Pseudogene discovered in cats - implications

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: gallo What do you think the implications of this research are for creationism and/or evolutionary biology, if any?

Pretty much none. The debate surrounding evolution has always been characterized in the media and the schools as something different than what it is. The disagreement between religion and science over evolution is based on two things: The claim that evolution proves that the non-existence of God. The use of evolution to support eugenenics and other programs not consistent with morality.

[Prometheus]

This is just one more example of independant scientific research fitting in with the evolutionary model... nothing suprising or groundbreaking. These simple studies happen every day without notice. This one is just interesting because it's about a cute fuzzy animal that many people have in thier houses (for some unexplicable reason).

[Isaiah]

Quote by: Starboy If the creationist in question was a thoughtful honest individual your puzzle would be puzzling however if you question such people at length on a variety of other topics the cause of it becomes very clear. They are profoundly and willfully ignorant. Starboy

I suppose it would be possible to find someone supporting any idea who is “profoundly and willfully ignorant”. But we all should be careful of making generalizations of this nature, because some day we might be the “profoundly and willfully ignorant” ones and the persons about whom we have made such generalizations be knowledgeable ones.

I also assert that any one of us here, if questioned at length on “a variety of other topics” would also, at some point, show or own ignorance. This only means that none of us knows everything - which does not disqualify us from speaking on topics in which we are knowledgeable does it?

I think we should discuss the arguments themselves rather than make generalizations about the persons holding these views or using these arguments. Such generalizations show only our own biases (and possibly our ignorance of these views or arguments) and do not contribute to the discussion of ideas nor does it help us to understand the ideas of others and, in that understanding, possibly add to our own knowledge.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Isaiah I suppose it would be possible to find someone supporting any idea who is “profoundly and willfully ignorant”. But we all should be careful of making generalizations of this nature, because some day we might be the “profoundly and willfully ignorant” ones and the persons about whom we have made such generalizations be knowledgeable ones.

I have no doubt that I am profoundly ignorant. But I try not to be willfully ignorant. I try to be the least ignorant of all my fellow ignoramuses. In order to do that I can't be willful about being ignorant. I must be willful about being knowledgeable.

I also assert that any one of us here, if questioned at length on “a variety of other topics” would also, at some point, show or own ignorance. This only means that none of us knows everything - which does not disqualify us from speaking on topics in which we are knowledgeable does it?

Of course not. But if the person in question was willful in maintaining their ignorance then I would say that it would disqualify them. In general I would not ask a creationist to give a talk on evolution. The vast majority of Creationists would find it hard to present evolution fairly. And frankly the vast majority of Creationists I have come across are full of misinformation about evolution. That in and of itself would not be troubling but they will not listen to any information about evolution that doesn't come from a source they will accept and most of those sources are against evolution. There is no way they can give it a fair shake and it is obvious that they are being willful about it. Yet they want people to give their supernatural ideas a fair shake. It is all very hypocritical and dishonest. It would be one thing if your average creationist knew more about evolution than your average evolutionist. Then you could give them the benefit of the doubt that they might have come to their creationist’s beliefs honestly but I have never come across such a creationist. The best of them just parrot misinformation from anti-evolution web sites.

I think we should discuss the arguments themselves rather than make generalizations about the persons holding these views or using these arguments. Such generalizations show only our own biases (and possibly our ignorance of these views or arguments) and do not contribute to the discussion of ideas nor does it help us to understand the ideas of others and, in that understanding, possibly add to our own knowledge.

Sure. But my response was to gallo's question of how they could think that cats ate fruit in Eden based on this information. So how could they think that? Willful ignorance. I have seen it too many times to count. This site is filled with threads that illustrate it over and over and over again.

Starboy

[Isaiah]

Quote by: Starboy Of course not. But if the person in question was willful in maintaining their ignorance then I would say that it would disqualify them.

I would tend to determine the arguments for themselves and not based upon the character traits of those making the arguments. To do otherwise is to invite ad homonym.

Quote by: Starboy In general I would not ask a creationist to give a talk on evolution. The vast majority of Creationists would find it hard to present evolution fairly. And frankly the vast majority of Creationists I have come across are full of misinformation about evolution.

So, have you met the vast majority of creationists, or are you extrapolating from personal experience? And if so, are you inviting others to do the same in regards to evolutionists? Or should we stick to the issues and not resort to generalizations?

I would also say that some evolutionists I have met have a lot to learn about the arguments of current creationists. I would also say that these evolutionist would do a poor job on presenting creationism as well. In my experience both sides need to be more humble about their positions and learn more from useful debate. In the end, it is not about who believes what, or who can out debate whom, but what is the truth?

Quote by: Starboy That in and of itself would not be troubling but they will not listen to any information about evolution that doesn't come from a source they will accept and most of those sources are against evolution.

Because a source is aimed against evolution does not mean that it’s information is incorrect anymore than an anti-creation source is incorrect about creationism. And considering what a great many of the anti-creationist sites say about creationists, it is no wonder why they prefer more friendly sources.

Quote by: Starboy There is no way they can give it a fair shake and it is obvious that they are being willful about it.

In the same way that many evolutionists refuse to give creationist arguments a fair shake.

Quote by: Starboy Yet they want people to give their supernatural ideas a fair shake. It is all very hypocritical and dishonest. It would be one thing if your average creationist knew more about evolution than your average evolutionist. Then you could give them the benefit of the doubt that they might have come to their creationist’s beliefs honestly but I have never come across such a creationist. The best of them just parrot misinformation from anti-evolution web sites.

So you are saying that a creationist can only come by their creationist views by knowing more about evolution? Does it follow then that an evolutionist can only come by his evolutionist beliefs by knowing more about creation? You are placing upon creationists a criteria that you do not expect of evolutionists, that is to know their opponent’s view point better than their opponents do. This seems to me to be a double-standard and somewhat hypocritical.

You might also be surprised to hear that many creationists/ID-ists hold their views not in spite of science but because of science, and in many cases, their knowledge of evolution far exceeds that of both you and I. I realize this is difficult for many evolutionists to swallow - that someone could have such an extensive knowledge of science and evolution and then reject evolution as the best explanation of origins. But there are many scientists who have done this very thing.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Isaiah I would tend to determine the arguments for themselves and not based upon the character traits of those making the arguments. To do otherwise is to invite ad homonym.

Do what you like. You asked, I told you my reasons.

So, have you met the vast majority of creationists, or are you extrapolating from personal experience? And if so, are you inviting others to do the same in regards to evolutionists? Or should we stick to the issues and not resort to generalizations?

Of course I am extrapolating. And others extrapolate as well. So what? We extrapolate all the time. It would be one thing if I extrapolated from my experience and then that extrapolation was constantly wrong. But it is not. If anything it is all too accurate. I have yet to come across a creationist that knew much of anything about evolution. They essentially parrot points of view from people that have made their minds up for them. They do not approximate anything approaching being fair about it.

I would also say that some evolutionists I have met have a lot to learn about the arguments of current creationists. I would also say that these evolutionist would do a poor job on presenting creationism as well. In my experience both sides need to be more humble about their positions and learn more from useful debate. In the end, it is not about who believes what, or who can out debate whom, but what is the truth?

I would agree. But my experience with those evolutionists is that at least they will be open minded about it and for the most part will consider that they are ignorant. But I find your line of argument to be very odd and very silly. Think anything you want about evolutionists. Think they are lying sacks of shit for all I care. Calling one party wrong doesn't make the other party right. Calling one party flawed doesn't make the other party perfect. Rather than trying to find fault in evolutionists you should be trying to show that creationists are not being willfully ignorant. You must show that they have looked at the opposing arguments, have examined the evidence and data and considered it fairly. Only then will you actually be arguing against my point that creationists are willfully ignorant.
I am not calling creationists willfully ignorant because I think that evolutionists are right. I call them willfully ignorant because that is what they are.

Because a source is aimed against evolution does not mean that it’s information is incorrect anymore than an anti-creation source is incorrect about creationism. And considering what a great many of the anti-creationist sites say about creationists, it is no wonder why they prefer more friendly sources.

Of course not. But again you are arguing very stupidly. In order to show that creationists are not willfully ignorant you must show that they have considered the other side of the argument fairly. Not just dismissed it out of hand based on some lame talking points from a creationist website. You see in actual scientific discussions there usually are competing explanations that do not agree on one point or the other and the way the parties make a fair and informed choice is not by ignoring the explanations and information from the other side. In fact they take their time to understand those arguments and explanations at least as well as those that advocate them. Because it is not an athletic event where you root for your color no matter how much they suck. If you are trying to be honest you must be fair and you must give both sides a fair shake. I have never seen any creationist do this. Not personally, not in the media, not in print, not anywhere. They are all very willfully ignorant. They are all very dishonest. They make an awful example for society.

In the same way that many evolutionists refuse to give creationist arguments a fair shake.

That is nonsense. You think that if the creationists were not on to something useful scientifically that other scientists would not be all over it? That is the other stupid thing about creationists. They concoct a conspiracy as if science is not trying to figure out reality. They are no different than the UFOers, the perpetual motioners, or the Big Footers. They think they have the "truth" but their "truth" is no better then the other crap that even they would not believe in. They can only maintain this state by being willfully ignorant and dishonest.

So you are saying that a creationist can only come by their creationist views by knowing more about evolution? Does it follow then that an evolutionist can only come by his evolutionist beliefs by knowing more about creation? You are placing upon creationists a criteria that you do not expect of evolutionists, that is to know their opponent’s view point better than their opponents do. This seems to me to be a double-standard and somewhat hypocritical.

You read what I said. For some reason you want to cast this as some sort of a sports competition. Root for your color no mater how bad they suck. And always revile the opposing team. This appears to pass for honest intellectual thought in our society these days.

It is very simple. If the creationist is being an honest sincere investigator then they will look at all possible explanations not just the ones that their religion tells them they must believe. That is what it means to be fair. And if the evolutionist in your opinion is not being fair so what. As I said before, turning the evolutionist into a devil doesn't make the creationist an angel. The creationist has the same problem as the evolutionist. In the final analysis if the creationist claims that what they are doing is science then they must compete with all the other explanations. But so far they are not doing it. There is no science in creationism. It doesn’t lead to new reality.

It is also dang funny that your arguments indicate that you think that science has not considered the creationist explanation. What do you think the explanation was before evolution? Are you so ignorant of history that this fact has entirely escaped you? Or are you being willfully ignorant?

You might also be surprised to hear that many creationists/ID-ists hold their views not in spite of science but because of science, and in many cases, their knowledge of evolution far exceeds that of both you and I. I realize this is difficult for many evolutionists to swallow - that someone could have such an extensive knowledge of science and evolution and then reject evolution as the best explanation of origins. But there are many scientists who have done this very thing.

I am not surprised. I am aware that they exist. So what? There are scientists that think that alien abductions are real and that 40% of the population has been abducted. Just because someone calls themselves a scientist or is gainfully employed in a technical/scientific field doesn't mean that they can't hold and believe in the craziest things.

At the end of the day this is not about belief. This is science. Creationism is a failure as a scientific theory. Think whatever you want about evolution, there is no creationist theory that can hold a candle to evolution unless such a theory incorporates evolution. And those versions of creationism that incorporate evolution actually take evolution and hang god on it like hanging a pair of tits on a chair. The chair still works but the tits are just silly and are only taken seriously by people that care more about tits than chairs.

Starboy

[Isaiah]

Quote by: Starboy But I find your line of argument to be very odd and very silly.

Especially, when you aren’t talking about what I said but what you think I said.

Quote by: Starboy Think anything you want about evolutionists. Think they are lying sacks of shit for all I care. Calling one party wrong doesn't make the other party right. Calling one party flawed doesn't make the other party perfect.

My point exactly.

Quote by: Starboy Rather than trying to find fault in evolutionists you should be trying to show that creationists are not being willfully ignorant. You must show that they have looked at the opposing arguments, have examined the evidence and data and considered it fairly. Only then will you actually be arguing against my point that creationists are willfully ignorant.

Actually, you were expressing your opinion and I was expressing mine. Your opinion that creationists are willfully ignorant is largely based upon your own experience and my opinion about both parties is largely based upon my own experience. So it’s your experience and my experience. So, I have no need to demonstrate proof anymore than you do. You are giving me a burden of proof that you yourself are unwilling to bear. This is also a double-standard and hypocritical.

Quote by: Starboy I am not calling creationists willfully ignorant because I think that evolutionists are right. I call them willfully ignorant because that is what they are.

And I am saying that the ones I have met are not so. Again you opinions is based upon your experience and mine upon mine. So, I have no need to demonstrate proof anymore than you do.

Quote by: Starboy Of course not. But again you are arguing very stupidly. In order to show that creationists are not willfully ignorant you must show that they have considered the other side of the argument fairly. Not just dismissed it out of hand based on some lame talking points from a creationist website.

Again, you opinions is based upon your experience and mine upon mine. So, I have no need to demonstrate proof anymore than you do.

Quote by: Starboy You see in actual scientific discussions there usually are competing explanations that do not agree on one point or the other and the way the parties make a fair and informed choice is not by ignoring the explanations and information from the other side. In fact they take their time to understand those arguments and explanations at least as well as those that advocate them. Because it is not an athletic event where you root for your color no matter how much they suck. If you are trying to be honest you must be fair and you must give both sides a fair shake. I have never seen any creationist do this. Not personally, not in the media, not in print, not anywhere. They are all very willfully ignorant. They are all very dishonest. They make an awful example for society.

If you believe that is what current creationists are doing then it is you who are being willfully ignorant of their arguments.

Quote by: Starboy It is also dang funny that your arguments indicate that you think that science has not considered the creationist explanation. What do you think the explanation was before evolution? Are you so ignorant of history that this fact has entirely escaped you? Or are you being willfully ignorant?

I am more aware of the history of these matters than you think. But I was not making a statement I was asking you a question. One you seem to not be capable of answering.

Quote by: Starboy It is very simple. If the creationist is being an honest sincere investigator then they will look at all possible explanations not just the ones that their religion tells them they must believe.

How do you know they are not doing this? I know some of these folks and can tell you this is exactly what they do. They simply regard the naturalistic answer incapable of explaining the phenomena based upon real science not a predilection to only allowing evolution as the answer.

Quote by: Starboy That is what it means to be fair. And if the evolutionist in your opinion is not being fair so what. As I said before, turning the evolutionist into a devil doesn't make the creationist an angel.

This was never my assertion nor have I ever, in this post or any other here, called any evolutionist a “devil” nor have I made creationists out to be “angels”. In fact I said, and correctly so, that “both sides need to be more humble about their positions and learn more from useful debate”, which you yourself quoted me saying. I was being fair to both sides.

P.S. You are quite correct that current creationist thinking does include "evolution" (decent with modification and natural selection). But if they are including these processes doesn't that mean they must understand them to some degree? The realities of decent with modification and of natural selection are not the exclusive domain of proponents of evolution, but are real processes. If creationists wish to use them then they are welcome to incorporate them into their ideas. This shows that they are examining their ideas and changing them as science progresses. Asking them to remove God from their ideas of origins is illogical, because God is a central part of their ideas.

I guess that, unlike some, I can be fair to persons who disagree with my viewpoint and do not need to insult them, berate them, or resort to ad homonym, straw-man, and other fallacious argumentation.

[gallo]

Quote by: mr.perfecto Pretty much none. The debate surrounding evolution has always been characterized in the media and the schools as something different than what it is.

But the question wasn't about the implications for the debate, but what are the implications on evolutionary theory or creationism mythology? But you are probably correct. The implications for evolutionary theory are only that more evidence has been found to support the concept of common descent while creationists will continue to ignore the dentition, claws, digestive system, and metabolism of cats and continue to claim that they were fruit eaters only a few thousand years ago. If that were true it would be evolution at a rate that would make an evolutionary biologist's head spin.

So who is it that is mischaracterizing this so called "debate" and to what purpose? As far back as I can remember the debate has been whether scientific theories that are in conflict with certain cults of fundamentalist, young earth creationists should be taught in science class, or whether the beliefs of those cultists, dressed up in scientific sounding words, should be forced on all students under the pretense that it is science.

Quote by: mr.perfecto The disagreement between religion and science over evolution is based on two things: The claim that evolution proves that the non-existence of God.

If creationists would stop making that claim then there wouldn't be a disagreement. Certainly no competent scientist makes any such claim since it demonstrates a profound ignorance of what science is and how it works.

Quote by: mr.perfecto The use of evolution to support eugenenics and other programs not consistent with morality.

I'm not familiar with "eugenenics" and my dictionary is no help. Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain what you are talking about, how evolutionary theory is applicable. How does the use of a theory for immoral purposes reflect on the truth of the theory. If I use gravity in a manner not consistent with morality, does that invalidate gravity? How about nuclear theory and nuclear weapons? Does the fact that some nation manufactures nuclear weapons for the purpose of mass murder mean that uranium no longer fissions? Does the use of chemical weapons to bomb subways mean that chemical bonds stop working? Just what are you saying?

[Starboy]

Isaiah, what in the world makes you think that creationists understand evolution?

Starboy

[Isaiah]

Quote by: Starboy Isaiah, what in the world makes you think that creationists understand evolution? Starboy

The fact that I know (or have heard about or read works by) quite a few of them and know for a fact that they understand evolution, even current thinking in evolution, quite well. And that they all have advanced degrees from Universities which would not have given them those degrees had they not shown an acceptable level of understanding of evolution, as taught by those Universities. They also have written books and articles about evolution that demonstrate that they understand evolution. Other than these concrete facts, I really have nothing to go on.

As to their scientific credentials, many of them have won awards, have published recently in prestigious peer-review journals in their specialty, and are presently conducting valuable research. Some of them are listed in the “Whos Who” of their scientific disciplines.

That someone does not accept evolution as the only mechanistic solution to life’s origin and diversity, does not mean that they don’t understand it.

As I said before I can only talk about the ones that I have met and know and cannot comment on ones I have not. I am the same with evoutionists. That your experience with some creationists seem to be different does not give you license to pass judgment upon the others.

[rez]

Quote by: Isaiah The fact that I know (or have heard about or read works by) quite a few of them and know for a fact that they understand evolution, even current thinking in evolution, quite well. And that they all have advanced degrees from Universities which would not have given them those degrees had they not shown an acceptable level of understanding of evolution, as taught by those Universities. They also have written books and articles about evolution that demonstrate that they understand evolution. Other than these concrete facts, I really have nothing to go on. As to their scientific credentials, many of them have won awards, have published recently in prestigious peer-review journals in their specialty, and are presently conducting valuable research. Some of them are listed in the “Whos Who” of their scientific disciplines. That someone does not accept evolution as the only mechanistic solution to life’s origin and diversity, does not mean that they don’t understand it. As I said before I can only talk about the ones that I have met and know and cannot comment on ones I have not. I am the same with evoutionists. That your experience with some creationists seem to be different does not give you license to pass judgment upon the others.

Good, then send out private messages to creationists such as SNPETE, Swildo, MERLIN and other right wing christian conservatives explaining all that you have read, so we can avoid posts such as this..

Quote by: 7 Swildo 7 Since you obviously can't give a good reason as to why birds began to grow wings then lets move to something else. Birds are said to have come from reptiles and reptiles from fish.....but how could reptiles come from fish? Supposedly the fish wiggled out of the water onto land, but it could not breath because it has gills. So naturally the fish jumped back into the water. The fish continues to do this for millions of years and over that period of time he begins to choke less and less. Why fish would want to continually jump out of the water onto land is beyond me (maybe you can answer that too). Eventually fish grow lungs and then when it jumps out of the water it does not jump back because it now has learned to breathe with the lungs. According to Evolution this is where the reptile and eventually the bird came from. If you believe this is how birds and reptiles came to be then You are being stubborn.

and posts such as this....

Quote by: MerlinsByte MERLIN ….There are no of transitional forms to bridge the stages of this process especially during the early stages of the process. These inorganic and organic forms are critical to prove the abiogenesis theory,but they don’t exist , this alone is reason enough to suspect this asinine theory. There are many other fatal flaws in the theory of abiogenesis. So why would any thinking person beleive it? However If the secular/atheists or normal folk want to defend this embarrassment to science , I would be happy to discuss it. mb

Here is hoping to actual debate about evolution.

[Isaiah]

Quote by: rez Good, then send out private messages to creationists such as SNPETE, Swildo, MERLIN and other right wing christian conservatives explaining all that you have read, so we can avoid posts such as this.

I can't really make much of a comment about the first one, since vertebrate paleontology isn't my area of expertise, but I can say something about the second one.

“MERLIN ….There are no of transitional forms to bridge the stages of this process especially during the early stages of the process. These inorganic and organic forms are critical to prove the abiogenesis theory,but they don’t exist , this alone is reason enough to suspect this asinine theory. There are many other fatal flaws in the theory of abiogenesis. ”

When he asserts that there is no “transitional forms” between non-living chemicals and a putative first living cell (self-replicating system), he is right if one takes “transitional forms” to mean “geochemical evidence”. There is insufficient geochemical evidence, that I am aware of anyway, that contains the amino acids, nucleotides, and biolipids, or their associated pre-cursors in the abundances required by a naturalistic abiogenesis story.

That these are critical to prove any theory of naturalistic abiogenesis is also partially correct, because if any of various amino acid synthesis hypotheses are correct, we would expect to see an abundance of these chemicals and we do not. However, we could resort to auxiliary explanations as to why we do not see these chemical abundances, such as tectonic movement etc. However, this evidence is not required to formulate a plausible theory of naturalistic abiogenesis.

When he says that “There are many other fatal flaws in the theory of abiogenesis” he is also correct. The thread “abiogenesis according to a theist” (abiogenesis according to a theist) has several of my posts discussing this issue, especially #22 (abiogenesis according to a theist) where I briefly summarize the current state of naturalistic abiogenesis, as I understand it.

In this thread I asked for anyone to present any hypotheses they had heard of and was disappointed when no one did so. Again, my knowledge is limited, but to date I have not heard any hypothesis that was viable in the sense that it could explain the origin of life, or even the building-blocks of life without resorting to some as yet unknown process of law.

But I agree that the debate about these matters has been somewhat disappointing and both sides of the isle need to study a bit more and try to present better arguments.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Isaiah The fact that I know (or have heard about or read works by) quite a few of them and know for a fact that they understand evolution, even current thinking in evolution, quite well. And that they all have advanced degrees from Universities which would not have given them those degrees had they not shown an acceptable level of understanding of evolution, as taught by those Universities. They also have written books and articles about evolution that demonstrate that they understand evolution. Other than these concrete facts, I really have nothing to go on. As to their scientific credentials, many of them have won awards, have published recently in prestigious peer-review journals in their specialty, and are presently conducting valuable research. Some of them are listed in the “Whos Who” of their scientific disciplines. That someone does not accept evolution as the only mechanistic solution to life’s origin and diversity, does not mean that they don’t understand it. As I said before I can only talk about the ones that I have met and know and cannot comment on ones I have not. I am the same with evoutionists. That your experience with some creationists seem to be different does not give you license to pass judgment upon the others.

So what you are saying is that you don't actually know enough about evolution to make an evaluation? What about the overwhealming number of scientists that also publish and are also listed in who's who and have Nobel Prizes and so on that say that your creationist are full of it. Why are the scientific credentials of those that you choose to agree with convincing but the vast number of scientists with even greater credentials you do not find convincing? How honest is that?

Starboy

[gallo]

Quote by: Isaiah The fact that I know (or have heard about or read works by) quite a few of them and know for a fact that they understand evolution, even current thinking in evolution, quite well.

And what is the source of the knowledge that enables you to judge whether these creationists understand evolution. You certainly don't seem to understand it, so how is your opinion meaningful? What seems more likely is that your sources are telling you what you wish were true so you are conferring on them the authority of wisdom and knowledge.

Quote by: Isaiah And that they all have advanced degrees from Universities which would not have given them those degrees had they not shown an acceptable level of understanding of evolution, as taught by those Universities.

So these authorities of which you speak have advanced degrees in evolutionary biology? If not, then your comment is meaningless. How does a degree in chemistry make one an expert in evolution? How about an M.D.? How about a PhD. in hydraulics? Do you actually believe that those degrees require an acceptable level of understanding of evolutionary biology? Are you actually so naive as to believe that every college degree granted requires an "acceptable level of understanding" of evolution? I think you have been duped by charlatans who tout their degrees as authority to dupe you. You fell for it.

Let's see - There's Dr. Jonathan Sarfati of AIG - chemistry I believe. Dr. Henry Morris of the ICR - hydraulic engineering. Dr. Carl Wieland of AIG - M.D. Mr. Ken Ham of AIG - no advanced degree and not listed by AIG on their page of scientists. Dr. Duane Gish of ICR - biochemistry. Dr Michael Behe, teacher and author - biochemistry. Dr John Baumgardner - electrical engineering and computer science. Phillip Johnson - lawyer. Dr. William Dembski - math. "Dr." Carl Baugh of the Creation Evidences Museum - bogus degree. "Dr" Don Patton - bogus degree. "Dr" Kent Hovind - diploma mill degree. In the case of the last three you are correct - they have an acceptable level of understanding of evolutionary biology as required by their universities. That level is no knowledge whatsoever.

Then there are those like Dr. Jonathan Wells, author, who actually has a PhD in biology from the University of California. He undertook the study for that degree with the approval and encouragement of Father Sun Yung Moon of the Unification Church. His purpose was to learn enough about evolutionary biology to show that it is wrong. At least he had the integrity to learn about what he opposes, which is quite unlike most creationists.

There is also Dr. Kurt Wise who earned his degree in paleontology from Harvard under Stephen Jay Gould. He now teaches at a creationist college somewhere, but hey! he probably does understand evolutionary biology.

Quote by: Isaiah They also have written books and articles about evolution that demonstrate that they understand evolution.

Writing a book or an article about evolution doesn't demonstrate that one understands it. Couldn't it be that the information they present in those books is wrong? Wouldn't it be better to read books and articles by actual evolutionary biologists? How about books by Richard Dawkins - River Out of Eden is a good place to start.The Theory of Evolution by John Maynard Smith. What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr. Life by Richard Fortey. Evolution by Carl Zimmer. Evolutionary Biology by Douglas Futuyma. For some discussion of the ID/creationism debate, Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller. Abusing Science by Philip Kitcher. Science on Trial by Douglas Futuyma. And for some books about some specific cases of evolutionary research, {i}At the Water's Edge[/i] by Carl Zimmer, The Beak of the Finch (won Pulitzer Prize) by Jonathan Weiner. Becoming Human by Ian Tattersall. The Wisdom of the Bones by Alan Walker and Pat Shipman. Taking Wing by Pat Shipman.

By the way, I have done extensive reading of the material from the ICR. I have also listened to the 16 hours of nonsense spouted by Kent Hovind in his seminars (I am personally authorized by Mr. Hovind to distribute the texts of those seminars, or the seminars themselves).

Quote by: Isaiah Other than these concrete facts, I really have nothing to go on.

Exactly.

Quote by: Isaiah As to their scientific credentials, many of them have won awards, have published recently in prestigious peer-review journals in their specialty, and are presently conducting valuable research. Some of them are listed in the “Whos Who” of their scientific disciplines.

Could be, but how is that meaningful in discussions about evolutionary biology? You seem to be impressed by schooling even it it isn't in the field under discussion. So because someone has a degree and publishes in particle physics, that makes him an expert in evolutionary biology? Wouldn't it be preferable to place your confidence in the 99% of all biologists who accept evolutionary biology rather the few who don't? By the way, TJ is not a peer reviewed journal.

Quote by: Isaiah That someone does not accept evolution as the only mechanistic solution to life’s origin and diversity, does not mean that they don’t understand it.

Actually, it does. Anyone who claims that life's origin is a matter of evolutionary biology doesn't understand evolutionary biology.

Quote by: Isaiah As I said before I can only talk about the ones that I have met and know and cannot comment on ones I have not.

Since you didn't name any, what do you think that it's worth?

Quote by: Isaiah I am the same with evoutionists. That your experience with some creationists seem to be different does not give you license to pass judgment upon the others.

Mostly it does. I haven't met very many knowledgeable creationists. They may be educated in some cases, and they may be smart. Mostly they are intentionally ignorant.

Granted that my low opinion of creationists is a generalization, but it is based on having met lots of creationists, read lots of creationist material, and laughed at creationist seminars. I guess all of those creationists who actually understand evolutionary biology are hiding. I've never met one or read one who actually told the truth about evolution.

[Isaiah]

Quote by: Starboy So what you are saying is that you don't actually know enough about evolution to make an evaluation? What about the overwhealming number of scientists that also publish and are also listed in who's who and have Nobel Prizes and so on that say that your creationist are full of it. Why are the scientific credentials of those that you choose to agree with convincing but the vast number of scientists with even greater credentials you do not find convincing? How honest is that? Starboy

Starboy, once again you have chosen to construct a straw-man and put words in to my mouth that I have never said. I never have said that evolutionists’ credentials are in anyway unconvincing nor have I said anything unfair or hostile. So, how honest are you being?

[Starboy]

I am not the one trying to defend creationists based on the credentials of a few scientists. Especially when the overwhealming number of scientists would not give creationism the time of day. Your argument essentially boils down to a defense of the knowledge of all creationists of evolution based on a few creationists who may know and understand evolution as if this excuses the vast majority of creationists who do not have a clue about evolution and yet still make statements about evolution as if they had a clue. As I said before, I have no trouble with ignorance even profound ignorance as long as the person has the honesty to admit it and not try to dismiss something just because they have been told to. And in this day and age with so much information easily available there is just no excuse, especially if the creationist is going to make a habit of making claims based on ignorance. Such actions are nothing but willfull ignorance.

Starboy

[gallo]

Quote by: Isaiah Starboy, once again you have chosen to construct a straw-man and put words in to my mouth that I have never said. I never have said that evolutionists’ credentials are in anyway unconvincing nor have I said anything unfair or hostile. So, how honest are you being?

Actually, Starboy kicked down your straw man. You claimed that there were scientists with advanced degrees, some of whom you have known and talked to, that know more about evolutionary biology than the 99% of biologists who have studied and accepted evolutionary theory as the best explanation for the observed facts. How many were qualified biologists? You see, I have never met a biologist who was not an evolutionist. I know of a few - tauted by creationist organizations - but I have never met one.

Yes, yes. You didn't say that the credentials of degreed evolutionary biologists, who also publish papers and write books, and some of whom have won Nobel Prizes, were unconvincing. What you did say is that the credentials of some unnamed scientists with advanced degrees who have published in peer reviewed journals who have opinions about religious matters are more convincing to you. Never mind that none of them published or wrote books about evolutionary biology. Never mind that none of them won a Nobel Prize. In 1982 in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), all 72 living Nobel Laureates in the U.S. signed an amicus curiae brief before the Supreme Court, along with 17 state academies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations, in opposition to the teaching of creationism as science in public schools. Additionally, the National Academies of Science, among other scientific organizations, have published a position against the teaching of creationism as science.

So essentially what you did say that you found books and articles written by unspecified individuals with unspecified degrees who published unspecified papers in unspecified peer reviewed journals on unspecified topics more convincing than the 99% of evolutionary biologists and paleontologists who have also published in peer reviewed journals (on evolutionary biology) and written books (on evolutionary biology). See my previous post for a partial list.

[Isaiah]

Quote by: gallo Actually, Starboy kicked down your straw man. You claimed that there were scientists with advanced degrees, some of whom you have known and talked to, that know more about evolutionary biology than the 99% of biologists who have studied and accepted evolutionary theory as the best explanation for the observed facts.

Where did I ever say that? Provide the URL to my post and quote me.

Quote by: gallo What you did say is that the credentials of some unnamed scientists with advanced degrees who have published in peer reviewed journals who have opinions about religious matters are more convincing to you.

Where did I ever say that? Provide the URL to my post and quote me.

Quote by: gallo So essentially what you did say that you found books and articles written by unspecified individuals with unspecified degrees who published unspecified papers in unspecified peer reviewed journals on unspecified topics more convincing than the 99% of evolutionary biologists and paleontologists who have also published in peer reviewed journals (on evolutionary biology) and written books (on evolutionary biology).

Where did I ever say that? Provide the URL to my post and quote me.

Either I am being unclear, or you are building your own straw-man by saying I have said things I have never said. So, provide the information to back up your assertions about what you think I said.