Letter from Holland

Posted 4 February 2009 by Mark Perakh

I just received the following letter from Holland: Yesterday 3 Feb, the Dutch evangelical, TV presentator and former director of the Evangelical Broadcast Organisation (EO), Andries Knevel, openly rejected his belief in Young Earth Creationism and ID. He apologised for promoting those beliefs in the past years to his children and the public. He wants credibility, reliability and belief. He desires an open debate about God and evolution with believers and non-believers alike. He believes GOD and evolution do not exclude each other. Both science and belief have their own value. He still belief that God created heaven and earth en that Jezus is our Saviour. On July 27 2007 it was discovered and documented http://evolutie.blog.com/1962396/ that the EO censored all evolution and old earth from the BBC documentaries of David Attenborough. Now the EO no longer denies it was censorship indeed by showing fragments they censored in the past years. This is a remarkable breakthrough and conversion. Especially hopeful in the Darwinyear 2009. There are still YEC's in Holland, but the main evangelical television station has made a very promising move. Gert Korthof

87 Comments

mrg (iml8) · 4 February 2009

Gert Korthof, steadfastly holding down the fort in the Netherlands!

Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

John Kwok · 4 February 2009

Mark,

It's probably appropriate that someone from the Netherlands - which has shown historically ample religious and intellectual tolerance for centuries - admit his mistakes in promoting both Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design Creationism. Regrettably it is probably too much to ask for similar candor from our own creationists, especially those of the Intelligent Design flavor.

Thanks for posting this.

Appreciatively yours,

John

Joshua Zelinsky · 4 February 2009

"Jezus is our Saviour" - is that a typo or is that due to some alternate spelling corresponding to the writer's native language?

Tom · 4 February 2009

Joshua Zelinsky said: "Jezus is our Saviour" - is that a typo or is that due to some alternate spelling corresponding to the writer's native language?

Jesus is spelled "Jezus" in dutch.

Joshua Zelinsky · 4 February 2009

Tom, thanks. I suspected something like that.

mrg (iml8) · 4 February 2009

It would be interesting to know the back story of the Knevel's "conversion" -- such tales tend to very intriguing, Dean Morton's humorous essay on his own change of heart is a good example. Alas all the pages I find on "Andries Knevel" are in Dutch -- I checked Korthof's site as well and came up zeroes.

Cheers -- MrG / http://gvgpd.proboards.com

Stacy S. · 4 February 2009

Sounds like good news to me! :-)

James F · 4 February 2009

Wow! Now if we could only get a prominent American evangelical leader to do the same. It won't be one of the "old guard" like Pat Robertson and James Dobson. Rick Warren? It would be nice, but I doubt it. Richard Cizik? He was willing to talk with scientists in a collegial manner, but he already had his nose bloodied for his views on climate change. I'm hoping it will be one of the younger people who, like Cizik, promoted the "creation care" movement, like David Kuo, once they've had time to develop some gravitas.

Frank J · 4 February 2009

Dean Morton’s humorous essay on his own change of heart is a good example.
— mrg(iml8)

I think you mean Glenn Morton. Watching too many Rat Pack movies, perhaps? ;-)

Stanton · 4 February 2009

Frank J said:
Dean Morton’s humorous essay on his own change of heart is a good example.
— mrg(iml8)
I think you mean Glenn Morton. Watching too many Rat Pack movies, perhaps? ;-)

Actually, Glenn and Dean are the same person: he just changed his name twenty years ago to fool the herds of rabid groupies.

simea mirans · 4 February 2009

Hmm - the publicity page for his book on the EO website refers to his conversion from creationism to intelligent design. The blurb says that ID scientists accept macro-evolution and an old universe, but that they see irreduceably complex traits as pointing to intelligence. He now accepts an old earth, and attributes the young-earth error to the influence of American fundamentalism in the 60s and 70s (in which EO was complicit).

Michael J · 4 February 2009

Ahh, the Evil Atheist Conspiracy(tm) mind control drugs are working. We can now start mass production and the release into the American water systems.

mrg (iml8) · 4 February 2009

Stanton said: Actually, Glenn and Dean are the same person: he just changed his name twenty years ago to fool the herds of rabid groupies.

WHOA! Did my brain skip a 20-year-track! Dean Morton was a bigwig when I was at Hewlett-Packard. Hadn't even remembered him in years but somehow my fingers recollected him. (I had to think: "Dean Morton? Where did I get that ... OH.") Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.html/gblog.html

Frank J · 4 February 2009

Hmm - the publicity page for his book on the EO website refers to his conversion from creationism to intelligent design. The blurb says that ID scientists accept macro-evolution and an old universe, but that they see irreduceably complex traits as pointing to intelligence.
— simea mirans

If that's true, they just misunderstand American ID, which rejects macrovolution and does not "officially" accept any particular age of universe/earth/life. Most individual IDers accept the mainstream science chronology, but allow YECs in their big tent. Note that even Michael Behe, who repeatedly admitted common descent, also rejects "macroevolution," preferring "front loading" and maybe "saltation."

FL · 4 February 2009

It would be interesting to know the back story of the Knevel’s “conversion.”

I agree. I think there's some serious gaps yet to be filled--at least for English-speakers--in terms of finding out exactly why Knevel reportedly rejects YEC and ID. (And also in terms of finding out exactly what Knevel's current position is now.) FL

Stanton · 4 February 2009

FL said:
It would be interesting to know the back story of the Knevel’s “conversion.”
I agree. I think there's some serious gaps yet to be filled--at least for English-speakers--in terms of finding out exactly why Knevel reportedly rejects YEC and ID. (And also in terms of finding out exactly what Knevel's current position is now.) FL

Trying to find a way to disqualify Knevel as a Christian, are we, FL?

Strangebrew · 5 February 2009

'Andries Knevel noemt zijn huidige overtuiging “iets tussen ID en TE” (Theïstische Evolutie)'

Seems he now goes for a position between Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution.

Gerdien de Jong · 5 February 2009

Some background on Andries Knevel, mostly based on reports in the orthodox protestant daily newspapers Nederlands Dagblad (more or less evangelical) and Reformatorisch Dagblad (utter Calvinist). And from the local version of the ID debate.

Andries Knevel has come to trust Cees Dekker as his spokesman on evolution.

Cees Dekker is professor nanophysics at Delft Technical University; his research is on molecular motors, that is, on how a flagellum physically works. Dekker is a very good scientist, member of the Academy of Science, and winner of the major national science price. Dekker is an evangelical Christian.
Dekker was born and raised in a main stream protestant church that does not make a problem about evolution since 1957. In 1957, the zoology professor at the protestant university VU published a book ‘Creatie en Evolutie’, advocating a position that would in present day terms be called theistic evolution. Young Dekker was influenced by a series inspired or coordinated by the US Institute for Creation Research and broadcast in the Netherlands on Evangelical Broadcasting (EO) around 1977. Dekker realized that creationism did not hang together. Evolution was for him out of the question, as evolution was identified with Dawkins. Then his contacts at Delft University pointed him to Behe. Dekker swallowed Behe’s propaganda treatise. In his public lecture at his appointment as full professor, in 2000, Dekker advocated Intelligent Design, the Behe version.
Few people noticed at the time, but Dekker found two congenial spirits (a high minded not traditionally religious professor of mathematics and a Reformed professor of philosophy), and went on a lecturing and publishing tour about ID. This resulted in moderate upheaval; some high profile people in Dutch science opposed. Moreover, Dekker met biologists on his lecturing tour, or at any science meeting, and got told that he didn’t know anything whatever about biology and clearly had omitted to read any biology book. Another point was that he met evolutionary biologists – he had never asked any of them an opinion before starting on his lecturing tour – and realized they were no atheist firebrands.
Dekker etc edited four books, in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, each containing writings by scientists and theologians. The first book is pro ID, and mouths a lot of copied internet creationist classics. The last book is by scientists that are Christian, and shows the classical position on religion-science, easiest compared to Gould’s,
Three points seem to have swayed Dekker. Dekker attended an ID congress in Prague in 2005 or 2006, and might have found something he was not used to at a science congress. In 2005, the biweekly newspaper of the Dutch biologists gave Dekker a full page to explain how he would test Intelligent Design in a scientific way, what were the experiments suggested by it. Moreover, at the Academy of Science, Dekker was persistently asked how Intelligent Design worked.
Over time and the books, Dekker became a theistic evolutionist. As far as I can find from interviews and newspaper articles about him, this was because he did not see a scientific way that ID could work. Moreover, I’ve been told Dekker went to a workshop ‘religion and science’ in England, with Francis Collins and Simon Conway Morris as speakers. Andries Knevel followed Dekker in his shift to theistic evolution. It is not clear what Knevel exactly knows about evolution.

Andries Knevel is a very influential broadcaster in evangelical circles. The major evangelical monthly has just embraced theistic evolution. The science editor of the Nederlands Dagblad (more or less evangelical) is publishing a theistic evolution book. Tuesday (3 Feb 2009) night’s broadcast must have been shocking for at least half of the membership of Evangelical Broadcasting.

Anyway, the opposition to evolution seems now reduced to the utter Calvinist wing of the church. Unfortunately, this wing now tends to rely on the local chapter of Answers-in-Genesis.

Cedric Katesby · 5 February 2009

Thank you, Gerdien de Jong. This is a fascinating story.
Do you happen to know if this received much mainstream media attention in the Netherlands or is this being mostly ignored?

novparl · 5 February 2009

Talking of flagella, which came first, the sperm or the ovum? How come they evolved pari passu?

Gerdien de Jong · 5 February 2009

Let's suppose the Netherlands has three quality newspapers. In two of them (Volkskrant and NRC) I've not found anything. The third (Trouw, morning paper) has a mainstream protestant signature, and brought Tuesday night's broadcasted change of heart as the main news on its domestic news page.

http://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/religie-filosofie/article2023282.ece/De_evolutie_van_de_Evangelische_Omroep.html

Happy Rotter · 5 February 2009

It looks like the attention is growing.
The biggest Dutch newspaper (De Telegraaf)is also bringing the news and it has also reached the main public news broadcaster (NOS).

A reason is that members of the EO have complained about Andries Knevel and his point of view.

They have now stated on their website that it is the private opinion of mr. Knevel, because for the EO their mission is still: God is Creator, Jesus Saviour.

to be continued...

mrg (iml8) · 5 February 2009

Gerdien de Jong said: Anyway, the opposition to evolution seems now reduced to the utter Calvinist wing of the church. Unfortunately, this wing now tends to rely on the local chapter of Answers-in-Genesis.

Hmm, this is interesting -- about a week ago I had a Dutch Darwin-basher give me flak on email over my evo science writings. I wonder if he's in a state of "cognitive dissonance" right now? I was always thinking that a high-profile defector from the US ID camp would be devastating to their cause. The experience in the Netherlands strongly bears that out. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

John A. Michon · 5 February 2009

Gerdien de Jong has given a truly excellent summary of the evangelical turmoil caused by the creationist-ID debate that was triggered by the nanologist Cees Dekker in 2005. Following the case from a safe distance (as a cognitive scientist interested in the dynamics of 'world views') I can fully endorse her account. Especially the four successive volumes she mentions, in which Dekker gradually retracts from his early orthodox ID position make fascinating reading. When the first ID-saturated volume appeared ID quickly became a political issue because the then Minister of Education and Science became convinced that ID ought to be introduced in the school curriculum, especially because it might bring mutual understanding between believers of different creeds. It was then that the Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences awoke and -- in a few months time -- organized a symposium "Weten en/of Geloven" (Knowing and/or Believing). Dekker was (not surprisingly) one of the speakers but (surprisingly) did not even mention ID or its implications. Incidentally, his current position regarding the relation between religion and science (not just evolution) seems to be that both are after the same truths but in a different way, a position that has been approved in public by the present Prime Minister (politics again). Andries Knevel, although influential if not revered as the flagship of evangelical radio and TV, is seen by many others as a somewhat comical character. His recent statement, however, will in my opinion earn him a lot of respect (Gert Korthof was one of the first to acknowledge that)... Unsurprisingly, the hard-core fundamentalist wing of his organization views things differently: the national radio news bulletin at 1300h local time (1200h GMT) today, made mention of "serious objections" raised by followers of that faction in the Evangelical movement.
To be continued indefinitely, I presume.

Frank J · 5 February 2009

Gerdien de Jong:

Thanks for the clarification!

Strangebrew:

TEs and IDers may personally believe the same account of natural history, but it's how they explain it to others that makes a universe of difference. There is no middle ground.

FL:

I guess de Jong answered your question. Since you mention "gaps," it seems that Knevel once thought that "gaps" were an excuse to deny mainstream science (as IDers do), but now apparently agrees (as TEs do) that that's not how to do science or gain knowledge.

Sorry, I can't resist a bad joke: So to you he now must be "Evil Knevel" ;-)

mrg (iml8) · 5 February 2009

Frank J said: Sorry, I can't resist a bad joke: So to you he now must be "Evil Knevel" ;-)

I managed to hold out on that one myself ... On Dutch tolerance -- I recall the old comic THE FREAK BROTHERS IN AMSTERDAM, in which the hippie threesome get thrown out of the Netherlands: "We Dutch are very tolerant people. We can stand anything but a tourist with no money." Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Stanton · 5 February 2009

Frank J said: FL: I guess de Jong answered your question. Since you mention "gaps," it seems that Knevel once thought that "gaps" were an excuse to deny mainstream science (as IDers do), but now apparently agrees (as TEs do) that that's not how to do science or gain knowledge. Sorry, I can't resist a bad joke: So to you he now must be "Evil Knevel" ;-)

After all, remember that FL specifically stated that Christians are not allowed to simultaneously accept the facts of evolution AND Jesus Christ. With the sole exception of the Pope.

mrg (iml8) · 5 February 2009

Stanton said: With the sole exception of the Pope.

But he's the ANTICHRIST! Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

FL · 5 February 2009

Frank J: Gerdien De Jong's account helps out greatly, as you suggested. By the term "gaps", however, I meant gaps in the story of Knevel's conversion (prior to De Jong's material), not the phrase "god of the gaps." *** Stanton:

After all, remember that FL specifically stated that Christians are not allowed to simultaneously accept the facts of evolution AND Jesus Christ. With the sole exception of the Pope.

Sorry Stanton, it seems you have taken to outright lying again. Or maybe you're trying too hard to make a joke, hmm. No need to respond further in either case! FL :)

simea mirans · 5 February 2009

Frank J said:
Hmm - the publicity page for his book on the EO website refers to his conversion from creationism to intelligent design. The blurb says that ID scientists accept macro-evolution and an old universe, but that they see irreduceably complex traits as pointing to intelligence.
— simea mirans
If that's true, they just misunderstand American ID, which rejects macrovolution and does not "officially" accept any particular age of universe/earth/life. Most individual IDers accept the mainstream science chronology, but allow YECs in their big tent. Note that even Michael Behe, who repeatedly admitted common descent, also rejects "macroevolution," preferring "front loading" and maybe "saltation."

Yeah, I wonder if "macro" is just a typo for "micro" on the EO site.

Dale Husband · 5 February 2009

FL said: Stanton:
After all, remember that FL specifically stated that Christians are not allowed to simultaneously accept the facts of evolution AND Jesus Christ. With the sole exception of the Pope.
Sorry Stanton, it seems you have taken to outright lying again. Or maybe you're trying too hard to make a joke, hmm. No need to respond further in either case! FL :)

Sure, religious loons are well known for lacking a healthy sense of humor. Sad, really.

Frank J · 5 February 2009

Yeah, I wonder if “macro” is just a typo for “micro” on the EO site.
— simea mirans

I thought of that, but also wondered if they meant that "ID scientists" (already a misnomer) accept common descent. That's what I thought in 1998 because my first exposure was to Behe. In fact I'm still often misinterpreted as thinking that because I often note that Behe's remains the only "what happened when" scenario offered in any detail by a major IDer, and that none of the ones who seem to disagree with him have challenged him directly.

By the term “gaps”, however, I meant gaps in the story of Knevel’s conversion (prior to De Jong’s material), not the phrase “god of the gaps.”
— FL

Yes I know.

novparl · 5 February 2009

Evil Knevel (as he was - he's now saved) is on Wikip only in Dutch. It refers to his conversion (Amazing Grace!) to evo-superstition but gives no details. Perhaps I'll write to him in Dutch and ask him how he explains the pari passu evolution of sperm & ovum. If he replies, he'll probably say "'k weet niet, maar ik geloof bij trouw" - I dunno, but I believe by faith.

Gerdien de Jong · 5 February 2009

novparl:
“‘k weet niet, maar ik geloof bij trouw” - I dunno, but I believe by faith.
Translation into Dutch is wrong - translating machine?

Sola Fide: 'only by faith' or 'by faith alone' is a characteristic tenet of the Dutch Reformed Church.

Frank J · 5 February 2009

Perhaps I’ll write to him in Dutch and ask him how he explains the pari passu evolution of sperm & ovum.
— novparl

What's your explanation? Be as specific as possible about the "when."

MattusMaximus · 5 February 2009

This is a very nice development. Now only if some of the anti-science types in the U.S. would follow suit.

mrg (iml8) · 5 February 2009

MattusMaximus said: This is a very nice development. Now only if some of the anti-science types in the U.S. would follow suit.

When you say "suit" around these folks it usually involves lawyers. Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

eric · 5 February 2009

novparl said: Perhaps I'll write to him in Dutch and ask him how he explains the pari passu evolution of sperm & ovum.

Yes, why don't you do that. You wouldn't want to strain yourself by reading what's already been published on the subject.

Larry_boy · 5 February 2009

novparl said: Talking of flagella, which came first, the sperm or the ovum? How come they evolved pari passu?

I just have to know, why do you think that the fact that you don't understand something implies that it must be difficult to understand? I suppose, though, that I really should be thankful for your post novparl. You make me feel wise and intelligent by acting as my foil. (I know, I know, I am being mean. I may have sinned by mocking you, but I can't help but feel you deserve scorn and derision. I do sincerely hope you learn to be reasonable someday. If you ask respectfully, I would gladly explain the evolution of sexual reproduction.)

Stanton · 5 February 2009

FL said: Stanton:
After all, remember that FL specifically stated that Christians are not allowed to simultaneously accept the facts of evolution AND Jesus Christ. With the sole exception of the Pope.
Sorry Stanton, it seems you have taken to outright lying again. Or maybe you're trying too hard to make a joke, hmm. No need to respond further in either case! FL :)

If I'm lying then how come you've repeatedly claimed that acceptance of evolution is totally incompatible with Christianity, even though millions of Christians, including the last three Popes, suggest otherwise? Or, if I am lying about you claiming that Christianity and acceptance of evolution is incompatible, then why do you insist on claiming that they are incompatible?

Dan · 5 February 2009

novparl said: Talking of flagella, which came first, the sperm or the ovum? How come they evolved pari passu?

Well, when I looked up pari passu I found that it meant "at an equal pace; side by side." Sperm and egg didn't evolve pari passu ... it takes 380 million sperm to fertilize a single egg. That's not "side by side"! The women are way more advanced than the men.

Stanton · 5 February 2009

Dan said:
novparl said: Talking of flagella, which came first, the sperm or the ovum? How come they evolved pari passu?
Well, when I looked up pari passu I found that it meant "at an equal pace; side by side." Sperm and egg didn't evolve pari passu ... it takes 380 million sperm to fertilize a single egg. That's not "side by side"! The women are way more advanced than the men.

Have you tried googling isogamy and anisogamy?

novparl · 6 February 2009

Hmm. My reply has disappeared.

Frank J · 6 February 2009

Hmm. My reply has disappeared.
— novparl

Your reply to my question of yesterday 1:16? If so, or even if not, consider it asked again. BTW, either there's a glitch, or the moderators are deleting "Darwinists" comments too (Unlike UcD, PT is equal opportunity when it comes to moderation) because at least one of my comments of the last few days did not show up.

FL · 6 February 2009

If I’m lying then how come you’ve repeatedly claimed that acceptance of evolution is totally incompatible with Christianity?

Because it is. The claim is quite easily verified. However, that issue should wait for another time and another thread. For now, please notice the difference between the two statements you've made in this thread.

FL specifically stated that Christians are not allowed to simultaneously accept the facts of evolution AND Jesus Christ. With the sole exception of the Pope.

You’ve repeatedly claimed that acceptance of evolution is totally incompatible with Christianity.

Your first statement about me is both inaccurate and misleading. Your second statement about me is accurate, and it is not misleading. Seems clear enough. FL :)

Stanton · 6 February 2009

FL said:
If I’m lying then how come you’ve repeatedly claimed that acceptance of evolution is totally incompatible with Christianity?
Because it is. The claim is quite easily verified.

You're always talking about how evolution and Christianity are incompatible, and you're always making up some stupid claim to support it. You are the one who has a reputation as an unctuous liar, here, FL. Or, have you forgotten about your fabulous claim of how the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ miraculously disproves evolution, then cowardly refused to explain how, already?

However, that issue should wait for another time and another thread.

Typical cowardice and bullshitting. Perhaps you'd like to go back and explain why you had to resort to lies and distorting quotemines when asked to present "weaknesses of evolution"

For now, please notice the difference between the two statements you've made in this thread.
FL specifically stated that Christians are not allowed to simultaneously accept the facts of evolution AND Jesus Christ. With the sole exception of the Pope.

You’ve repeatedly claimed that acceptance of evolution is totally incompatible with Christianity.
Your first statement about me is both inaccurate and misleading. Your second statement about me is accurate, and it is not misleading. Seems clear enough. FL :)

You're always coming up with new lies and excuses, yet they all sound alike, they never support anything you say, and people still see through them to realize what you really are. This article is about a gentleman who realized that the entire Young Earth Creationism/Intelligent Design community was a big tent full of insidious, shameless liars, and he did not want his faith supported by lies. You, on the other hand

Stanton · 6 February 2009

FL, you're always saying "Statement X is why evolution is false," and or "Statement U is why Christians and Christianity can never reconcile with evolution," yet, when we ask "Why is X true when evolution has been observationally and experimentally verified," and "If U is true, then why does the Pope and the vast majority of Christians think otherwise?" you either disappear until the next thread to repeat yourself, or you try to bullshit your way out of it. And you often attempt to shift focus away from yourself in order to do so, like implying that I'm a liar, despite the fact that you have no qualms about quotemining in order to put teeth into your useless quibblings or to put words into a corpse's mouth.

Yet, you wonder why you have a reputation for lying here.

Mark Perakh · 6 February 2009

To those commenters who complain that their comments did not appear on this thread or disappeared: as the person being in charge for this thread, I assure you that I have not deleted a single comment. Perhaps the comments that disappeared in some way broke the rules which govern the automatic anti-spam guard incorporated in this blog? The guard is imperfect and sometimes produces false negatives. You may try to rephrase your comments and post them again.

phantomreader42 · 6 February 2009

FL said: Sorry Stanton, it seems you have taken to outright lying again.

So, FL, does this statement mean you think lying is wrong? If so, what about your documented lies in this thread, where you claimed to have a book you did not have, and claimed that this book which you did not have and had not read said things it did not say? Of course, since your accusation that Stanton is lying is itself a lie, it's clear that you have no problem with lying as long as it's Lying For Jesus™. You know, you never did answer whether your imaginary god has a probem with bearing false witness. But that's just one of many questions you've dodged.

Stephen P · 6 February 2009

In response to Mark's comment, I'll try again, this time without posting the link I included.

When I went searching for pages on the subject I found a page saying that Knevel had given up on creationism in 2005 (search on "EO-directeur laat creationisme los"). So it's not entirely clear to me what the news really is. Can someone enlighten me?

In related news, a bunch of creationists calling themselves Actie Comité Schepping are distributing an anti-evolution pamphlet to every house in the Netherlands later this month. Apparently the creationists still have far too much money, even if their political clout in the Netherlands isn't very great.

Kevin B · 6 February 2009

Mark Perakh said: To those commenters who complain that their comments did not appear on this thread or disappeared: as the person being in charge for this thread, I assure you that I have not deleted a single comment. Perhaps the comments that disappeared in some way broke the rules which govern the automatic anti-spam guard incorporated in this blog? The guard is imperfect and sometimes produces false negatives. You may try to rephrase your comments and post them again.

Does Movable Type have its terminology inverted relative to that usually employed in spam filtering? Most filtering programs in effect ask the question "Is this spam?", so that the incorrect labelling of a message as spam is a "false positive". Mind you, I can't decide whether FL is employing "inverted logic", or just "not logic".

Mike Elzinga · 6 February 2009

Mind you, I can’t decide whether FL is employing “inverted logic”, or just “not logic”.
— Kevin B

He's gunning for alpha dog in his church. It has to do with showing off and nothing to do with logic or understanding. He has never attempted to do the latter.

novparl · 6 February 2009

Frank J - I'll keep this brief in case it disappears/is censored again. When? Dunno. How? By design. By Whom? Dunno - not the God of the Bible. May even be by gods (a committee? that'd explain a few things.)

Now - which came 1st - the sperm or the ovum?

Here goes....

Larry_boy · 6 February 2009

novparl said: Now - which came 1st - the sperm or the ovum? Here goes....

Objection your honour, asked and answered. (you should really goggle isogamy.) Again, would you mind informing us why you think your failure to answer a question should imply that we have also failed to answer it?

Richard Simons · 6 February 2009

novparl said: Now - which came 1st - the sperm or the ovum? Here goes....

Follow Stanton's suggestion and Google isogamy and anisogamy.

Stephen P · 6 February 2009

OK, the NRC Handelsblad has now answered my question.

Apparently Knevel abandoned YEC in 2005, but embraced ID instead. Now he has more-or-less abandoned ID as well, and gone (as stated above) for something like theistic evolution. But it appears that quite a few of the EO plebs have only now noticed that he'd abandoned the YEC position, hence the fuss.

Henry J · 6 February 2009

Ova and sperm are two cell types belonging to the same species. They are not two different species. The differentiation of the cells evolved over time from cells that weren't so differentiated.

It doesn't take an expert, or even any research, to answer that question.

Henry

Just Bob · 6 February 2009

Yo, novparl, I ain't no biologist, but I've heard of conjugation: 2 bacterial cells uniting to mix & match genes. Neither is a "sperm" or "egg," yet that sounds to me like an evolutionary precursor to the sexual reproduction of "higher" organisms. I'm bettin' the answer to your snively question is "neither."

(Resident biologists, please correct any gross misconceptions.)

phantomreader42 · 6 February 2009

Henry J said: Ova and sperm are two cell types belonging to the same species. They are not two different species. The differentiation of the cells evolved over time from cells that weren't so differentiated. It doesn't take an expert, or even any research, to answer that question. Henry

All it takes is a brain and a basic understanding of reality. Which explains why novparl was utterly incapable of answering it.

Stanton · 6 February 2009

Just Bob said: Yo, novparl, I ain't no biologist, but I've heard of conjugation: 2 bacterial cells uniting to mix & match genes. Neither is a "sperm" or "egg," yet that sounds to me like an evolutionary precursor to the sexual reproduction of "higher" organisms. I'm bettin' the answer to your snively question is "neither." (Resident biologists, please correct any gross misconceptions.)

Bacterial conjugation is different from eukaryotic conjugation, in that, in the former, once conjugation is over, the two cells go their separate ways, while in the latter, both cells (sometimes gametes, sometimes not, depending on which phyla/kingdom) cease their original functions/lifestyles/existence as the new zygote forms. Or, in the case of ciliated protists, the fused pair then undergoes mitosis into 4 new offspring.

Just Bob · 6 February 2009

Stanton said:
Just Bob said: Yo, novparl, I ain't no biologist, but I've heard of conjugation: 2 bacterial cells uniting to mix & match genes. Neither is a "sperm" or "egg," yet that sounds to me like an evolutionary precursor to the sexual reproduction of "higher" organisms. I'm bettin' the answer to your snively question is "neither." (Resident biologists, please correct any gross misconceptions.)
Bacterial conjugation is different from eukaryotic conjugation, in that, in the former, once conjugation is over, the two cells go their separate ways, while in the latter, both cells (sometimes gametes, sometimes not, depending on which phyla/kingdom) cease their original functions/lifestyles/existence as the new zygote forms. Or, in the case of ciliated protists, the fused pair then undergoes mitosis into 4 new offspring.

Thanks, Stanton. Is there any thought that possibly bacterial conjugation is in some sense an evolutionary precursor to eukaryotic sex? Or did the latter arise completely separately?

Stanton · 6 February 2009

Just Bob said: Is there any thought that possibly bacterial conjugation is in some sense an evolutionary precursor to eukaryotic sex? Or did the latter arise completely separately?

As far as I know, bacterial conjugation is distinct from eukaryotic sex, in that sex in bacteria (i.e., genetic information exchange) is not a prerequisite for reproduction like it is in eukaryotes. Reproduction in bacteria occurs via fission, in that the original bacterium either splits in two or buds off daughter cells after replicating the original genome a couple of times (or however many times it feels like). On the other hand, bacterial conjugation does lead to lateral gene transfer, even with eukaryotes, especially if the bacterium in question lives in close association with the eukaryote in question.

mrg (iml8) · 6 February 2009

Stanton said: On the other hand, bacterial conjugation does lead to lateral gene transfer, even with eukaryotes, especially if the bacterium in question lives in close association with the eukaryote in question.

Interesting -- are there specific known cases of lateral gene transfer between prokaryotes and eukaryotes? Have they ever been seen in multicellular eukaryotes? My usual notion of lateral gene transfer in multicellular eukaryotes is germ-line retroviral infection, but it doesn't seem unreasonable that a bacterium might not try to stick a plasmid to a eukaryotic cell. It must be conceded that the origins of sex have their mysteries, but the wild variations on the theme of sexual reproduction -- see Olivia Judson's DOCTOR TATIANA for an amusing read -- hardly suggest Design. Now I look at that comment above and wonder: WHY oh WHY do I have this feeling that it's going to be quote-mined, with everything after the comma discarded? Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Stanton · 6 February 2009

mrg (iml8) said:
Stanton said: On the other hand, bacterial conjugation does lead to lateral gene transfer, even with eukaryotes, especially if the bacterium in question lives in close association with the eukaryote in question.
Interesting -- are there specific known cases of lateral gene transfer between prokaryotes and eukaryotes? Have they ever been seen in multicellular eukaryotes? My usual notion of lateral gene transfer in multicellular eukaryotes is germ-line retroviral infection, but it doesn't seem unreasonable that a bacterium might not try to stick a plasmid to a eukaryotic cell.

Off the top of my head, the bacterium Agriobacterium utilizes (bacterial) conjugation to cause tumors or galls to form in the roots and or leaves of its (plant) host. It maybe that the termites gained their ability to secrete cellulase enzyme from their prokaryote symbiotes (or the prokaryotic symbiotes of their protist symbiotes), but I'm not sure.

Frank J · 7 February 2009

Frank J - I’ll keep this brief in case it disappears/is censored again. When? Dunno. How? By design. By Whom? Dunno - not the God of the Bible. May even be by gods (a committee? that’d explain a few things.) Now - which came 1st - the sperm or the ovum?
— novparl

As for sperm/ovum, I'll tentatively go with mainstream science's answer. As I scientist, I know that if a real scientist has a different idea, he will test it, and reject it if not sufficiently supported by evidence. A real scientist will not avoid testing and whine about being "expelled." Meanwhile, thanks for telling us that the designer is not the God of the Bible. Not sure why you are so sure of that, yet cannot give us even a wild guess about "when" any designs were actuated, but I hope you have challenged anti-evolution groups with your unorthodox opinion. Have you?

James F · 7 February 2009

FL said: For now, please notice the difference between the two statements you've made in this thread.
FL specifically stated that Christians are not allowed to simultaneously accept the facts of evolution AND Jesus Christ. With the sole exception of the Pope.

You’ve repeatedly claimed that acceptance of evolution is totally incompatible with Christianity.
Your first statement about me is both inaccurate and misleading. Your second statement about me is accurate, and it is not misleading.

My curiosity has gotten the better of me, FL: what are the True Christian faiths, in your opinion? Catholics, mainline Protestants, and Mormons would seem to be disqualified. I'm guessing you're a fan of the Southern Baptist Convention, but if memory serves you mentioned a bishop. Alas, I can never keep the Protestant denominations straight.

novparl · 9 February 2009

Frank J. "Tentatively"? You're meant to be sure & fundamentalist, like the others. I suspect you have
slight doubts! Thoughtcrime!
Have looked up (An)Isogamy on Wikip. Can anyone point out the word "evolution" in either (paragraph no., please)?

I'll do a deal with you all. Someone write a couple of paras on the evolution of sperm & ovum and insert it into the Wikip articles. Then tell P's Thumb and I'll go and read them. After all, ya do believe you can only understand biology thru evolution, doncha? Specially in the year of Our Saviour (Darwin.)

Stanton · 9 February 2009

novparl said: I'll do a deal with you all. Someone write a couple of paras on the evolution of sperm & ovum and insert it into the Wikip articles. Then tell P's Thumb and I'll go and read them. After all, ya do believe you can only understand biology thru evolution, doncha? Specially in the year of Our Saviour (Darwin.)

Please demonstrate how to understand biology without evolution, and please demonstrate who reveres Charles Darwin as a messianic "savior."

Frank J · 9 February 2009

Frank J. “Tentatively”?
— novparl

Yes, as in subject to replacement with a better explanation if you or anyone else has one. But you don't. And every time you spin an argument-from-incredulity and run away from stating, much less testing, your alternative, you effectively argue in favor of the prevailing explanation. So keep running. I suggest getting some pointers from the DI. They are much better at it than you are.

DS · 9 February 2009

Novpari,

I'll do a deal with you. Go read the Evolution of Sex by John Maynard Smith. Then maybe someone will want to discuss the topic with you.

By the way, this is just the first hit if you goggle "evolution of sex". There are 12 and a half million more hits, including Sex and Evolution by Williams. You have a lot of cartching up to do. The old tired "they both had to evolve simultaneously" isn't going to fool anyone anymore.

Oh and Darwin is no "savior", never was, never will be, never wanted to be, never claimed to be. Do try to remember the difference between science and religion.

James F · 10 February 2009

DS said: Oh and Darwin is no "savior", never was, never will be, never wanted to be, never claimed to be.

He was just a man whose circumstances went beyond his control. Oh wait, that was Kilroy....

Frank J · 10 February 2009

I’ll do a deal with you. Go read the Evolution of Sex by John Maynard Smith. Then maybe someone will want to discuss the topic with you.
— DS

I hope that your goal of that deal is to make new readers aware of how anti-evolutionists operate. If they do read such material it will be only to quote mine and more effectively misrepresent evolution. Any discussion that follows will never be productive. That's how it is with all "kinds" of pseudoscientists in a pseudoscience-addicted world. Like it or not, they have convinced most people that the onus is always on mainstream science to provide explanations, while the pseudoscientist is exempt from stating, much less testing, any alternative they might have. Adding fuel to the fire is the fact that real scientists prefer - and ought to prefer - developing their explanation and defending it to the public instead of correcting pseudoscientists who's only job is to misrepresent them. Until we have a science-friendly culture that will always be the case.

novparl · 10 February 2009

I see no-one's accepted my deal. Nor explained where your enthusiasm for (an)isogamy as the complete explanation has disappeared.

The Wikip art. on "Evolution of sex" doesn't look very promising or important. Only 5 languages (incl. Lithuanian). John Maynard Smith has 13 (incl. Haitian Creole). I see JMS was a communist all thru the Stalin years (Survival-of-the-fittest years - so is Homo Sovieticus the fittest?), only leaving supposedly after the Magyar Revolution, but prob. because of Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin. But I'll check it out.

I thought my little joke about Darwin your Saviour wd make you even angrier.

God prob doesn't exist - now stop shouting and enjoy life.

fnxtr · 10 February 2009

God prob doesn't exist, but you don't accept modern evolutionary theory. What then, space aliens?

novparl · 11 February 2009

There were a number of agnostics before Darwinism. It's not scientific to say you must have a theory on/of everything. How come existence exists? Don't know? Then you don't exist.

I notice no-one has pointed out the word EVOLUTION in the articles on (an)isogamy.

DS · 11 February 2009

I guess novpari didn't accept my deal. Pity, the Smith book probably has a good discussion of the evolution of anisogamy. I know there are dozens of articles in scientific journals on the subject. Reading Wiki wouldn't even count for writing an undergraduate essay.

Notice that I wrote that "maybe someone" would want to discuss this with novpari once he had bothered to learn the basics. I certainly made no promise to derail the thread with off-topic discussions, nor do expect that he will ever be interested in any evidence.

Happy Darwin day!

novparl · 11 February 2009

Wikipedia doesn't say what you want, so it's rubbish. All those users are wrong.

I haven't yet had time to track down JMS's book. Typically unreasonable of an evolutionist to expect me to get hold of a book instantaneously.

Happy Darwin the Saviour's Day!

DS · 11 February 2009

novpari,

Keep looking for that book. I was correct, chapter nine is entitled "Anisogamy and the Sex Ratio", it includes part C entitled "Anisogamy". I recommend this as a starting point for studying the evolution of anisogamy. Here, I'll get you started:

p. 151: Why do higher organisms, plant and animal, produce gametes of two different sizes? What I believe to be essentially the correct answer to the question was given by Parker, Baker and Smith (1972). Here I present their argument in a more general form, the approach was suggested by Bell (1978).

p. 155 The basic conclusion is that the primitive condition is the production of microgametes of the smallest practicable size, and that anisogamy will evolve, through invasion by macrogamete-producers, when adult size is such that it is difficult or impossible for a single motile cell to grow and differentiate into the adult form.

So, we have had a plausible answer for the evolutionary origin of anisogamy for over thirty five years now. Of course you might not feel that this treatment is sufficient. You might not think that this pathetic level of detail is satisfying. Then by all means, read all of the literature published in the last thirty years as well.

Got to go now, got to get ready. Tomorrow we offer blood sacrifices to the savior Darwin. Wait, that was the other church that does that. Oh well.

fnxtr · 11 February 2009

novparl said: There were a number of agnostics before Darwinism. It's not scientific to say you must have a theory on/of everything. How come existence exists? Don't know? Then you don't exist.

What does this even mean, anything? Who's talking about a theory of everything? What planet are you from? Before Copernicus, there were people who didn't believe the Earth moved. Before Kepler, mathematicians and astronomers argued over epicycles. As far as I know the knee-jerk against "Copernicanism" and "Keplerism" is pretty much over. Surely you're not as dense as you're pretending to be. What we have so far is the best explanation, by people who actually, you know, know things, by doing the work. Got something better? Put it on the table. In the end, evolution (the fact, not the theory) does not care if you accept it or not. Maybe that's what bothers you so much about it.

fnxtr · 11 February 2009

Either that or you really do think it was space aliens but you're too ashamed or cowardly to admit it.

fnxtr · 11 February 2009

Two days in only 'instantaneous' on a geologic time scale. You know, like, compared to 4 1/2 billion years and all.

But yeah, sometimes library hours are inconvenient. Get back to us when you got some a that thar book larnin'.

Stanton · 11 February 2009

The idea that we must make deals with the maliciously ignorant in order to discuss topics that the aforementioned maliciously ignorant refuse to learn about prior to the discussion is anathema to all sane persons in all cultures throughout the world. Remember that, and that the only people who regard Charles Darwin as a "savior" or "messiah" are evolution-deniers such as yourself.

novparl said: I see no-one's accepted my deal. Nor explained where your enthusiasm for (an)isogamy as the complete explanation has disappeared.

Stanton · 11 February 2009

fnxtr said: Before Copernicus, there were people who didn't believe the Earth moved. Before Kepler, mathematicians and astronomers argued over epicycles. As far as I know the knee-jerk against "Copernicanism" and "Keplerism" is pretty much over. Surely you're not as dense as you're pretending to be.

Technically speaking, by the time Copernicus and Kepler pop up, astronomers had already agreed that Ptolemy's epicycles were silly: Copernicus stated that the Sun was the center of the known universe, and Kepler did Tycho Brahe's math for him and realized that the Earth and other planets orbit the sun in circular ellipses, and not circles as originally suggested by Copernicus.

In the end, evolution (the fact, not the theory) does not care if you accept it or not. Maybe that's what bothers you so much about it.

Novparl doesn't care: he's a self-admitted troll whose sole purpose here is to antagonize us, not to learn or even make the effort to discuss anything.

novparl · 12 February 2009

Well, I thought this thread was just about finished!

From JMS's "Did Darwin get it right?" (Penguin), p.165

"Why..bother with sex?..I am not sure I know the answer."
(i.e. sex is time-consuming compared to non-sexual repro).

Since y'all know the answer, you have a DUTY to get together & publish it.

When did sex 1st become enjoyable?

Henry J · 12 February 2009

Species that recombine DNA from different individuals can adapt faster to a changing environment than species that don't have a mechanism for doing that. When the environment includes other species that also change over time, that can be a distinct advantage even if it does use a good bit of resources to accomplish.

DS · 13 February 2009

The kick is up, the kick is ... wait a minute, the goalposts have just been moved. Man too bad, that kick was going to be right through the uprights. Oh well, if you have to move the goalposts to win, I guess you don't deserve to play the game anyway.

Way to go novpari.

P.S. Darwin Day was great.

novparl · 14 February 2009

Glad to hear it. Hope nobody spoilt it for you by mentioning Wikipedia!

I've now moved to the Darwinism is dead thread. Hope to see ya there.