Molecular Genetics II

Next: Baiting the ID Teacher Prev: Behavioral Evolution TOC

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Scott wrote:

Punctuated equilibrium vs. micro-evolution (gradualism) is discussed.
Evolution of the eye is discussed in terms of molecular genetics.
Analysis of rat evolution over the past century in Chicago.
Darwin's finches discussed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFILgg9_hrU

Evolution of resistance to diabetes.

From: Bryan Hunt
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 6:04 PM
To: Scott Vigil
Subject: Re: Molecular Genetics II

Yup, I know about punctuated equilibrium and the attempt to prop up the evolution theory since there is no real fossil evidence.

http://www.discovery.org/a/7271

"Today, 150 years after Darwin’s work, very little has changed; out of thousands of species known from the fossil record, only a small fraction are claimed to be candidates for intermediate forms. In a famous admission, the leading evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould stated that “[t]he absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”7 This problem led to various failed attempts to save Darwin’s theory from the lack of confirming fossil evidence.

Darwin tried to save his theory by claiming that the geological record is “imperfect,” and that transitional organisms just happened to avoid becoming fossilized. Even Gould acknowledged that the “imperfection” argument is weak, stating that it "persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly."8 Biologists were eventually forced to accept that the jumps between species in the fossil record were real events and not artifacts of an imperfect fossil record."

And I leave you this my friend, from my little bible... :-)

Proverbs 3:5

5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart,

and do not lean on your own understanding.

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Scott Vigil wrote:

Christians look silly when they get their science wrong. This is three branches of science duking it out. They have lots of evidence. You need to look at the link to understand.

From: Bryan Hunt
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 10:10 PM
To: Scott Vigil
Subject: Re: Molecular Genetics II

I have studied that for over a decade. I don't think I have it wrong.

On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Scott Vigil wrote:

Perhaps a more nuanced way of looking at it is, “Do I have gaps in my knowledge?” The answer for everybody would be a “yes”. Filling in those gaps and correcting the errors should be a lifelong endeavor, in my mind. Science has shown us that we never get to the place where we know it all.

Brian Saturday, March 30, 2013 10:59 PM : Yup, the bible says that too. God's ways are higher than our ways. I never expect to know it all but I instead see God's hand in the creation's complexity and beauty.

A few things I’ve learned in the past couple of days that are interesting follow. Sparrow road kill rates have gone down. Measurements of live sparrows to road kill sparrows has show that road kill sparrows statistically have longer wing spans. Also, comparison to wing spans in the past, there is strong evidence that average wing spans are decreasing. What theory do you have that would predict that result?

I’ve asked you questions like that in the past. Answers on the order of, “God just decided to do that” are typically unanalyzable in scientific terms and therefore unhelpful on a scientific basis. If you have alternative theories to explain such experimental results, then we have a ballgame.

Brian Saturday, March 30, 2013 10:59 PM : I believe that is what is known as micro-evolution. I pointed that out to you before - Behe's second book on the subject, Edge of Evolution gives a very detailed scientific view of macro vs. micro evolution. No doubt, life adapts. We see that everywhere, the flu virus is one prime example everyone is aware of. Its your ballgame, not mine. I am happy with what I know and believe.

Scott 3/26/14: See Behe.

Creationists as a class almost never propose an alternative theory to explain theoretical results.

Brian Saturday, March 30, 2013 10:59 PM : Bible creationists maybe because they are not trained in science. By the way, science can't prove that science is the way to ultimate truth. Think about it.

They spend most of their time shooting down sub theories of evolution. This is a loosing battle. Evidence for evolution is piling up so fast, the creationists are simply being overwhelmed.

Brian Saturday, March 30, 2013 10:59 PM : Disagree. Evolution is a theory that is in serious trouble due to lack of evidence. Most of the "evidence" for evolution, macro evolution, is just conjecture based on various findings. They will say things like birds evolved from frogs or whatever but they offer no proof. Meanwhile a serious study of the details of birds vs frogs shows huge differences and no intermediate forms in the fossile record. The punctuated equilibrium "theory" was put out there to try patch up the issues related to no fossile record evidence of gradual transitions. I says "theory" because its really just a hypothesis based on real scientific definitions. Anything that looks like it will shore up evolution instantly gets promoted to theory, even without the hard evidence that is normally required.

Another aspect to this that creationists don’t seem to appreciate is the interconnectivity of the different branches of science. These branches compete against one another and show holes in one another’s theories. Eventually what comes out of this is a richer more multi-faceted story. Instead of a single fiber, it becomes a vast tapestry of interconnected links coming from different areas of thought. Cutting a single fiber doesn’t change the fact that the tapestry is there.

Brian Saturday, March 30, 2013 10:59 PM : I agree on the interrelated aspects. The intelligent design theories are coming in and meshing together from several scientific disciplines. To understand intelligent design you need to understand probability and statistics and also information theory. Most people I have met don't really understand what intelligent design is saying. Most just repeat crap they hear in the media which almost always gets it wrong. I am a member of the Discovery Institute and I have met some of the people who started this movement, people like Dr. Stephen C. Meyer. I have studied and taught it to others for over 10 years now.

I’ve tried to expose you to data that I don’t think you have. I don’t know where you have learned about evolution. However, I have seen signs that your knowledge is superficial and dated. I can see that because of what I am getting out of Sapolsky.

Brian Saturday, March 30, 2013 10:59 PM : Nope, I am very up-to-date and I also understand the politics behind the evolution theory. I was in school in the 60's when they started pushing this stuff down our throats - didn't make sense then and doesn't now. Evolution is mostly being pushed by biologists that are really in the dark with respect to many of the discoveries about the complexity of life. I have also seen the computer simulations that have tried to make evolution work in computer simulation without success. Macro evolution lacks evidence and doesn't make sense in light of how the rest of the universe operates (things magically become more complex - completely opposite from the observed increasing entropy of the universe). Evolution fails the very simple test of irreducible complexity. Say something evolves from A to B to C to D to E to F. Irreducible complexity points out (evolution demands this) that forms B, C, D and E all have to be very functional, most likely better than their predecessor due to survival of the fittest hypothesis. Yet evolution "theory" struggles to show simple examples of irreducible complexity yet life is full of examples such as blood clotting, where you blood either clots or you die, there is no in-between steps that we know of. And blood clotting is horribly complex, I have studied it and I do have a pretty strong chemistry background since I was in the pre-med track till my senior year in college. My son is also a PhD biochemist so I have him at my disposal for tough questions. He has shown me hundreds of very complex biochemistry examples. He tells me nobody in the biochemistry area believes in evolution but they have to say they do because its the university stance and you can lose your tenure if you object (this is true - there are lots of examples of this too - check it out - we live in a really biased scientific community).

I recommend that you continue your learning of evolution, even though you disagree with it. Better understanding what these people are saying will challenge your thinking and reduce your vulnerability to attacks based on the incomplete or dated nature of your information supply.

Brian Saturday, March 30, 2013 10:59 PM : I have spent enough of my life studying evolution and I don't intend to waste any more of it on that dead theory. You think you know a lot about it but you don't, I can tell. You are also confused about string theory I believe based on some of the things I heard you say.

Episode II of Behavioral Genetics, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG5fN6KrDJE, is very rich. It is less about evolution and more about inheritance vs. environment. In it Sapolsky discusses many suppositions scientists have made about genetic influences on traits and flaws in their approaches. He discusses how environment can interact with genes to effect certain traits. Toward the end, he states that there is essentially no characteristic that is completely inherited. Rather, through a number of different mechanisms, there is almost always some interaction with environment to bring about any given trait.

Brian Saturday, March 30, 2013 10:59 PM : I do believe the environment interacts on genes and life adapts, micro-evolution. Behe gives a good presentation of this and Sapolsky probably does as well. I really think this is how God designed us. On the personal level we have the ability to heal ourselves and I think micro-evolutionary adaptations are like healing but on a broader level. God not only made all living creatures but He made them adaptable. His ways are higher than ours and we can be fascinated by study of his design.

Sapolsky is teaching with an incredibly high level of quality. Nothing and nobody is sacrosanct. In fact, he thrives on showing folly in people’s thinking and helping us understand where they went wrong and what the new understood truth is.

Brian Saturday, March 30, 2013 10:59 PM : I would be suspicious of anyone who thrives in showing the folly of others. Most extremely bright people are not so arrogant. You normally see that kind of behavior in second string scientist that are trying to be like the big boys.

You complained about lazy Christians. So don’t be guilty of the same. Carry your laptop with you. Listen to it while you’re brushing your teeth on making breakfast or during times where your mind is relatively unencumbered. You can make the time to keep up. You do have a foundation to build on. So, it shouldn’t be too difficult.

Brian Saturday, March 30, 2013 10:59 PM : That is your world view, not mine. I believe God exists and I follow his lead. I spent my time this week in Westfield YAP training (Youth Assistance Program). I am now a ward of the court for Hamilton County and I will be assigned a troubled youth to mentor in a few weeks. I am also on the governing board of our church. I spend my time helping others find Christ. You are very arrogant. You have watched a few videos and now you think you are an expert on the subject, enough so to call me lazy. You just learned about string theory and punctuated equilibrium but I have known and taught about both for years. And I do watch videos, on my iPad mini that I carry just about everywhere.

In contrast, my sweetheart Toni is snowed by all of this stuff. I’m sure you know many people like that. We give them tidbits. They will never be able to understand material at this level. But you can… if you stop worrying about where it’s going to take you.

Brian Saturday, March 30, 2013 10:59 PM : WTF, really? I do understand much Scott. You are stuck on evolution, been there done that. There is much more to learn. Go to church Sunday - learn about the resurrection. Hundreds of eye witnesses. Romans that knew nothing about Jesus wrote about it. It was a big deal and there is lots of evidence it actually happened. And it doesn't matter if science can explain it because Gods ways are higher than ours.

[Highlighting added for emphasis.]

Breakfast was great. Now I’m going to the gym to beat myself up a bit.

Scott

On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Scott Vigil wrote:

Bryan,

“Hundreds of eye witnesses.”

I had an interesting experience with that almost ten years ago. We went to a church where the speaker said his speaker had raised ten people from the dead (an interesting number… happens to match the number of fingers we have.)

I called his organization and asked for telephone numbers of some of the people he had raised. It turned out, they didn’t have a single number.

I don’t know about you, but if I had raised someone from the dead, I would have gotten a name and number. ‘cause I woulda known, “Nobody’s gonna believe this when I get home!”

My family was very angry with me when I stopped taking them to that church.

Regarding the hundreds of eye witnesses, if one uses the standards of current investigational techniques, the actual eye witness testimony is weak.

I think it was Carl Sagan who, in a documentary discussing UFOs, talked about how if you have a great claim, you have to have great evidence to back it up.

Scott

From: Bryan Hunt
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 9:18 AM
To: Scott Vigil
Subject: Re: Molecular Genetics II

There are always crack-pots like that guy claiming to have raised 10 from the dead. I would have stopped going there too.

There is great evidence for the hundreds of eye witnesses. You will find it if you look.

Carl Sagan was pretty biased and I don't think he had figured much out about life. He spent his life looking for intelligence in the universe and said he would know when he found it by the level information that would be in the signal. When asked about the level of information in DNA and doesn't that point to an intelligent creator by the same reasoning, he side stepped the question and just said that is different. Oh really? He and Dawkins are very similar, they like to hear themselves talk and they only talk about things that glorify themselves. They both also refuse to be accountable to a creator. They don't follow the evidence to where it leads.

Be careful my friend as you gather information. There are many dead ends. Pray and God will guide you. (and no, I don't know scientifically how prayer works but it does work and I do have some guesses! :-) But they are just guesses.

Scott 3/27/14: This web book is about evolution and ID. So, I’m filtering out some religious conversation that occurred after the above. (I may publish some of that at another time, but it’s a distraction from the current subject.) We discussed the existence of hell and then the conversation moved back to science truth.

However, I will admit that it is very hard for me to look at someone who believes in hell as a scientist.

From: Bryan Hunt
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2013 9:06 AM
To: Scott Vigil
Subject: Re: On Hell

OT is the foundation but don't forget that the NT is the new covenant with man.

Hell is real. You work for the guy, come on! :-)

From: Scott Vigil
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2013 9:28 AM
To: Bryan Hunt
Subject: RE: On Hell

All kidding aside, the truth should not be something to be afraid of.

But I know how you feel. I used to be afraid to even ask such questions. Knowledge has given me courage.

As a note, you don’t have to be afraid to learn new things as we communicate. Hopefully, pride isn’t what is keeping you from catching some of this stuff. I suspect it has more to do with the architecture of your neural pathways.

As an analogy, converting a telephone into an mp3 player can be done. But, early attempts were kinda wonky.

And our major neural pathways are set by age 25. So, it’s going to be pretty hard to change our perspective after that. That’s biology, man.

From: Scott Vigil
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2013 10:11 AM
To: Bryan Hunt
Subject: Re: On Hell

I gave Christianity a pass on logic and reason to keep a family together and because such thinking was discouraged at every church I went to.

Now, I see that Christians have a difficulty at arriving at truth in areas such as climate change and behavior. So, I now see the religious model as a hindrance.

And I leave you this my friend, from my little bible... :-)

Proverbs 3:5

⁵Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
and do not lean on your own understanding.

This is the kind of stuff I’m talking about! How can anyone who writes in such terms of faith, ask probing questions about our origins? It’s clear that to such a person, a book written in the bronze age matters more than reason and evidence.

Get your head out of the book and look at what’s coming out of the ground!

From: Bryan Hunt
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2013 10:23 AM
To: Scott Vigil
Subject: Re: On Hell

Think about this, would that proverb apply for your dog as you help him do some simple task, like get through a shut door, or untangle his leash? You wouldn't expect the dog to be able to mentally think through those things so you might tell him, trust me and don't lean on your understanding.

You can take anything out of context and twist it to match your worldview, but that is not the point.

Christians do not have trouble arriving at truth in areas like climate change. Sure you might find some people that are but it has nothing to do with Christianity. And not all Christians understand God's word, keep that in mind. Many struggle.

Also, realize that science doesn't explain everything. Science has done a nice job putting understanding to how many things work but there are still way more questions then answers and science hasn't been much help for the big questions like why are we here? When you and I die science will have advanced a little further but there will still be questions. For me, I find the Bible to be pretty satisfying for the big questions and I find it meshes well with the little that science has reveled.

Life is short and I am putting my trust in the Lord. I think you should too! And you can still investigate science! Just with an attitude of I am learning about God's creation instead of I am learning about something that I have no idea how it got here and I never will.

You are created in Gods image and it is natural and healthy to ask questions!

From: Scott Vigil
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2013 11:00 AM
To: Bryan Hunt
Subject: RE: On Hell

It wouldn’t help the dog if I didn’t exist. The dog would remain tangled.

From: Scott Vigil
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 6:16 AM
To: Bryan Hunt
Cc: Scott Vigil II
Subject: RE: More than 4,000 Years

Bryan,

The difference between you and me and those two is that they got out there in the field and looked. The field may distract or elude. But, it doesn’t lie.

You and I read things and increasingly view things online. So, we are vulnerable to incorrect information.

I’ve been tossing around in my head the word “lie” lately. It’s a very potent word, and people become very upset about it.

But I had an experience when I was seven at church. I was being told that there was Adam and Eve. And I asked if there had ever been men before Adam. I was told that there were. (That was certainly true.) But, those people were somehow imperfect and God couldn’t work through them. So, God had to destroy them and try again.

I understand how imperfect memory is. So, as a recently awakened memory, I can’t be certain of the accuracy of it. But, the memory is shrouded within the Lutheran church I was going to at the time. So, I think the memory has some truth to it.

From that memory, it appears some church worker was being as accurate as she could. However, it’s clear I was not told the truth. But I have no doubt it was her best understanding. So, I can’t say it was a lie. It was a falsehood or maybe it was many falsehoods.

Yet, biblical teachings put great responsibility onto the teacher to convey truth. I just wonder where the line is between a falsehood and a lie. So the question becomes, at what point is the teacher responsible for arriving at the truth.

Biblical teaching can be very harsh on this. However, neuro-biology—based on the many university lectures I have heard at this point—can take a different view. This view suggests that maybe the teacher can do nothing other than teach what he or she teaches because, perhaps, we don’t even have free will!

Neuro-biologically, we may be in thin ice if we fault someone, but logically speaking, isn’t there such a line?

Biblical teaching is that at some point, one is expected to know the gospel and either accept or reject Christ or pay the consequences.

Is there a similar logical line where one can be judged according to their willingness to toss out dogma in favor of scientific evidence? I know you say there isn’t any evidence. But I assure you, there is. And I have tried to convey it to you, but you have been unwilling to accept it.

Somehow I missed in your 3/30 email how excited I got you. You said, “WTF” and “You are very arrogant.” I think I want to say both of those things at times when my son doesn’t write back to me, ha ha!

I don’t know how you can say that. I allowed my kids to be taught untruthful information during their entire formative years! ‘not much cause for arrogance there.

Perhaps you see this as arrogance. I am steadfast in my attestation to the evidence. I just can’t deny it! And I would like to! I think it would be so cool to disprove all those people. I could go on speaking tours. I could be an honored guest—as you have been.

But it would take a far more brilliant mind than what I have to explain the bewildering amount of evidence. I just can’t do it!

More and more transitional forms are being discovered. Irreducible complexity arguments are being demolished. I sent you a link the lecture series on evolution. It covered that quite nicely. It also covered how we know what we know. And it even got down to, how we discern scientific truth. But I guess you were too busy to look at all that. And yet you know it all.

Here’s a nice little show. It’s oriented to keep the kids interested. But, it also shows some really great evidence.

Becoming Human, Nova http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc3QIk__aJw

I used to think that there was room for evolution and Christianity. At the Intelligent Design conference I went to in Seattle, they argued that there was some wiggle room in Genisis. But, it’s unclear how one can arrive at the original sin argument if there was no actual Adam and Eve.

Sorry I got you so excited. We won’t tell your church friends what you said :^)

Scott

From: Scott Vigil
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2013 12:06 PM
To: Bryan Hunt
Subject: RE: On Hell

Take a look at the tea party and I think you’ll see a large body of Christians who are anti-science. I can’t blame them. They’ve made a judgement on evolution and see the scientist as a sort of Boogy Man.

Science has largely given up trying to do serious experimentation on God and souls and such. Cog Sci 102 does a nice job of discussing contributions in philosophy. That branch has come up with the questions. And since God seems to be unobservable, He has been taken out of inquiry and relegated to religion.

In that lecture series, science was portrayed to the study of the “observable universe”. Things not observable are generally considered to be out of the realm of science. In fact, many physicists have said that string theory is not science because of this.

I see religion as a model of our reality. It makes predictions about the future and where those predictions are correct, it is useful.

Science in the same way is a model and makes predictions. So, it’s not a battle of good and evil. It’s a quest for models that explain what we see with greater and greater accuracy.

Evil, is what that lady did to me when I was seven. She didn’t tell me that some thought that those early men were my forefathers. That was sin by omission.

The “whys” are out of the realm of science. There may be no “why”. In the face of that, I have decided to create my own “why”. And mine comes from the bible actually. You may recall how Jesus talks about the bird singing in the tree and how God feeds and clothes it. He says we don’t need to worry about our future because God will take care of the bird.

I no longer believe that. But, I’m left with the bird in the tree. It is a thing of intrinsic beauty. It sings and it is.

To me, Tango seems to approximate that model for the time being.

So, it’s fine to be a man of faith. But, I think you should stop portraying yourself as a scientist. I think that is deceptive. You teach doctrine passed off as science that is completely rejected by the scientific community that matters. ID has been repudiated in Federal Court.

You cannot explain something as simple as Homo Habilis: an early human that still has ape characteristics that lived long before we came on the scene.

Why be dishonest? What’s wrong with saying, “I’m a man of faith. I just don’t believe in that stuff”? You’re wasting people’s time by concocting these strange theories that don’t hold up. In essence, you are undermining the credibility of the church. You are making the church out to be something that stands against truth.

What’s wrong with saying, “This is our religion. It’s been around for thousands of years. Come with us to pray, sing and worship.”

This idea of integrity is what I asked you about in the email below. You haven’t had a chance to address it. And I think you should.

And I think you should look at the evidence presented at the bottom with fresh eyes. Look, if the creation story is wrong, there’s nothing you nor I can do about it. We might as well just try to understand the evidence available.

From: Bryan Hunt
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2013 1:43 PM
To: Scott Vigil
Subject: Re: On Hell

o, it’s fine to be a man of faith. But, I think you should stop portraying yourself as a scientist. I think that is deceptive. You teach doctrine passed off as science that is completely rejected by the scientific community that matters. ID has been repudiated in Federal Court.

Really? That is total bullshit.

[Highlight added for emphasis.]

From: Scott Vigil
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2013 2:08 PM
To: Bryan Hunt
Subject: RE: On Hell

Federal Court, yup. A George W. Bush [appointee]. He received death threats for his decision.

Intelligent Design was SUBSTITUTED in place of creation when the teaching of creation in science classes was outlawed.

Brian, I’m surprised you didn’t know. I’ve found it twice. I can find it again.

‘found it in about 5 seconds. I’m sure you won’t like the fact that it’s on PBS. But if you don’t like it, go straight to the court records! But it’s there dude.

http://video.pbs.org/video/980040807/

The thing is a sham, Brian.

From: Scott Vigil
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2013 2:45 PM
To: Bryan Hunt
Subject: RE: On Hell

ID = In Denial

Next: Baiting the ID Teacher Prev: Behavioral Evolution TOC