"Did Life Evolve" program..

[Johnny]

http://www.kgov.com/evolve/ is an intellectual farce. The fact that it is paraded as an honest criticism of evolution is saddening.

Anyone with even a cursory understanding of biology would see the obvious flaws with that program. This leads me to question both the author's education. Again, if your understanding of evolution is that poor, why would you post things that you don't know are true?

If anyone would stand up and defend the program as an honest critcism, then I'd be more than happy to listen. However, I suspect most of the replies will be quibbles over the way I've said things, rather than my point.

The page is misleading, and I don't know why christians approve of it.

Edit: I've taken out references to dishonesty. I don't think Bob isn't being dishonest on purpose. He is, however, being irresponsible and posting misleading information. What I don't understand is how he can talk about mtDNA, non-coding regions, neandertal studies, hominid studies, and evolution in general, and overlook elementary principles. This leads me to believe that he doesn't really understand all of what he repeats. If he did, then information such as this page would be clearly dishonest, because the principles discussed are elementary with respect to the other topics I've heard him talk about. Nonetheless, the information is misleading whether or not he knows it, and he has a responsibility to a) correct himself and b) educate himself so that he does not spread false information.

 

[fool]

good luck

 

[JoyfulRook]

http://www.kgov.com/evolve/ is an intellectual farce.

How?

The fact that it is paraded as an honest criticism of evolution is saddening.

Why?

Why do we Christians allow this dishonesty to pass unquestioned right under our noses?

You believe in evolution? :darwinsm:

Arguments like that are why Christians are an intellectual laughing stock. It's embarassing, seriously.

Why?

If anyone would stand up and defend the program as an honest critcism, then I'd be more than happy to listen.

We'll see.

The page is dishonest and misleading, and I don't know why christians approve of it.

Why do you say that?

 

[Johnny]

You believe in evolution? :darwinsm:

Yes. :darwinsm:

We'll see.

Indeed. Predictable post. Thanks for the substance.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

The page is dishonest and misleading, and I don't know why christians approve of it.

This might sound a bit strange, coming from a non-Christian who gives assent to the mainstream theory of evolution.

The page is only "dishonest" if the author is aware of the weaknesses of arguing by analogy. Bob Enyart is not a trained biologist, nor a trained mathematician--as far as I am aware, his only degree is in computer science.

Bob's arguments can, at worst, be called naive--they are not dishonest.

Justin

 

[Johnny]

The page is only "dishonest" if the author is aware of the weaknesses of arguing by analogy. Bob Enyart is not a trained biologist, nor a trained mathematician--as far as I am aware, his only degree is in computer science.

I somewhat agree, even though I argue that the analogy itself is a weak analogy, not necessarily that the argument is weak because it is an analogy.

Nonetheless, as you state, I grappled with the idea that most of the misinformation is the result of Bob's lack of knowledge, not because he is intentionally dishonest. Yet, Bob chooses to engage in some particularly involving topics, such as mitochondrial and noncoding DNA. I assume that he has at least a basic understanding of these principles. Thus, I am torn between the two options. To his credit, he has been very good at correcting himself, which is why I still feel that much of it is naivity, not dishonesty.

 

[Jeremiah85]

I agree, even though I argue that the analogy itself is a weak analogy, not necessarily that the argument is weak because it is an analogy.

Nonetheless, as you state, I have come to the conclusion that most of the misinformation is the result of Bob's lack of knowledge, not because he is intentionally dishonest. However, the page is misleading and dishonest whether or not Bob is aware of it. I

Could you please give a specific reason why this page is misleading?

 

[Johnny]

Could you please give a specific reason why this page is misleading?

Life doesn't evolve by random permutations and it has no direction or goal. Whatever works best is the route it will take. Further, successful mutations become more likely to appear in future generations, and thus, complexity is built one step at a time, not by random guesses.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Could you please give a specific reason why this page is misleading?

Well, first and foremost, the process that Bob is modeling is not "evolution"--it's abiogenesis.

Secondly, the "model" that Bob is critiquing is ... problematic. Hubert Yockey wrote a fairly stinging critique of the modern abiogenesis model in 1977. (Yockey, Hubert. 1992. Information Theory and Molecular Biology, p. 336, Cambridge University Press, UK, ISBN 0-521-80293-8) Unfortunately, the "primordial soup" model has never been replaced by anything better, though some experiments have seemingly confirmed large portions of it, and some field discoveries (including the atmosphere of Titan) have confirmed others.

Thirdly, the process of protein formation is not strictly random. The amino acids are more likely to combine in certain ways, and less likely to combine in others ... but some of the "more likely" ways coincide with proteins in living organisms. So the "odds" are not balanced.

Fourthly, as has been noted, argument by analogy is a weak argument--meaning that by itself, it's not sufficient to prove or disprove anything. An argument by analogy is sufficient to illustrate a scientific model, but is not sufficient to actually test it.

Justin

 

[Johnny]

Thanks justin. I was unaware that he was discussing abiogenesis though. Why does he even mention proteins if he's discussion abiogenesis?

It appears he's mixed evolution and abiogenesis into one giant pot of ambiguity, when the process of evolution is completely independent from the mechanisms of abiogenesis.

The page says, "Can life begin by chance?" but on the "science behind evolve" page he says, "A protein molecule must get the letters of its amino acid alphabet correct in the right order, from the beginning, sequentially through to the end. That makes the probability of the evolution of life tremendously more unlikely than our alphabet evolution."

 

[JoyfulRook]

Indeed. Predictable post. Thanks for the substance.

So in other words: "I'm going to blow off the rest of your questions."

 

[JoyfulRook]

Hey Johnny, why not call into Bob's show and show him his err?

 

[Johnny]

So in other words: "I'm going to blow off the rest of your questions."

Yes. The answers are mostly self-evident. If you would like me to explain why it is inaccurate, then ask.

 

[fool]

I think it's a straw man
He's offering a suposed analogy when what he has is a screen saver gambling program?
shouldn't the fact that there are winners show him somthing?

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Thanks justin. I was unaware that he was discussing abiogenesis though. Why does he even mention proteins if he's discussion abiogenesis?

Well, that's the usual crux of the "primordial soup" abiogenesis model--a primordial soup of amino acids form proteins under the correct conditions.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

So in other words: "I'm going to blow off the rest of your questions."

Well, DH, none of your questions were actually substantive. Open-ended questions and derision don't normally indicate a willingness for a substantive discussion, my friend.

Justin

 

[Jeremiah85]

Thirdly, the process of protein formation is not strictly random. The amino acids are more likely to combine in certain ways, and less likely to combine in others ... but some of the "more likely" ways coincide with proteins in living organisms. So the "odds" are not balanced.

Are you saying that proteins are slightly more likely to be formed or are they much more likely to be formed in ways that coincide with living organisms?

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Are you saying that proteins are slightly more likely to be formed or are they much more likely to be formed in ways that coincide with living organisms?

I'm saying that the amino acids tend to chain in protein-friendly configurations. Whether that's a cause (proteins happen) or just a coincidence (proteins don't happen, but the chains are similar), I dunno.

That's the other reason I don't care for the "primordial soup" model ... it should be dead easy to duplicate in the lav, but we've never done it. We're either missing something very fundamental, or it's the wrong model.

 

[Jeremiah85]

I'm saying that the amino acids tend to chain in protein-friendly configurations. Whether that's a cause (proteins happen) or just a coincidence (proteins don't happen, but the chains are similar), I dunno.

That's the other reason I don't care for the "primordial soup" model ... it should be dead easy to duplicate in the lav, but we've never done it. We're either missing something very fundamental, or it's the wrong model.

So, how do you believe that life began?

 

[fool]

straw men are fun
let me see if I can make one
if I put the population of people on the earth
5,000,000,000
into my calculator and devide by two
as in a world wide coin toss tournament
I come up with the winner having won 33 coin tosses in a row
and what's more amazing is that the person he won the last one against had won 32 in a row!
what are the odds?!?!?
so here's what you can do at home
you and your buddy toss coins by your selves until you have both beat the coin 32 times in a row and the play each other
see how many tries it takes you and let us know
and by the way please ignore the fact that there will be winners
please ignore the fact that the winners prove that it is possible
just cocentrate on the coins flipping