Afarensis reviews "Science and Human Origins"

Here is what the book has to say about the genetic evidence for human ancestry:

"The evidence from DNA comparisons is similarly enigmatic. DNA sequences are strings of nucleotides millions or billions in length. Aligning DNA sequences in order to compare them is a tricky business. There can be single base changes, insertions or deletions, and rearrangements of the DNA that complicate things and may or may not be included in comparisons. (Here she inserts a footnote referring the reader to Luskin’s chapter on chromosomal rearrangements.) The degree of similarity calculated depends on how the analysis is done, and what is excluded and included. (Here she inserts a footnote referring the reader to an article by Todd Wood a noted creationist). But putting aside arguments about how similar we are to chimps, the question is: What does similarity demonstrate?"

This is of course complete an utter nonsense. There are well known methods for aligning sequences and determining homology. There are well known methods for dealing with insertions and deletions. There are well known methods for determining sequence similarity. But of course this is beside the point, since many phylogenetic methods don't depend on similarity. And of course this completely ignores all of the other types of genetic evidence, such as synteny, SINE insertions, chromosomal fusions, etc.

But then again, if you just ignore all of the evidence, it's much easier to write a book denying all of the evidence. Why do these amateurs think that anyone will be fooled by their crap? Preaching to the choir is one thing, but lying to them is something else entirely.

If someone plagiarizes that low-quality bilgewater, I wonder if they'd stoop to mechanism and "materialism" to protect it. Or will they be principled enough to admit that it may all be God's authorship, having nothing to do with mundane processes.

Now taking bets for the principled consistent miracle stance. What, no one's betting on their intellectual integrity?

Glen Davidson

If they could bring themselves to do, you know, a Bayesian sort of thing, then perhaps they could have saved themselves a post.

On the anatomical thing.
Whether from the ID critics or evolutionist defenders there is a great premise here that anatomy of like forms equals like origins.
yet the bible says apes/men are not related and therefore anatomical likeness is a coincidence.
Therefore in the discussion about evidence, I repeat evidence, for common heritage it MUST be eliminated from the discussion any premise that like form equals like origin.
This is a seduction on thinking if we see a likeness between apes/us. It gets in the way of actual appreciation of evidence or lack of it.

In fact fossils of claimed people/ape connections also must not do this.
One can not presume connections based on anatomy since ape/men anatomy is already seen and yet not demanding that we are related.

All this stuff about bones is still about presumptions that our bones show our history.
Its not been proven our anatomy has any connection to similiar anatomy anywhere .
Just a happanstance.

Byers, your latest is another attempt to use incoherent words to remove evidence. It doesn't work. Evidence is evidence. It's not just morphology, although given all the intermediates that can now be demonstrated between ancestral apes and human apes, that would seem to be powerful evidence on its own. But the genetics and the shared biochemstry nails it down to such an extent that it's impossible, within reason, not to accept it.

We have the same genes, with the same breaks, the same insertions, and the same repairs, as the great apes. We have one fewer pair of chromosomes, and we can specifically show where the chromosomes joined, at chromosome number two, map the ancestral chromosomes on either side of the join, and match them to the ancestral ape chromosomes.

We have the same genetic makeup. We share the genetic inheritance of the apes. It can't not mean it. We are apes.

Byers, your profound ignorance of the facts does not excuse you. You could have learned. You refuse to learn. Very well, do as you wish. Think what you like. Please keep posting here, too. Every one of your posts exposes how threadbare, confused and foolish creationism is.

I'll pose the same question to Booby Byers that I posed over at Larry Moran's blog to a creationist relative the evidence for common descent of humans and the great apes, which he/she has thus far failed to respond to.

Isn't it an amazing coincidence that, almost alone amongst the mammals, humans and apes have a broken gene for producing vitamin C, which means that they have to ingest 50mg/day from their food. Common descent explains this quite well, e.g. the gene went broken in the common ancestor. If Booby Byers has a better explanation, let's hear it.

SLC said: Isn't it an amazing coincidence that, almost alone amongst the mammals, humans and apes have a broken gene for producing vitamin C, which means that they have to ingest 50mg/day from their food. Common descent explains this quite well, e.g. the gene went broken in the common ancestor. If Booby Byers has a better explanation, let's hear it.

SLC said: Isn't it an amazing coincidence that, almost alone amongst the mammals, humans and apes have a broken gene for producing vitamin C,

which means that they have to ingest 50mg/day from their food.

Common descent explains this quite well, e.g. the gene went broken in the common ancestor.

If Booby Byers has a better explanation, let's hear it.

On the anatomical thing.
Whether from the ID critics or evolutionist defenders there is a great premise here that anatomy of like forms equals like origins. This is a well established principle in biology and is based not only on anatomy, but on the convergence of evidence from genetics and development as well.
yet the bible says apes/men are not related and therefore anatomical likeness is a coincidence.
Therefore in the discussion about evidence, I repeat evidence, for common heritage it MUST be admitted that like form equals like origin.
This is a seduction on thinking if we see a likeness between apes/us that it is just coincidence because of our deep prejudices and preconceptions. It gets in the way of actual appreciation of evidence.

In fact fossils of claimed people/ape connections also are completely concordant with all of the other types of evidence.
One can infer connections based on anatomy since ape/men anatomy is already seen and demanding that we are related.

All this stuff about the bible is still about presumptions that our bones don't show our history.
Its has been proven conclusively that our anatomy has a connection to similiar anatomy anywhere .
It's not just a happanstance, that is just a cop out that doesn't explain anything.

Just the first post on Afarensis' blog reminds me that mileage in the field is something non-scientists don't get. The subtle variations in bone and teeth are well documented by thousands of scientists taking millions of measurements on countless human, ape and hominid fossils. When a layperson dismisses a hominid skull as "just a human" or "just an ape" because their untrained eye can't see the the difference, they are dismissing the work of a lot of people. It's arrogance to the extreme.

SLC said: If Booby Byers has a better explanation, let's hear it.

Robert Byers said: ...the bible says apes/men are not related and therefore anatomical likeness is a coincidence.

Robert Byers said: the bible says apes/men are not related

lkeithlu said: Just the first post on Afarensis' blog reminds me that mileage in the field is something non-scientists don't get. The subtle variations in bone and teeth are well documented by thousands of scientists taking millions of measurements on countless human, ape and hominid fossils. When a layperson dismisses a hominid skull as "just a human" or "just an ape" because their untrained eye can't see the the difference, they are dismissing the work of a lot of people. It's arrogance to the extreme.

It's so odd, too, that design and evolution simply grade into each other. Not a single creationist, including the "sophisticated" IDiots (Behe's claptrap is clearly a shambles), knows where evolution ends and design begins, yet they accept a bewildering range of "microevolution" (scare quotes because their "microevolution" has no basic meaning) evidenced by common characteristics, while denying that exactly the same sort of evidence indicates any kind of "macroevolution," which apparently "would produce" the same results as design does.

Similarity of evidence means nothing, you know. "Microevolution," languages, textual families are all accepted because of similarities existing in nested hierarchies, while "macroevolution" resting on exactly the same sort of evidence isn't supported by the evidence and patterns that it predicts.

Well, consistency, along with other intellectual virtues, is not for what creationists are known.

Glen Davidson

The other thing that bothers me is that evolution, even (very specifically) homonid evolution isn't a case of "well, we have vitamin C, and chromosome 2 fusion, and a couple of fossils".

PubMed has 127,597 hits for "homonid evolution". The first couple of hits include a protein family, something about a femoral condyle ellipticalness in primates including humans, and evidence of muscle reversions as applied to modern human evolution. I realize there are some non-direct evidence in that list, but still...

Creationists can't even dispute ONE piece of evidence without resorting to distortion, semantics, lies, cherry-picking, or any of a hundred other logical fallacies. Yet, what they may not even realize (certainly Bobby doesn't) is that not only do they have to discredit every single conclusion in every one of those hundred thousand papers, but they have to devise a mechanism that explains all the observations in those papers BETTER than evolution does.

Evolution merrily chugs along, but creationism (including ID) is still trying to figure out how to get on the horse, much less which way to point the horse to get out of the starting blocks.

ogremk5 said: [SNIP] PubMed has 127,597 hits for "homonid evolution". The first couple of hits include a protein family, something about a femoral condyle ellipticalness in primates including humans, and evidence of muscle reversions as applied to modern human evolution. I realize there are some non-direct evidence in that list, but still...

Richard B. Hoppe said:

ogremk5 said: [SNIP] PubMed has 127,597 hits for "homonid evolution". The first couple of hits include a protein family, something about a femoral condyle ellipticalness in primates including humans, and evidence of muscle reversions as applied to modern human evolution. I realize there are some non-direct evidence in that list, but still...

Unfortunately, PubMed treats "homonid" as a null search term--it doesn't find it--and all those hits seem to be on "evolution." Searching on "hominid evolution" yields 154 hits, while "hominim evolution" yields 66 hits. "Human evolution" yields 1,667.

Robert Byers said: On the anatomical thing. Whether from the ID critics or evolutionist defenders there is a great premise here that anatomy of like forms equals like origins. yet the bible says apes/men are not related and therefore anatomical likeness is a coincidence.

ogremk5 said:

Richard B. Hoppe said:

ogremk5 said: [SNIP] PubMed has 127,597 hits for "homonid evolution". The first couple of hits include a protein family, something about a femoral condyle ellipticalness in primates including humans, and evidence of muscle reversions as applied to modern human evolution. I realize there are some non-direct evidence in that list, but still...

Unfortunately, PubMed treats "homonid" as a null search term--it doesn't find it--and all those hits seem to be on "evolution." Searching on "hominid evolution" yields 154 hits, while "hominim evolution" yields 66 hits. "Human evolution" yields 1,667.

Fair enough. "Hominid Evolution" in Google scholar results in 11,700 hits. I'm not a huge fan of GS for these kinds of searches though. Too many repeats. The point remains that there isn't just one or two data points in human evolution that creationists must explain away.

DS said: On the anatomical thing. yet the bible says apes/men are not related and therefore anatomical likeness is a coincidence.

25 When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. 31 The sun rose upon him [Jacob] as he passed Penuel, limping because of his hip. 32 Therefore to this day the people of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh that is on the hip socket, because he touched the socket of Jacob's hip on the sinew of the thigh.

ksplawn said:

ogremk5 said:

Richard B. Hoppe said:

ogremk5 said: [SNIP] PubMed has 127,597 hits for "homonid evolution". The first couple of hits include a protein family, something about a femoral condyle ellipticalness in primates including humans, and evidence of muscle reversions as applied to modern human evolution. I realize there are some non-direct evidence in that list, but still...

Unfortunately, PubMed treats "homonid" as a null search term--it doesn't find it--and all those hits seem to be on "evolution." Searching on "hominid evolution" yields 154 hits, while "hominim evolution" yields 66 hits. "Human evolution" yields 1,667.

Fair enough. "Hominid Evolution" in Google scholar results in 11,700 hits. I'm not a huge fan of GS for these kinds of searches though. Too many repeats. The point remains that there isn't just one or two data points in human evolution that creationists must explain away.

I wonder how many anti-evolutionist still operate under Kent Hovind's mentality that it only takes one good counterargument to disprove evolution. Of course, they can't even muster up the good counterargument, but that doesn't stop them from thinking they have.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

ogremk5 said: [SNIP] PubMed has 127,597 hits for "homonid evolution". The first couple of hits include a protein family, something about a femoral condyle ellipticalness in primates including humans, and evidence of muscle reversions as applied to modern human evolution. I realize there are some non-direct evidence in that list, but still...

Unfortunately, PubMed treats "homonid" as a null search term--it doesn't find it--and all those hits seem to be on "evolution." Searching on "hominid evolution" yields 154 hits, while "hominim evolution" yields 66 hits. "Human evolution" yields 1,667.

Prometheus68 said:

Richard B. Hoppe said:

ogremk5 said: [SNIP] PubMed has 127,597 hits for "homonid evolution". The first couple of hits include a protein family, something about a femoral condyle ellipticalness in primates including humans, and evidence of muscle reversions as applied to modern human evolution. I realize there are some non-direct evidence in that list, but still...

Unfortunately, PubMed treats "homonid" as a null search term--it doesn't find it--and all those hits seem to be on "evolution." Searching on "hominid evolution" yields 154 hits, while "hominim evolution" yields 66 hits. "Human evolution" yields 1,667.

How many hits does one get for "homonym evolution"? :-)

SLC said: I'll pose the same question to Booby Byers that I posed over at Larry Moran's blog to a creationist relative the evidence for common descent of humans and the great apes, which he/she has thus far failed to respond to. Isn't it an amazing coincidence that, almost alone amongst the mammals, humans and apes have a broken gene for producing vitamin C, which means that they have to ingest 50mg/day from their food. Common descent explains this quite well, e.g. the gene went broken in the common ancestor. If Booby Byers has a better explanation, let's hear it.

Robert Byers said:

SLC said: I'll pose the same question to Booby Byers that I posed over at Larry Moran's blog to a creationist relative the evidence for common descent of humans and the great apes, which he/she has thus far failed to respond to. Isn't it an amazing coincidence that, almost alone amongst the mammals, humans and apes have a broken gene for producing vitamin C, which means that they have to ingest 50mg/day from their food. Common descent explains this quite well, e.g. the gene went broken in the common ancestor. If Booby Byers has a better explanation, let's hear it.

Genetics is not my thing but why is this a issue. A YEC creationist believes a radical event, called the fall, affected all biology. things went wrong everywhere. Decay became a new reality. So humans and apes easily could get the same problem in our genes as a result of the decaying nature we both find ourselves in. For Genesis deniers this is not a good answewr. Yet it simply is that both have like reaction to like need.

Genetics is not your thing, that's why you don't understand why is this a issue. But apparently that wont stop you from spouting off nonsense anyway. your a YEC creationist who believes a radical event, called the fall, affected all biology. things went wrong everywhere. Decay became a new reality. So humans and apes easily could get the same problem in our genes as a result of the decaying nature we both find ourselves in. For reality deniers like you, this is not a good answewr, since there is absolutely no evidence for this made up crap and it explains exactly nothing. You try to say it simply is that both have like reaction to like need, but that is absolutely not the case and that doesn't explain the nested hierarchy or the plagarized errors. you cant explain why god made the mistakes or why god copied the mistakes, so all you can do is make up crap that makes no sense and keep flapping your yap. mistakes dont fill any needs and copying them is stupid so yoo're god is stupid or maybe its just you.

Robert Byers said: Genetics is not my thing but why is this a issue.

A YEC creationist believes a radical event, called the fall, affected all biology.

W. H. Heydt said: You see, Mr. Byers, no matter how you attempt to explain the evidence, you run into trouble that requires yet more ad hoc additions to your "explanation", all of which are extra-Biblical, creating a ricktety structure that will be blown away by the slightest breeze of fact and logic.

Oh, the wrestling with God thing, and why we don't eat the "sinew of the thigh that is on the hip socket"?

It's a myth. A myth is a story that explains a natural phenomenon, or a human custom of unknown provenance, in supernatural terms. This is why we die, this is why there's a rainbow, this is why we have to work in the fields, this is why there's seven days in the week, this is why we do this, that or the other.

It's no accident that the word "why" has two related, but crucially different implications: 1) causation; 2) intent. "Why does lightning strike high places?" is an example of the first. "Why did you do that?" is an example of the second.

Humans want to know why. The urge to give an answer in terms of the second implication, when you don't know the first, is very powerful.

The result is myth. The story of Jacob wrestling with God is a myth.

So is it your contention that other primates are “fallen” because of what a couple of (what you think are unrelated) humans did? Or do you contend that the apes fell, too? And if the apes fell, what did they do to deserve a broken Vitamin C gene? What about non-primate mammals? Why DON’T they have the broken gene? Didn’t “the fall” affect them as well?

Robert Byers said: Genetics is not my thing but why is this a issue. A YEC creationist believes a radical event, called the fall, affected all biology. things went wrong everywhere. Decay became a new reality. So humans and apes easily could get the same problem in our genes as a result of the decaying nature we both find ourselves in. For Genesis deniers this is not a good answewr. Yet it simply is that both have like reaction to like need.

Robert Byers said: Genetics is not my thing but why is this a issue. A YEC creationist believes a radical event, called the fall, affected all biology.

I applaud RBH for posting this link to Afarensis' deconstruction. As for Booby Byers, I think we are, once again, wasting our time with him.

John said: I applaud RBH for posting this link to Afarensis' deconstruction. As for Booby Byers, I think we are, once again, wasting our time with him.

I'm writing this with a straight face. What is Byers doing here? Is he actually insane? He ignores 90% of responses. He implies that there is a vibrant creation science but when linked to creationists in the real world having problems reconciling the creation account to reality he doesn't even read the links.

Does he honestly think that he can vaguely (and incoherently) hand wave away evidence and the real scientists on this site aren't going to notice?

Yes

MichaelJ said: I'm writing this with a straight face. What is Byers doing here? Is he actually insane? He ignores 90% of responses. He implies that there is a vibrant creation science but when linked to creationists in the real world having problems reconciling the creation account to reality he doesn't even read the links. Does he honestly think that he can vaguely (and incoherently) hand wave away evidence and the real scientists on this site aren't going to notice?

It's as I have remarked before about YECs in general. Byers isn't exactly handwaving evidence away. Rather, he can't comprehend it or perceive it. To him, it doesn't actually exist, as such.

To an pre-modern mindset - and Byers has one - evidence simply doesn't matter. What matters is strength of personal conviction, authority and repeated assertion. There is also argument, but of specific kinds - argument from (possible) consequence, argument ad populi. We've seen Byers and his cohort use both, but the most important thing is personal conviction. Byers believes what he believes because he believes it. Evidence, on the other hand, doesn't register.

The cornerstone of Byers ideas on the history of the Earth is that the Bible can't be wrong (authority), because it's the word of God. He simply assumes this, and repeatedly asserts it. A second foundational idea is that the only way the past can be known is by eyewitness statement - which in the case of Genesis, is God Himself. (Byers knows this, despite the fact that it is never actually claimed.) The evidence from fossils simply doesn't exist. These are nothing more than the remains of creatures that once existed. There's nothing to say that they are related to modern life.

The similarities in morphology and the biochemical evidence of precisely similar insertions, deletions, broken genes, etcetera, is also irrelevant. But not only irrelevant. It's also meaningless. Byers ensures that it will forever remain meaningless to him by never attempting to inform himself about it. He simply ignores it. Its very meaninglessness is then an argument against it.

Which comes back to the same thing. Byers believes what he believes because he believes it. The values he has had deeply instilled into him is that this set of beliefs cannot be compromised. He will therefore do nothing whatsoever that might compromise them.

So it's useless putting evidence before him. He doesn't recognise it, and can't comprehend its very existence. It's useless asking him to consider evidence. He won't. He can't. That would be to imply that evidence is sovereign, when he knows that internal certainty, authority and repeated assertion is sovereign. He simply ignores evidence, because evidence does not and cannot matter.

You'd think that the cognitive dissonance would eventually become unbearable, for Byers does use evidence in places where his belief system doesn't dictate otherwise. If he heard a breaking window in the next room, came in and saw shards of glass and a baseball on the floor, looked out of the broken window and saw a bunch of kids with a bat looking towards the house, he'd come to the obvious conclusion, and hence reconstruct a past event from evidence with no trouble at all. But his rigid mental compartmentalisation and cognitive dissassociation allows him to eschew this process where his convictions require.

It's a sad case.

The above explanation by Dave has to be the best ever. Excellent post, and reminds us why responding to Bobby b. will never accomplish anything. (except venting frustration towards an ignorant and delusional mind)

The cornerstone of Byers ideas on the history of the Earth is that the Bible can’t be wrong (authority), because it’s the word of God.

aufwuch said: The above explanation by Dave has to be the best ever. Excellent post, and reminds us why responding to Bobby b. will never accomplish anything. (except venting frustration towards an ignorant and delusional mind)

It could be that Byers' only purpose on the internet is to serve as a warning to others.

Dave Luckett said: You'd think that the cognitive dissonance would eventually become unbearable, for Byers does use evidence in places where his belief system doesn't dictate otherwise. If he heard a breaking window in the next room, came in and saw shards of glass and a baseball on the floor, looked out of the broken window and saw a bunch of kids with a bat looking towards the house, he'd come to the obvious conclusion, and hence reconstruct a past event from evidence with no trouble at all. But his rigid mental compartmentalisation and cognitive dissassociation allows him to eschew this process where his convictions require. It's a sad case.

PubMed is specifically a medical database, so unless a journal is largely medically-oriented (or particularly high-impact) it is unlikely to be included. Even then, PubMed is far from comprehensive (there is only a 30% overlap in the PubMed and EMBASE databases). In other words, those numbers quoted above represent a massive *under*-estimate of the number of papers on hominid evolution.

Genetics is not my thing but why is this a issue.

A YEC creationist believes a radical event, called the fall, affected all biology. things went wrong everywhere. Decay became a new reality.

So humans and apes easily could get the same problem in our genes as a result of the decaying nature we both find ourselves in.

I don't see any point in insulting Byers, who is wrong but not uncivil, but it is worthwhile to point out his logical error here.

Dave Luckett said: ...

ksplawn said: It could be that Byers' only purpose on the internet is to serve as a warning to others.

I find it interesting that there are no people who come to his defense.

Maybe Byers is a professional mooner; having studied it at the Uncommonly Dense website.

ksplawn said: It could be that Byers' only purpose on the internet is to serve as a warning to others.

Sometimes it seems like the distinction between the creationists like Byers and ordinary mainstream Christians is WHICH implausible ancient tales (and entities) they regard as historical fact. After all, the tales of Christ (born of a virgin, performed miracles, sired by a god, rose from the dead) all make a total mockery of biology as we know it, and much of physics as well). And while many of these people do not contest teaching good science in schools, they ALSO wish to inculcate proper faith -- which they regard as entirely compatible, since these live in different mental compartments.

I wonder if Dave Luckett would be so thoughtful and insightful as to explain the superiority of belief in one set of nonsense over another.

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: Genetics is not my thing but why is this a issue.

I think that everyone has noticec that by now. It's not my field either...but I don't make idiotic statements that attempt to contravene the clearly correct statements of those for whom it IS their field.

A YEC creationist believes a radical event, called the fall, affected all biology.

So is it your contention that other primates are "fallen" because of what a couple of (what you think are unrelated) humans did? Or do you contend that the apes fell, too? And if the apes fell, what did they do to deserve a broken Vitamin C gene? What about non-primate mammals? Why DON'T they have the broken gene? Didn't "the fall" affect them as well? Or is it that the apes are closely enough related to us that what you think was caused in us by "the fall" also affected them for that reason? You see, Mr. Byers, no matter how you attempt to explain the evidence, you run into trouble that requires yet more ad hoc additions to your "explanation", all of which are extra-Biblical, creating a ricktety structure that will be blown away by the slightest breeze of fact and logic.

The point is that the whole great system of biology was not radically changed by the fall. So all biology did not have to adapt to this new decay and it does not follow many like problems happened in like bodies. It does not fit fine to see like physical replys of unrelated creatures due to like profound issues of decay. It isnt even close. See the thing is that exact kinds of mistakes are not because of similar body types or functions. They is just being randomly and no wise being converged. So you are wrong on all hands and feet as well as fingers and toes. You can not explain the pattern that you refuse to even understand. You have no evidence or logic or reason or anything. How do you walk across the street with the mind you are missing?

How do you walk across the street with the mind you are missing?

I seem to have a very uncontroversial comment hanging in "moderation".

Robert Byers said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Robert Byers said: Genetics is not my thing but why is this a issue.

I think that everyone has noticec that by now. It's not my field either...but I don't make idiotic statements that attempt to contravene the clearly correct statements of those for whom it IS their field.

A YEC creationist believes a radical event, called the fall, affected all biology.

So is it your contention that other primates are "fallen" because of what a couple of (what you think are unrelated) humans did? Or do you contend that the apes fell, too? And if the apes fell, what did they do to deserve a broken Vitamin C gene? What about non-primate mammals? Why DON'T they have the broken gene? Didn't "the fall" affect them as well? Or is it that the apes are closely enough related to us that what you think was caused in us by "the fall" also affected them for that reason? You see, Mr. Byers, no matter how you attempt to explain the evidence, you run into trouble that requires yet more ad hoc additions to your "explanation", all of which are extra-Biblical, creating a ricktety structure that will be blown away by the slightest breeze of fact and logic.

The point is that the whole great system of biology was radically changed by the fall. So all biology had to adapt to this new decay and it follows many like problems happened in like bodies. It fits fine to see like physical replys of unrelated creatures due to like profound issues of decay.

Flint said: Sometimes it seems like the distinction between the creationists like Byers and ordinary mainstream Christians is WHICH implausible ancient tales (and entities) they regard as historical fact. After all, the tales of Christ (born of a virgin, performed miracles, sired by a god, rose from the dead) all make a total mockery of biology as we know it, and much of physics as well). And while many of these people do not contest teaching good science in schools, they ALSO wish to inculcate proper faith -- which they regard as entirely compatible, since these live in different mental compartments. I wonder if Dave Luckett would be so thoughtful and insightful as to explain the superiority of belief in one set of nonsense over another.

Dave Luckett doesn't believe in any of that, either, but the difference is that I can't produce definite evidence that they didn't happen, or that miracles never happen. I can, on the other hand, produce definite evidence that a six literal day creation, about six thousand years ago, didn't happen, and definite evidence that all life was not severally created, but is commonly descended.

harold said: We should differentiate between "generally accept science but add some non-disprovable magic claim", versus "deny science outright".

Byers: Let's try an analogy. If a hundred cars break, that's life. If they're made by the same company, that's suspicious. If they break in the same way, that's a recall. How do you explain these genetically similar creatures having the Vitamin C gene break in *exactly* the same way?

Unless, of course, part of the miracle is fake evidence that the Earth and life are way older and evolved (the God Is a Liar Hypothesis).

But then if things look and behave as though they had evolved, and the assumption of evolution WORKS in all practical applications, then why would we need or want to assume a recent creation or "intelligent design"?

Dave Luckett doesn’t believe in any of that, either, but the difference is that I can’t produce definite evidence that they didn’t happen, or that miracles never happen.

I can, on the other hand, produce definite evidence that...all life was not severally created, but is commonly descended.

Richard B. Hoppe said: As I said some time ago, I permit Byers to post here because he sometimes elicits comments like those of Dave Luckett and Harold above. Reading them makes it worth having Byers around as a stimulus.

aufwuch said: The above explanation by Dave has to be the best ever. Excellent post, and reminds us why responding to Bobby b. will never accomplish anything. (except venting frustration towards an ignorant and delusional mind)

ksplawn said: It could be that Byers' only purpose on the internet is to serve as a warning to others.

Just Bob said: Unless, of course, part of the miracle is fake evidence that the Earth and life are way older and evolved (the God Is a Liar Hypothesis).

Robert Byers said: The point is that the whole great system of biology was radically changed by the fall.

Robert Byers said: The point is that the whole great system of biology was radically changed by the fall. So all biology had to adapt to this new decay and it follows many like problems happened in like bodies.

It fits fine to see like physical replys of unrelated creatures due to like profound issues of decay.

Dave Luckett said: Dave Luckett doesn't believe in any of that, either, but the difference is that I can't produce definite evidence that they didn't happen, or that miracles never happen. I can, on the other hand, produce definite evidence that a six literal day creation, about six thousand years ago, didn't happen, and definite evidence that all life was not severally created, but is commonly descended.

Paul Burnett said: Sounds like you be a believer in Last Thursdayism.

harold said: I seem to have a very uncontroversial comment hanging in "moderation".

But of course, STILL allowing for the occasional exception, where imaginary dieties physically sire the odd human now and again.

Henry J said:

But of course, STILL allowing for the occasional exception, where imaginary dieties physically sire the odd human now and again.

What about humans that aren't odd?

dalehusband said:

Robert Byers said: The point is that the whole great system of biology was radically changed by the fall. So all biology had to adapt to this new decay and it follows many like problems happened in like bodies.

So you accept evolution, but only when it suits you. That makes you a fraud, Byers.

It fits fine to see like physical replys of unrelated creatures due to like profound issues of decay.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Maybe you need English lessons.

Robert Byers said: The point is that the whole great system of biology was radically changed by the fall. So all biology had to adapt to this new decay and it follows many like problems happened in like bodies.

stevaroni said:

Robert Byers said: The point is that the whole great system of biology was radically changed by the fall. So all biology had to adapt to this new decay and it follows many like problems happened in like bodies.

Why did God decide take it out on the animals? Aside from maybe the snakes, none of them did anything wrong.

TomS, that's a valuable and interesting point. You're quite right. The inclusion of miracles in a belief system argues against true omniscience (but grants omnipotence) on the part of the miracle-maker. It implies that this Designer (Oh, call it God and be done with it) must adjust matters ad hoc by supernatural means from time to time, in order to fulfil his own will.

But it is manifestly plain that God mostly - almost entirely - runs the Universe according to knowable, assimilable natural law. What is there in the Universe that God can't control that way, according to His will? What is there that He cannot predict, with perfect knowledge, ab initio?

The only thing I can think of is human free will. It's an exception, then, to divine omniscience. Which bears thinking about.

harold said: W. H. Heydt said -

So is it your contention that other primates are “fallen” because of what a couple of (what you think are unrelated) humans did? Or do you contend that the apes fell, too? And if the apes fell, what did they do to deserve a broken Vitamin C gene? What about non-primate mammals? Why DON’T they have the broken gene? Didn’t “the fall” affect them as well?

And this is indeed exactly the point. I don't see any point in insulting Byers, who is wrong but not uncivil, but it is worthwhile to point out his logical error here. Magical explanations are perfectly good for many purposes, but not for science, because they can't be tested. With the trivial exception that The Fall would be falsified if we all knew we were angels living in perfect bliss in a flawless paradise, everything is compatible with The Fall. Apes have the same dysfunctional gene as humans? It's because of The Fall. Other animals don't? The Fall affected them in different ways. It can always be The Fall, no matter what the genetic sequence is. Thus, The Fall is a "broken clock" explanation. A broken clock is not necessarily wrong, but it is useless and uninformative because nothing can prevent it from always giving the same answer, no matter what the situation. Meanwhile, the idea that humans and other apes share common ancestry is rigorously testable, and requires that genetic studies be compatible with anatomical, physiological, and paleontological evidence. If the genetic evidence didn't fit, we'd have to give up on the idea that humans and other apes share common ancestry. The only reason any of us believe that we share recent common ancestry with modern apes is because of multiple converging lines of evidence that say so. It has nothing to do with atheism. Being an atheist doesn't make someone "want" to be related to chimpanzees. Human cultures universally laugh at most closely related apes, and identify big cats, horses, canines, and even humble animals like rabbits with desirable human traits. That's a near universal. The names of big cat species are compliments - "lion", "tiger", even "cougar" has a mainly complimentary meaning - and the names of other primate species are insults. And really insulting insults in many contexts. However, we are apes, and we do share recent common ancestry with other apes, and it is obvious.

Helena Constantine said:

Robert Byers said: Genetics is not my thing but why is this a issue. A YEC creationist believes a radical event, called the fall, affected all biology. things went wrong everywhere. Decay became a new reality. So humans and apes easily could get the same problem in our genes as a result of the decaying nature we both find ourselves in. For Genesis deniers this is not a good answewr. Yet it simply is that both have like reaction to like need.

Byers, Here is the Biblical cure in its entirety: Gen 3 [14] And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: [15] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. [16] Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. [17] And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; [18] Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; [19] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. [20] And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. [21] Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. [22] And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: [23] Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. [24] So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. The snake looses its legs, humans instinctively want to kill snakes, women suffer labor pains, and men have to do hard work to obtain agricultural produce, and human beings are exiled from the garden--note that the reason for this last is to prevent humans becoming immortal, which clearly means they were mortal to start with according to the story. Where does it say that all nature was cursed? Where does god say: "And by the way, I'm breaking your DNA so you have eat citrus fruit or die of scurvy"? (and if you try to read a general curse into the first quoted verse--read it again, that's not what it means). You, Byers, are the one who claims these things. And what you claim is different from and incompatible with what the Bible says. For people who, like you, pretend to be Christians, this is not a good answer.

mharri said: Byers: Let's try an analogy. If a hundred cars break, that's life. If they're made by the same company, that's suspicious. If they break in the same way, that's a recall. How do you explain these genetically similar creatures having the Vitamin C gene break in *exactly* the same way?

Robert Byers said: There was no dearth for any being on earth. Then it changed. our whole bodies changed to deal with death. before we had no immune system because of no need.

Robert,

Here is a test. All you have to do is decide if I wrote this song out twice, or if I wrote it once and copied it. Just answer copied or not copied. If you refuse to answer it will be taken as evidence that you know that you are wrong.

My country tits of thee
Sweet land of puberty
Of thee I swing

Land where my fathers cried
Land where the pilgrims hide
From every cherry pie
Let freedom bling

My country tits of thee
Sweet land of puberty
Of thee I swing

Land where my fathers cried
Land where the pilgrims hide
From every cherry pie
Let freedom bling

Robert Byers said: You are demanding that God create us so differently from nature as to be clearly not related to nature.

The ape body is simply the best body to drive cars or water ski. What else?

Not many things in origin subjects come up against the biblical idea of a great FALL.

"You have to stick your head in the sand to pretend otherwise."

I'd say Mr. Byers has had his head in the sand so long it has become sandstone, eroded to a point between neck and ears, tilted to the right and another layer added. With trace fossils in the surface at the unconformity.

lkeithlu said: I'd say Mr. Byers has had his head in the sand so long it has become sandstone

It is not obvious. It's just a line of reasoning. If we were unrelated and created separately it also would look as it does today.

Robert Byers, please explain to us, for once, why we should assume you know better than all of the scientists in the world put together simply because you're a Young Earth Creationist who says very stupid things For Jesus.

apokryltaros said: Robert Byers, please explain to us, for once, why we should assume you know better than all of the scientists in the world put together simply because you're a Young Earth Creationist who says very stupid things For Jesus.

Robert Byers said: no reason to see Vit c in us/primates as evidence of a common heritage. Just a common design with common mechanisms for survival.

Tenncrain said: Robert, does your particular Designer like lemurs, pigs and rats more than people?

stevaroni said:

lkeithlu said: I'd say Mr. Byers has had his head in the sand so long it has become sandstone

Well, he's certainly got his head stuck somewhere.

Tenncrain said: Yet most other mammals internally make their own Vitamin C because they have fully functional GULO genes. This includes dogs, pigs, rats and even a few primates like lemurs; they have no problems with scurvy.

Robert Byers said: It is a great historic interpretation that the great fall brought death to the world where it was not before. The snake was cursed MORE then the other creatures. the ground was cursed and all the earth was and the universe. There was no dearth for any being on earth. Then it changed. our whole bodies changed to deal with death. before we had no immune system because of no need. All of creation groans says the bible. [emphasis added]

Flint said:

Dave Luckett doesn’t believe in any of that, either, but the difference is that I can’t produce definite evidence that they didn’t happen, or that miracles never happen.

I see the difference, I think. Science can be viewed as requiring a consistent reality, OR it can be viewed as permitting "natural laws" of various kinds to be broken, provided the scope of such breaks is narrow and temporary.

I can, on the other hand, produce definite evidence that...all life was not severally created, but is commonly descended.

But of course, STILL allowing for the occasional exception, where imaginary dieties physically sire the odd human now and again.

Scott F said: You say that there was no death, no disease before the Fall, and further that living things did not have immune systems before the Fall.

Sounds like you be a believer in Last Thursdayism.

ksplawn said:

Tenncrain said: Yet most other mammals internally make their own Vitamin C because they have fully functional GULO genes. This includes dogs, pigs, rats and even a few primates like lemurs; they have no problems with scurvy.

And it's worth pointing out again: guinea pigs can't synthesize Vitamin C, but their gene is broken in a different way that's unique their family. So, common design... except when it's not.

As for lost vitamin C synthesis being a "mechanism for survival," we've been able to knock out the GULO gene in lab animals and it has a negative impact on their health, forcing them to make up the deficit through their diet like humans do. On the flip side, we've also been able to re-activate the gene in both GULO-/- mice and rice fish.

Robert Byers said: It is a great historic interpretation that the great fall brought death to the world where it was not before. The snake was cursed MORE then the other creatures. the ground was cursed and all the earth was and the universe. There was no dearth for any being on earth. Then it changed. our whole bodies changed to deal with death. before we had no immune system because of no need. All of creation groans says the bible.

Robert Byers said: It is not obvious. It's just a line of reasoning. If we were unrelated and created separately it also would look as it does today. You are demanding that God create us so differently from nature as to be clearly not related to nature. Yet if we are of nature, yet a being made in God's image and Adam/Eve were not born, it could only be we have the best type of body to live glorious lives on earth forever. The ape body is simply the best body to drive cars or water ski. What else? finding genetic likeness has no persuasive merit to about making apes/man cousins. It's not enough. It rejects the bible. Yet genetics does not reject the bible. Just your presumptions. Your right about the "fall" being a fix for any ideas on biology and it's reactions to problems. The example here of Vit C being case in point. Yet it would be that way. The fall introduces instant decay and instant reaction. like body equals like reaction. It's only a line of reasoning that it indicates relationship. Even if true it's still a hunch. It was not witnessed. it's open to review. Not many things in origin subjects come up against the biblical idea of a great FALL.

Robert Byers said: For exactly the same reason. the same need to react to a new need. If anything it makes a case for innate triggers in our biological systems to bring like replys . Nature shows great like answeres to like needs and evolutionism must invoke convergent evolution to explain. The better idea is of biology being like physics. Common laws dictating everything. The ape/man type of body under the same need reacts with the same answer. Vit c etc is suddenly needed and it would be in the same way if its from common triggers. not from a different history of physical evolution. The vit c is a case against evolution as i see it. Related creatures but separated more likely would not have such convergence. if one does it suggests innate triggers johnny on the spot. A marsupial lion and wolf both gained pouches but they are unrelated biologically and are rather related to theior cousins elsewhere. The pouch is a part of a common reaction to increase reproduction and this triggered by all bodies upon migration. no reason to see Vit c in us/primates as evidence of a common heritage. Just a common design with common mechanisms for survival.

ksplawn said:

Tenncrain said: Yet most other mammals internally make their own Vitamin C because they have fully functional GULO genes. This includes dogs, pigs, rats and even a few primates like lemurs; they have no problems with scurvy.

And it's worth pointing out again: guinea pigs can't synthesize Vitamin C, but their gene is broken in a different way that's unique their family. So, common design... except when it's not. As for lost vitamin C synthesis being a "mechanism for survival," we've been able to knock out the GULO gene in lab animals and it has a negative impact on their health, forcing them to make up the deficit through their diet like humans do. On the flip side, we've also been able to re-activate the gene in both GULO-/- mice and rice fish.

Right. Furthermore, mammals in general have three genes that produce Vitamin C, the GULO gene being just one of them. Humans, chimps, monkeys also have all three (and probably guinea pigs, someone can confirm or refute this); two of the three work fine, but the GULO gene as we know is defective. Would Robert’s Designer really give humans two working Vitamin C genes and then just the dead corpse of the third?

Helena Constantine said: Byres, do you believe that paternity tests can determine the father of a child? Do you believe that genetic tests can establish which people are brother and sister, which 1st cousins, etc? Assuming that you do (and these are well settled matters of fact and even of law), how can you not see that the same principles apply to more distant relations (e.e.g between humans and chimps)?

Scott F said: It's that old dodge that, if there wasn't someone there to see it, it didn't, couldn't have happened.

Henry J said:

Right. Furthermore, mammals in general have three genes that produce Vitamin C, the GULO gene being just one of them. Humans, chimps, monkeys also have all three (and probably guinea pigs, someone can confirm or refute this); two of the three work fine, but the GULO gene as we know is defective. Would Robert’s Designer really give humans two working Vitamin C genes and then just the dead corpse of the third?

Does that mean it takes all three of them working to produce usable Vitamin C?

In that case, do the other two do something else that causes them to have been conserved in our genome?

Thanks for the notice, Scott F, but being published in fiction is no evidence for erudition or scholarship, or even decency. Maybe it argues for being readable. Being right is another matter entirely.

Dave Luckett said: Thanks for the notice, Scott F, but being published in fiction is no evidence for erudition or scholarship, or even decency. Maybe it argues for being readable. Being right is another matter entirely.

DS said:

Dave Luckett said: You'd think that the cognitive dissonance would eventually become unbearable, for Byers does use evidence in places where his belief system doesn't dictate otherwise. If he heard a breaking window in the next room, came in and saw shards of glass and a baseball on the floor, looked out of the broken window and saw a bunch of kids with a bat looking towards the house, he'd come to the obvious conclusion, and hence reconstruct a past event from evidence with no trouble at all. But his rigid mental compartmentalisation and cognitive dissassociation allows him to eschew this process where his convictions require. It's a sad case.

This bears repeating. It is virtually impossible to exist in the modern world without utilizing critical thinking, the scientific method including observation and deduction, as well as the tools provided by modern technology. To utilize these tools and ways of thinking every minute of every day and then try to deny their validity of efficacy is insanity bordering on schizophrenia. To do this solely to cling to an outdated religious system is counter productive and ultimately self defeating. To proudly display your ignorance and willfully perform any mental contortions necessary in order to prevent reality from ever penetrating your bubble of delusions is the worst form os self abuse imaginable. Witness the extreme contortions of the tortured Byers soul. Genetics isn't his field he freely admits, and yet he is willing, indeed eager, to declare that all of the field in its entirety is "atomic and unproven". When asked to explain this bewildering and ultimately meaningless proposition, he can't even explain what he meant. When forced to admit that there are professional geneticists who are helping people every day and seem to able to effectively use the knowledge in the field in say paternity cases, he is at a complete loss to explain how this can be. I would like to believe that no one is actually this ignorant. I would like to believe that no one is actually this deluded. I would like to believe that no one really believes that all they have to do is believe to make it so. But if Byers or anyone else actually believe this, then all I can say is that I really believe in evolution, so it's true and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. To the rest of humanity I would respectfully submit that I, and every real scientist, believes in evolution strictly because of the evidence. If you want to discuss the evidence, fine, let'a go. IF you don't I have no use for you at all.

ksplawn said: It could be that Byers' only purpose on the internet is to serve as a warning to others.

Have you guys ever encountered and read any of Terrence McKenna's material, such as Food of the Gods, which talks about the move from animal to "human" cognitive ability through exposure to certain chemicals such as psilocybin? Pretty interesting stuff there and definitely adds to the provocative literature on the topic.