see the power of selection for variable traits. That is, if you even believe that these two dogs arose from a common ancestor.

      As for why humans developed a prominent chin, who knows? It might be chance or might be related to speech development. Understanding evolution doesn't depend upon knowing why every morphological feature developed.

      What is your answer for the presence of a chin - please don't say it is because god has a chin and he created us in his image...brother.

      Delete
    14. SRM,

      “As for why humans developed a prominent chin, who knows? It might be chance or might be related to speech development.”

      That couldn’t be it. Random DNA replication errors in an unguided process can’t anticipate future needs. That said, there are examples of evolutionists who succumbed to idea of mutations being saved up for a rainy day. It’s pretty easy to see why.

      Delete
    15. That couldn’t be it. Random DNA replication errors in an unguided process can’t anticipate future needs. That said, there are examples of evolutionists who succumbed to idea of mutations being saved up for a rainy day. It’s pretty easy to see why.

      Yeah right. I didn't say anything about anticipating future need. But your misunderstanding of evolution is so profound it isn't really worth correcting the two major misconceptions (one of them arising from plain dishonesty) in the above statement.

      Delete
    16. Eric,

      Here is the entire essay on KINDS. The quoted scriptures do not refer to any particular Bible, so you are welcomed to look them up in your Bible or any other Bible.

      Part 1.

      "he creation record found in the first chapter of Genesis reveals that Jehovah God created earth’s living things “according to their kinds.” (Ge 1:11, ftn) Toward the end of the sixth creative day the earth was supplied with a great variety of basic created “kinds,” which included very complex forms of life. These were endowed with the capacity for reproducing offspring “according to their kind(s)” in a fixed, orderly manner.—Ge 1:12, 21, 22, 24, 25; 1Co 14:33.

      The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.

      In recent years, the term “species” has been applied in such a manner as to cause confusion when it is compared with the word “kind.” The basic meaning of “species” is “a sort; kind; variety.” In biologic terminology, however, it applies to any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. Thus, there could be many such species or varieties within a single division of the Genesis “kinds.”

      Although the Bible creation record and the physical laws implanted in created things by Jehovah God allow for great diversity within the created “kinds,” there is no support for theories maintaining that new “kinds” have been formed since the creation period. The unchangeable rule that “kinds” cannot cross is a biologic principle that has never been successfully challenged. Even with the aid of modern laboratory techniques and manipulation, no new “kinds” have been formed. Besides, the crossing of created “kinds” would interfere with God’s purpose for a separation between family groups and would destroy the individuality of the various kinds of living creatures and things. Hence, because of the distinct discontinuity apparent between the created “kinds,” each basic group stands as an isolated unit apart from other “kinds.”

      From the earliest human record until now, the evidence is that dogs are still dogs, cats continue to be cats, and elephants have been and will always be elephants. Sterility continues to be the delimiting factor as to what constitutes a “kind.” This phenomenon makes possible, through the test of sterility, the determining of the boundaries of all the “kinds” in existence today. Through this natural test of fertilization it is possible to uncover the primary relationships within animal life and plant life. For example, sterility presents an impassable gulf between man and the animals. Breeding experiments have demonstrated that appearance is no criterion. Man and the chimpanzee may look somewhat similar, have comparable types of muscles and bones; yet the complete inability of man to hybridize with the ape family proves that they are two separate creations and not of the same created “kind.”

      Although hybridization was once hoped to be the best means of bringing about a new “kind,” in every investigated case of hybridization the mates were always easily identified as being of the same “kind,” such as in the crossing of the horse and the donkey, both of which are members of the horse family. Except in rare instances, the mule thus produced is sterile and unable to continue the variation in a natural way. Even Charles Darwin was forced by the facts to admit: “The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54) This still remains true."

      Delete
    17. Part 2.

      "Whereas specific created “kinds” may number only in the hundreds, there are many more varieties of animals and plants on the earth. Modern research has indicated that hundreds of thousands of different plants are members of the same family. Similarly, in the animal kingdom, there may be many varieties of cats, all belonging to one cat family or feline “kind.” The same is true of men, of cattle, and of dogs, allowing for great diversity within each “kind.” But the fact remains that no matter how many varieties occur in each family, none of these “kinds” can commingle genetically.

      Geological research provides clear evidence that the fossils held to be among the earliest specimens of a certain creature are very similar to their descendants alive today. Cockroaches found among the supposed earliest fossil insects are virtually identical to modern ones. Fossil “bridges” between “kinds” are totally lacking. Horses, oak trees, eagles, elephants, walnuts, ferns, and so forth, all continue within the same “kinds” without evolving into other “kinds.” The testimony of the fossils is in full accord with the Bible’s history of creation, which shows that Jehovah created the living things of the earth in great numbers and “according to their kinds” during the final creative days.—Ge 1:20-25.

      From the foregoing, it becomes apparent that Noah could get all the necessary animals into the ark for preservation through the Flood. The Bible does not say that he had to preserve alive every variety of the animals. Rather, it states: “Of the flying creatures according to their kinds and of the domestic animals according to their kinds, of all moving animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive.” (Ge 6:20; 7:14, 15) Jehovah God knew it was necessary to save only representative members of the different “kinds,” since they would reproduce in variety after the Flood.—See ARK No. 1.

      Following the recession of the floodwaters, these comparatively few basic “kinds” emerged from the ark and spread out over the surface of the earth, eventually producing many variations of their “kinds.” Although many new varieties have come into existence since the Flood, the surviving “kinds” have remained fixed and unchanged, in harmony with the unchangeable word of Jehovah God.—Isa 55:8-11."

      Delete
    18. Here is evolution at its full blast:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtXby3twMmI

      LMAO

      Delete
    19. 'Man and the chimpanzee may look somewhat similar, have comparable types of muscles and bones; yet the complete inability of man to hybridize with the ape family proves that they are two separate creations and not of the same created “kind."' Apologies for being rather gross, but is that hypothesis actually well enough tested that we can be confident it's true. Of course any chimp/human hybrid would be sterile (the chromosome fusion thing) but would it be inviable?

      Delete
    20. Here's a queston I've never heard a creationist address: How does the concept of "kinds" apply to ring species? For instance, in the colour diagram in the upper right of the page linked below, where does one draw a line to demarcate one "kind" from another?

      Wkipedia: Ring Species

      Delete
    21. bwilson: Chromosome fusion doesn't prevent reproduction; many populations have chromosome fusion polymorphisms.

      Delete
    22. Just giving this a bump, because I think the question of ring species is a very crucial one if the idea of "kinds" is to be treated as a serious scientific concept. I hope Eric, Newbie or any other creationist who holds to this concept will be able to clarify.

      Delete
  8. Frank
    I understand that consciousness has many interpretations. I will await Paul's thoughts. If consciousness ends up being important or relevant to the discussion I will try to work toward a definition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're posting in the wrong thread, again, Bill Cole.

      Have you decided whether to take me up on my offer to carry out an experiment on your brain to determine if consciousness is "natural"? I realize admit I might be taking a chance there. Hitting you very hard on the head with a baseball bat might not actually have any discernible effect in your case.

      Delete
  9. @dio If they are defined by structure, what's the definition? How is a human not the same 'kind' as a chimp or an Australopithecus?

    Define ''species''.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Species is conceptually defined as breeding populations. There was that definition about whether they can cross and produce viable and fertile offspring, but that has proven quite hard a definition, since people don't actually go trying to see which populations can breed with which other populations. The problem, though, for defining species, is precisely that evolution often makes it hard to have a clear cut-off line. Of course there's also the little problem that not every organism reproduces sexually.

      I get it that you thought this problem puts scientists "at the same level" as creationists who cannot define "kind." Your problem, though, is that your god supposedly created each "kind" separately, which should give you no trouble distinguishing between "kinds." Since that's not the case, you have to admit to some level of evolution, trying hard to ignore that quite often your definitions for kinds allows for humans, chimps, gorillas, and even orang-utans to be a single "kind." Except that you don't care about consistency. In the end a "kind" is whatever you want, as long as humans don't mix with anything else.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, Newbie, for a fine example of cargo cult science. Creationists put on white lab coats, talk in sciencey language, and hope that they will gain a rich reward of intellectual respectability cargo. No, John Frum is not coming back, no matter how many C-47s you assemble from bamboo or how many landing strips you clear off.

      Delete
    3. "Hey, that went in the wrong spot."

      Very similar to a random mutation.

      Delete