:: Running from the Thought Police ::

:: Thursday, March 31, 2005 ::

Ready For Some Breakfast?

If so, then click here and enjoy.

:: The Squire 11:52 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

Happy Trails To You...

::This post is the conclusion to the Evolution/ID Correspondence Series::

Doug the creationist is a bit upset that I called him a liar in my previous email. I don't see why - he's been effectively calling me that the entire time. He's also apparently forgotten that I called him a liar in my first email to him. (I also called him a denier of Christ and a tool of Satan in that one, too.) I think the fact that I used a bible quote to call him a liar this time caught his attention. Either that, or he was already looking for a reason not to continue. As a result, he's decided that I'm not worth his time anymore and no longer wishes to continue his correspondence.

I've got a few more thoughts on this, but I'll hash them out below. Here's his parting email.

[TheSquire],

Thank you for resending the last post. That was the only one I was missing.

At this point I need to end my part of this discussion. You have accused me of lying and I see not point in going on with this. God has given me a wonderful ministry with traveling and speaking. I am thankful and unbelievably humbled to affect, for good, thousands of souls each year. He has also given me a wonderful family of 5 and a good wife. With all that (plus tons of other things in life) time is not a commodity that I can afford to spend in this fruitless endeavor with you. I desire holiness above all. If you believe my character is such, then I really have much better things to do than be wrongfully accused. (I guess accusations are beneficial to the human species - you would argue - so you will certainly climb the scientific ladder.) He has called me to bear fruit - not to debate those who don’t want to hear. He has given me a mind to reason with and the probability of all the myriads of things required for life and species to exist as we know it (and we have just scratched the surface to be sure) - to all have occurred by random chance - is functionally and basically nil. Life as we know it (on the large scale) required multiplied millions of complex events to have occurred in sequence. If you believe that these all came about by time and chance, them so be it.

You are free to believe what you will. That is the beauty of our nation. The ‘problem’ that you mentioned with Gen 1 & 2 is so basic to first year Apologetics that I won’t even answer it. Acquire a sound apologetics book and you will see the form that Genesis 2 takes on vs. Genesis 1.

There are excellent books by very qualified people (who believe in a Designer to life) out there to answer all your questions should you desire.

I need to continue onto more fruitful endeavors.

Be well.

In His Kingdom,
Douglas

While I admit that I will miss our regular sparring, I also have to agree that the utility of our exchange has come to an end. Specifically, I think Doug ran out of things to toss at me. I'd demonstrated that his "mathematical" proof was nothing of the sort. Even though I'd distilled semesters' worth of biology into my emails, he couldn't take the time to detail his "simple" apologetic solution - though he possibly may have remembered that I'd given an acceptable Catholic interpretation and wouldn't have been swayed anyway. He also says there are excellent books, yet doesn't point me towards any - and if they're of the quality of the "Evolution Cruncher" he sent me earlier, they're not worth my time.

Or, he could just not have liked being evangelized himself and my getting all Catholic on his ass. I'll likely never know exactly why he decided to break this off now, because I'll respect his wishes and not bother him further. Unless I find some other creationist to mess with (or if one reads this series and decides to contact me) the Evolution/ID correspondence series has come to an end. (My regular readers may stop cheering now.) I've learned a lot about how crappy Intelligent Design is and how to get at IDers in ways they don't like having to deal with. I've also created a good nest of arguments to fall back on in case I have the opportunity to hash all this out with someone else. Who knows? Perhaps next time I'll be fortunate enough to run across someone actually open to the truth.

:: The Squire 10:46 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

::Sigh::

Note to MSM ::cough:: CNN ::cough::- Annointing of the Sick is specifically no longer called "Extreme Unction" for a reason - it can be given to the seriously ill whether or not death is inevitable. Screaming "Last Rights! Last Rights!" is just sensationalism, not sober news reporting.

Personally, given the Pope's recent history of hospitalization, I'm surprised he didn't receive the sacrament earlier. It's probably out of concerns for reactions like CNN's that he didn't while he was hospitalized last month.

UPDATE: For your edification, Wikipedia has a good article on the Annointing of the Sick.

:: The Squire 3:58 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

Something Died, But Was It Terri?

CNN.com, and likely every other news source in the country, is covering the death of Terri Schiavo - or, at least, that of her body. The ambiguity over what exactly died is the root of the the controversy. Was it Terri who died today, or just a corpse with a functioning hindbrain and limbic system? That this case happened at all is a result of the medical advances of the past half-century. Terri became hypokalemic as a result of her bulimia, had a heart attack as a result of her hypokalemia, suffered ischemic hypoxia (lack of oxygen due to lack of blood flow) as a result of the heart attack, and sustained major damage to her cerebral cortex as a result of the hypoxia. Without medical intervention, the hypoxia due to the heart attack would have caused her to die within minutes. Instead, she recieved medical treatment, and since only her higher brain functions have been affected, her body remained alive.

It is at this point that the morality of the subsequent actions surrounding Terri Schiavo are determined. Most, if not all states in this country accept whole brain death as a reason for declaring a person dead. The Catholic Church also accepts this criterion (whether or not the Ragemonkeys do). This reflects a specific understanding of what it is to be alive as a human: the ability to do things, participate, and have a life history. These are all products of consciousness. Whether or not one's heart is beating, or one's lungs are breathing, a body is just a sack of water, carbon, nitrogen, and a few other things without a brain to run the show. Demonstrating the death of the whole brain unequivocably shows that the patient in question will never regain consciousness.

Terri didn't experience whole brain death - her hypoxia was treated early enough that only her cortex suffered major damage. Her brain stem, cerebellum, limbic system, and the like all survived relatively unscathed. Extending on the reasoning behind the recognition of whole brain death, any situation in which a person is unconscious and will never regain consciousness would be sufficient to declare the person dead. Currently, our legal system doesn't recognize this criterion, partially because there are no unequivocal means of determining that a person will never regain consciousness. However, if we use this definition for death, which many physicians appear to do (through the use of the PVS diagnosis), then there is no moral wrong committed by withholding anything from such a patient, because they are already dead. If Terri was unable to regain consciousness after her heart attack, then she effectively died over fifteen years ago.

The problem with the diagnosis of a Persistant Vegetative State is that, for many people, the idea of a breathing person being effectively dead is counter-intuitive. The danger of misdiagnosis is also incredibly high - if the criteria aren't strictly determined and enforced, someone who is "locked in" but still conscious may have their life support withdrawn. In Terri's case, a long set of tests, including a CAT scan, an electroencephalograph, and long term observation, were all done to evaluate her cognitive state and potential. The doctors running these tests, as well as the majority of neurologists who have since been called on to comment on the case, agreed that the damage was so severe that Terri would never regain consciousness. While I lean towards agreeing with the doctors involved, I still hold minor reservations as to the permanancy of her state. Even so, she has had no improvement in the past fifteen years, which lends credence to the case for PVS.

Many, including Terri's own parents, refuse to accept her diagnosis. As brought up by Dr. Chuck Rangel of RangelMD,

It would appear that the proponents of keeping Terry Schiavo alive indefinitely have a basic inability to understand or accept the fact there can be a complete disconnect between brain damage and wakefulness in a patient who suffers from a persistent vegetative state. In short, a patient with severe brain damage can appear to be awake like Mrs. Schiavo does.

This explains the emotional effectiveness of the video of Terri supposedly interacting with her environment - even though the shots of the video are culled from hundreds of hours of footage just to provide that small amount of apparent consciousness. Supporters of Terri's parents used these random occurances to argue that she was conscious, though heavily brain damaged, and that she therefore was alive.

Morally, the conflict wasn't between a group that wanted to kill Terri and one that wanted to keep her alive, but between a group that said she was alive and another that maintained that she was already dead. Personally, I think that the person known as Terri Schiavo died fifteen years ago and that it was a pile of a trillion or so cells that died today. However, I will admit that we, as a society, currently lack the knowledge (and, apparently, the maturity) to effectively create a set of criteria for PVS that would demonstrate, unequivocably, that a patient would never regain consciousness and was effectively dead. Because of this current lack of understanding, I think it was wrong to withhold food and water from Terri, if only because her diagnosis had questionable criteria.

Until medical science and society both come to a better understanding of the underlying ideas and criteria for what defines life and death, the best any one individual can do is to make their wishes very well known before a tragic event happens. As my biomedical ethic proffessor said in lecture today, Terri's case demonstrates that, if anything, there is a dire need for everyone to have advance directives, living wills, and/or assigned durable power of attorney.

:: The Squire 3:18 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

Words Are Fun

For example, "Bulbous Bouffant."

:: The Squire 12:28 AM :: email this post :: ::
...

MASSMAIL - From Coach Bruce Weber

The team and I want to thank you for your fantastic support. Your enthusiasm has energized everyone connected with our program.


We're going to go all out for you as this memorable season draws to a close and hope you continue to cheer us on through our remaining games.


The players and I are committed to representing our campus and our community with honor and pride. We know you are, too.


We ask your help in ensuring that whatever celebrations may take place at the end of the season be safe and enjoyable for everyone.


We're in the national spotlight now, and this is a rare opportunity for all of us to show what an extraordinary campus and community we share.


Thank you,
Head Coach Bruce Weber
and the members of your Fighting Illini basketball team

This mailing approved by:
The Office of the Chancellor

--
This Message sent via MASSMAIL. < http://www.cites.uiuc.edu/services/massmail/ >

:: The Squire 2:52 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

A"Pahl"ing

A student at an Illinois university with which I have familiar associations decided to go looking to pay someone to write a term paper for her. Thing is, the person she contacted over instant messanger happened to have a recent bachelor's in english - who also was a member of a sketch comedy troupe that runs their own blog. This person, Nate, decided to write a paper, but he didn't stop there. He wrote the paper, crappily, sent it to her, and posted it on the troupe's then-obscure blog hoping that the professor or TA would google the outrageously bad text and find the post. He also claimed that he contacted the student's university - though he didn't, since he didn't want to do all the prof's work himself.

Thing is, Nate underestimated how many people in the blogosphere have degrees and thus despise plagiarists with a passion. Said girl's university was contacted anyway (and they were not amused with their student) and the blog's URL has been passed around like wildfire.

I'm not going to put the rest of the story here, since you can just go to the first post in the short series and read from there. I will note, though, that at the student's request Nate changed all instances of her last name on the blog and created a pseudonym for her university. I'll be nice and not directly reveal them, though one should be obvious already.

:: The Squire 2:10 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

Funness

Evolution is just so great! According to my entry in the Blogosphere ecosystem, I'm now a flappy bird. Joy.

:: The Squire 2:25 AM :: email this post :: ::
...

"We Can't," The Snake Replied, "We're Adders."

::This post is part of the Evolution/ID Correspondence Series::

I'm getting the feeling from his responses that he's getting annoyed with the fact that I refuse to fall to the rusty sword of his illogic. That, or he doesn't like being evangelized himself.

Doug,

It is good that you have made it safely home. Once I send this email I'll go back and forward you the copies of the previous emails that you have lost.

I am well aware of how statistical chances line up. It is your lack of scientific knowledge that gets in the way of your rationally evaluating said chances. That, and you forget that some addition is required for certain statistical events, but I'll get to that in a bit.

First off, cells were not the first forms of life. According to the RNA World hypothesis, RNA (or a related polymer) came first. In order to be self replicating, the first RNA molecules had to be made of the same chiral form and be in a location where there was both a significant concentration of RNA monomers and a temperature high enough to provide the energy to push the reaction forward but not high enough to degrade the polymer. While small, the chances of this happening were not negligible.

Oh, while I think of it, I must remind you that as the monomers of RNA, nucleic acids would have been present by default wherever RNA was.

Right now, the difference between myself, a chem minor, and a chemistry or biochemistry major should be apparent, since they would have the rates of reaction and necessary concentrations on hand and ready to use. All I can say without too much research is that while the chances were small, collisions between molecules occur, even at room temperature, at rates of at least a thousand times a second. As one increases the temperature of a solution, the collisions happen more frequently (temperature being a direct measure of kinetic energy). If such reactions occurred near a thermal vent or, even, in sunlight, adequate energy would've been available for the polymers to form spontaneously. Also, the greater the concentration of reactants (nucleic acids in this case), the more often collisions, orientation-dependent or not, will occur. So, for any given instant, many different nucleotides had the chance of having a collision that caused a bond - and since these are independent of each other, the probabilities have to be added, not multiplied. Then, for a given stretch of time, the probabilities for each given instance also have to be summed. It appears that it is this addition that you primarily overlook.

RNA that self-replicates without help from another molecule is prone to a very high error rate, as there are no mechanisms beyond simple base-pairing to prevent errors from occurring or remaining. The first replicating RNA would then create successor molecules that differed from itself. Eventually, one of these would have been able to, by itself, catalyze (that is, make more energetically - and statistically - favorable) another reaction. Thus, the first ribozyme came into being. Ribozymes, as sequences of nucleic acids that code for a function, are arguably the first genes in this scenario. This ribozyme's target molecule would likely be other RNA, cleaving and/or rearranging it. The chemical descendants of this molecule are with us today, some as introns in yeast genes, others as snRNAs that contribute to mRNA production in our own cells. These exist, so a chemical step (or series of steps) must have occurred to create them. It's but a short step from rearranging RNA to polymerizing (making strands from single units) RNA. As for how proteins got involved, one hypothesis I've run across is that amino acids/peptides were used as markers for specific RNA sequences. Conceptually, a reaction catalyzing the creation of a phosphodiester bond and one catalyzing a phosphate-carboxylic acid bond are not that different, so a mutation in a ribozyme that caused it to favor the latter reaction over the former is not unreasonable, and therefore the chance is not negligible. Again, it is important to note the frequency of mutation in this case (high), the exponentially increasing numbers of RNA strands undergoing mutations (which requires that their individual chances be added together, increasing the chance of single events) and the large timescale involved.

As occasionally happens in biological systems, a system that does one process is reversed to perform a different function. At the chemical level, this is the rule rather than the exception - reactions will go backwards as well as forwards in all but the most energetically unfavorable conditions. At some point, what happened was that a string of amino acids, rather than being easily-identified holders of short strings of RNA, was actually chemically useful in and of itself. This useful peptide/protein could've been one of many things, but what I find likely is that it functioned as a scaffold to hold a ribozyme's RNA in a position to better catalyze its reaction. The string of RNA holding it (the first mRNA) could've been read by the already existing RNA machinery (reversing the reaction, a common chemical and biochemical occurrence). In this "backwards" direction, the ribozyme that assembled the peptide became the first ribosome, a structure upon which all modern life depends. Assuming that this scaffold peptide improved the functionality of the ribosomal RNA (rRNA) and/or any ribozymes functioning as RNA Polymerases, Natural Selection/microevolution enters the picture here (if it hadn't before). An RNA polymerase works better and with greater fidelity, increasing the rate of replication and reducing the amount of mutations. Because mutations were reduced (and deleterious ones discouraged by disfuntionality) only useful protein products (and their mRNAs) would give a reproductive edge. That scientists have created in the lab self-replicating particles consisting of nucleic acids and proteins shows that this is level of life is viable.

I'm honest enough to admit that I don't have the biochemical understanding of the evolutionary history of lipids to give a technical hypothesis. This does not mean that I'm willing to pull an argumentum ad ignorantium argument and say that only God could have done it. I know that some biochemists posit that the above-mentioned particles at some point got trapped in a phospholipid version of a soap bubble. I also know that scientists have also designed self-replicating systems that have a simple phospholipid bilayer.

This gradual development outside of a phospholipid bilayer (read "cell membrane") is not only plausible, but also doesn't require "ALL the cells chemical requirements of and for movement, nutrition, energy, etc. [to] have coalesced inside of a plasma membrane in a chance meeting." As far as we can tell, the first cells were just blobs that divided randomly and the parts that got all the minimal requirements for replication continued to divide. Eventually, some of the scaffold proteins mutated to the point that some became enzymatically active themselves, while others gained the ability to trigger divisions or form other structural functions. Also, at some point, the original RNA genome lost a hydroxy group on its monomers and thus became the more stable, though less catalytically active DNA. The enzyme that did this original encoding of RNA into DNA then had its function reversed (as, again, is biochemically common) and became the first DNA to RNA Polymerase (or, more loosely, an RNA Transcriptase). These other events could have happened before or after reproducing systems were enclosed in a membrane, and are plausible either way.

Going just a bit further, these cells are theorized to have spent about a billion years growing and dividing as just blobs. All the while, every blob with a useful mutation gave rise to two progeny with said advantageous mutation, leading to an exponential increase in the frequency of the mutation - and creating more additive probabilities. Genetic evidence also reveals that a great deal of genomic promiscuity occurred at this time, either through random cell fusions or through more organized events, similar to plasmid transmission in modern single-celled organisms. Meanwhile, intracellular structures developed, and endosymbiosis likely occurred in this time. Remember, a billion years is a very long time for a cell, especially considering that a self-sufficient cell, like E. coli, would be able to grow and divide so often in a couple days that, given enough nutrients, the colony's mass would be greater than the Earth. Once one cell was able to phagocytose (eat) another cell, active competition got a kick-start and the predator/prey relationship has yet to cease since. Inter-organismal relationships put enormous selective pressure on genomes, as not only does a genome (a set of genes in a given cell) have to out produce other genomes, but it has to avoid being destroyed by the products of other genomes as well.

I think that, by this point, I have demonstrated that you need to have concrete numbers before you declare "abiogenesis" to be statistically improbable. At the very least, you need to deal with the exponential increase in instances that occurs with self-replicating molecules and the summing of probabilities that it introduces into your system.

You also seem to not have come across the concept of punctuated equilibrium. On the macro scale, once a species fills a niche well (to the exclusion of any other organism) there's not much pressure on it to change. As a result, evolution "stalls" for a bit where that particular organism is concerned. Small, microevolutionary changes may result (like lactose tolerance) but big things aren't going to happen, especially morphologically (shape-wise). Evolution of that species resumes when either a) a new niche opens up that it can take advantage of, setting up two different populations that can then diverge, or b) a stressor is added to the environment. That stressor might be a major climate change, a new predator, or a new competitor for the same niche. Once such an event occurs, evolution happens fairly rapidly - else the species dies out. This gives rise to a couple of trends. One is what you've noted, that the majority of the fossil record is made up of species without transitory forms. Such transitory forms do exist - go track down an anthropologist and make them talk to you about the mess that is archaic H. sapiens/H. heidelbergensis/H. neandertalensis. The reason we have the fossils to create said mess is related to our immediate ancestors' habit of ritual burial. The second trend is that generalized species tend to have the best long-term success, since it's much harder to un-specialize than it is to either specialize or make a slight change in one's niche.

Punctuated equalibrium is an example of a theory that explains what happens and that makes predictions that one can then test by examining the fossil record. I've yet to see you demonstrate how ID has this ability. My already stated position is that ID, being an invalid hypothesis, can't do this, but I'm still open to reading your attempts to demonstrate otherwise. I'll even give you some instances to explain, as you've been so helpful to do for me in our previous exchanges.

Why do whales have hips?

What good is the Human appendix?

Why is the 16S rRNA common throughout most, if not all, forms of cellular life?

Why do human embryos have tails or gill pouches?

Why are wasps and ants so morphologically similar?

How can microevolution not, in separate populations of the same species, lead over time to macroevolution?

I can think of more, but that's a start.

As you've already figured out, I definitely want to write back - by healing the sick and teaching the ignorant I can protect the otherwise well. You say that you fear the Lord, yet you bore false witness by putting words in my mouth. At no point did I say that Jesus, St. Paul, or any other Apostle, Gospel writer, or Epistle writer was a liar. I did say that Jesus knew that Genesis wasn't literal but would've been called a loony (moreso than he already was) if he had explained science as we now know it. The apostles and everyone else in the time of Christ simply wouldn't have understood it. Newton's laws, heliocentrism, and geologic timescales simply were beyond the scope of what passed as modern thought at the time.

Also, while the Apostles may not have had access to scientific thought and results, they did have the Septuagint, and any close read of Genesis 1-3 easily reveals that it's not literal truth to be taken without contextualizing. How is this evident? Because the sequence of Genesis 2:7,9,19 contradicts the sequence of Genesis 1:11,20-21,24-27. They are two separate accounts and are irreconcilable. They're in there not to convey literal truth, per se, but to explain how things are and why things are. Well-educated Jews living at the time of Christ and immediately afterwards, such as Saul/Paul, would have known this. In fact, I challenge you to find me a passage in the New Testament that references Genesis whose meaning either changes or is significantly diminished by a non-literal reading of Genesis. I fully expect that, just like Matthew 19:4, all the examples you can find fall apart when the passage's larger context is examined.

I revere the Lord. He put together a set of rules and constants for the universe that allow wonderful things such as humans to exist. (The "Goldilocks" universe we live in isn't proof of God, just evidence, by the way.) However, your quote from Proverbs 1:7 is even more easily used against you than against me. You scorn scientific knowledge; you despise the philosophical rebuking of your precious ID, and you resist my instruction. (To make this more plain, philosophy is the systematic exercise of wisdom.) You are the one who, by putting up your fliers, lays "in wait for the honest man" and, "unprovoked, set[s] a trap for the innocent;" to quote Proverbs 1:11. I engage in this so that you can repent of this sin while you can and to protect those who do not have access to the knowledge that I have. As the father forgave the prodigal son so too will our Father forgive your trespasses if you but ask. I cannot stop you from sinning - you're the one who put the noose around your neck, you're the one who has to take it off. I cannot forgive your sins - I do not have that power. All I can do is to play Marley to your Scrooge by helping you to recognize your sin and stop committing it. In that way I may help save your soul and protect others from the consequences of your sin.

Doug, you attempt to lead others astray by your actions, and the more you learn as you correspond with me, the less of an excuse your ignorance becomes. I am generally understanding of the faults of the ignorant and am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I have decreasing patience for those who should know better. I can only hope that, through the grace of God, the result of our correspondence will be that you will see the folly of your adherence to Sola Scriptura and resultant rejection of evolution. As always, I hope our heavenly Father will bring this to be through His Son, Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with Him and the Holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever.

[TheSquire]

I truely wonder how long he'll keep up with this. I hope that he'll see the light - though that hope fades with each exchange in which he doesn't admit the fallacy of his positions. Even if he doesn't immediately realize the error of his ways, I have learn much from this and will better be able to cross wits with other IDers in the future.

UPDATE: Doug the creationist really didn't like the last bit. More here.

:: The Squire 2:01 AM :: email this post :: ::
...

Still Statistically Impaired

::This post is part of the Evolution/ID Correspondence Series::

Doug the creationist got back from his Holy Week marathon business trip and has responded to my most recent email. As one can tell from the title of this post, I'm not impressed with his "statistical" arguement, but I'll get to more of that in my response.

[TheSquire],

I am home now. Last week I stopped at a library in Youngstown, OH to check my email real quickly. Since I was at a library, I glanced at yours with intent of reading it more fully when I got home. Anyway – I checked my aol account and it isn’t there. I thought it would be saved on it, but apparently not. So if you have a saved copy, you can resend it to me if you like and I will read it.

What this all boils down to is this…. You believe that all these events occurred by chance to form life today as we know it. I do not believe that such occurrences could order themselves without a Designer. The probability is too great.

At one point you had mentioned my lack of mathematical elaboration on my points. As you know, the probability of two events occurring together are always multiplied to determine their probability of occurring. Thus, to have 2 “tails” in a coin toss, the probability is ½ times ½. Thus - to get 2 tails in sequence you have a 1 in 4 chance. To have 3 tails, you have ½ times ½ times ½ for a total of a 1 in 8 chance of 3 “tails” and so on….

To have completed ALL of the requirements for the first cell to have formed by chance (as you claim) eons ago ALL the cells chemical requirements of and for movement, nutrition, energy, etc. must have coalesced inside of a plasma membrane in a chance meeting. A so called completed primordial soup must have occurred as a breeding ground for the assembly of proteins, the nucleic acids, RNA’s, lipids, etc.. But consider the probability of each of these items forming individually and then coalescing (without the aid of any preexisting cellular blueprint) only by chance – it’s huge. Then, factor in that each probability must be multiplied by each other in the case of a cell forming – the result is extraordinary! So much so - that even time would not be a factor.

This is just to get off the ground on square one. Granting you the extremely improbable possibility of such an event happening… Then from this first cell (which would have to endure the terrible onslaught of a primitive and very hostile environment to life) we would have to make huge leaps in probability to more complex structures even within the cell.

Remember that while relatively simple in construction, prokaryotic cells display extremely complex activity. The cell’s demand for proteins never ceases. Before a protein can be made, however, the molecular directions to build it must be extracted from genes. These genes (which you have to believe formed at random) would have to be near perfect for the first cell to have a chance at survival.

Then we have to make the huge random leap to the relatively large eukaryotic cell which requires structural support. The cytoskeleton, a dynamic network of protein tubes, filaments, and fibers, crisscrosses the cytoplasm, anchoring the organelles in place and providing shape and structure to the cell. Many components of the cytoskeleton are assembled and disassembled by the cell as needed. Once again – randomness produces such as these?

Again – we are just at the very first step of the monstrous 100 story skyscraper Empire State Building on the stairway of life!

Even if probability were to allow you to take a few steps towards the top of the building (where humanity sits) – remember that there are TONS of obstacles in the environment that would be constantly gushing down the stairs to destroy life! Not to permit it.

Again – then to go past cellular life, we have the huge probability that each species of life needed to form accurately after that. The probability of these species of life are multiplied exponentially by each degree of complexity within them. There is no way around this. That’s the way probability works. The more “tails” that you desire, the less chance that it will happen. In dealing with biological life – you require hundreds of thousands of “tails” to get EACH species up and running.

I simply do not 'buy' that probability as a possibility. And the fossil record simply does not show tons of these species changing in a major fashion. The vast majority occur fully formed. (And I am not talking about micro-evolution [adaptation] but macro evolution.)

If you want to write back – that is fine, but my time is very limited. And my goal is not to help the well, but to heal the sick. As Jesus says, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.” If you believe that Jesus and St. Paul, and other Biblical writers (who all referred to Adam in Genesis as a literal human being) were lying – then you really have no basis for believing anything else that they say.

As God tells us who He esteems in Isaiah 66:2, “ "This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word.”

This is the One whom I fear as it says in Proverbs 1:7… “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.”

[TheSquire], fear (reverence) of the Lord and His Word is the beginning of true wisdom.

In Him,

Doug

Did you see it? Did you see it? He stuffed words in my mouth!! I didn't call them liars. Doug the creationist just lost some respect.

He who stuffs words into my mouth has recieved my reply.

:: The Squire 10:58 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

Was Bloggered

Hopefully Blogger is working now.

:: The Squire 9:28 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

There Goes Their High Ground

One of the militant right's chief squawks about the handling of the Schiavo case is their argument that the main judge and bunches of others had conflicts of interests. Now, via Kos, the New York Times reports that Terri's parents have sold the list of their financial supporters. While they had the moral high ground, I think they just lost it with that move, now that they're capitalizing on their daughter's death.

:: The Squire 2:05 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

OOOO EEEEE OOOOO

New Doctor Who!

I'm not sure how they killed off the Eighth Doctor, but if they end up doing a multi-doctor show (as has been known to happen on important Doctor Who anniversaries) I wonder if that Doctor will comment on how crappily the Ninth Doctor has been taking care of his Tardis.

:: The Squire 12:16 AM :: email this post :: ::
...

One Case, Two Issues

Josh Marshall (of Talking Points Memo) sets out plainly what many progressive Catholics have known for a while - that while the morality of Terri Schiavo's situation is murky (depending on whether or not it can be conclusively proven that she will never regain consciousness), the legal issues in the case are crystal clear. She is not competant to make decisions, state law designates her spouse by default, he says (and backed up in court) that she would want to die in such a situation, so his word goes. To mess with that chain with a law that applies ex post facto opens up the danger of fascism, where the executive can make law by fiat without any oversight whatsoever.

:: The Squire 11:25 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

He Is Risen!

He is risen, indeed!

I'm back, but I've got a backlog of a bazillion weblog posts to read, not to mention the hw I didn't do over break. No word back from Doug the Creationist for the moment (so you're spared that) but I'll probably only be posting links to other people's stuff for a bit 'til I get caught back up.

:: The Squire 10:40 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

Slow Blogging

I'm back on campus, but I have intermittant access to the web (at best). Posting until Sunday will likely be slow.

:: The Squire 8:19 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

Busy Busy

Doug the creationist emailed me and said that he's busy and will respond to my latest email later.

:: The Squire 9:18 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

Holy Thursday

"I always wanted to know if I would have had the courage to stay at the garden of Gethsemane. Now I know, Theo. Now I know." - Brother Edward, Babylon 5, Passing Through Gesthemane

:: The Squire 9:16 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

The Locals Are Not Pleased

The Muskegon Conservation District passed a resolution (unfortunately, not online) declaring its support for Owasippe's current zoning designation. Hopefully this resolution will help give the Blue Lake Township board the gumption to do the right thing, stand up to the Chicago Area Council of the BSA, and deny their rezoning request.

UPDATE: The referendum has been posted on the Owasippe Staff Assoc. site.

:: The Squire 6:40 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

Pet Peeve LX

The Illinois Department of Revenue (and by extension, Gov. Blagojevich)

The morons don't send me a booklet, telling me to file online - except that their stupid online system requires that I have the booklet in front of me. Why aren't they giving me what I need to fill out their form, or at least supplying it on the site that requests the information?

Oh, and Gov. Blagojevich gets tossed in on this one because this reeks of one of his half-assed penny-pinching moves.

:: The Squire 6:19 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

Protestants Can't Get Enough... Catholicism?!?

First I ran across last week's issue of Time in my hair stylist's place that talked about how Mary was becoming a larger part of some Protestants' understanding of their faith. Then, as I was driving around the area, I saw that the Evangelical Free Church of Naperville had a huge, ginormous sign advertising their Passion Journey - which made me chuckle, since we Catholics have been doing the Stations of the Cross since the Middle Ages. Pretty soon they'll all be pounding at Rome's door... (Yeah, right.)

:: The Squire 2:48 AM :: email this post :: ::
...

Yes, I'm Not An Atheist - Deal With It

::This post is part of the Evolution/ID Correspondence Series::

I've been on spring break this past week, so it's taken me a few days to sit down, get my thoughts together, and hammer out a response to Doug the creationist's recent email. Major kudos goes to the gf on this one for pointing out some obvious responses to some of Doug's points.

Doug,

That I "mention[ed] Christ in a positive light" at the end of my email shouldn't have been all that surprising, considering that I admitted to being Catholic at the beginning of said email. If you'd wandered over to my blog earlier and seen the links to some other Catholic blogs you also wouldn't have been surprised. Most evolutionists that bother to deal with ID/creationists are atheists - the Catholics and mainline Protestants (quite rightly) see ID as a manifestation of Fundamentalism, and then write off both. I find this to be dangerous - both ID and Fundamentalism need to be dealt with. As I mentioned in a previous email, though, my chosen career path doesn't let me pursue Apologetics as anything more than an avocation, at least for the foreseeable future.

I presumed that you came from a rural school due to your lacking science background. I'd forgotten that it's obviously been a few years since you last set foot inside a science classroom as a student. Even so, I'd have hoped that a good general science education would've prepared you to critically evaluate hypotheses and to discard ID as lacking.

Perhaps, as you're dealing so heavily with molecular biology, organic chemistry, and biochemistry, you should take a few college-courses in them (or maybe even get another degree) rather than just take what the ID "experts" say without having a solid background with which to evaluate their statements.

I'll admit that you got me on a technicality - the early Christians only had access to the Septuagint, but not the Gospels and usually only the letters written to their community (plus one or two others that may have been copied and passed along to them at the time). 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which you cited, makes no claim that scripture is the sole authority. Besides, if those verses did mean that, then the majority of the New Testament wouldn't be canonical (as they weren't written yet), which is clearly absurd.

As a Biblical Typolgist, you, of all people, should know not to take single verses out of context. Case in point: you cite Matthew 19:4

He said in reply, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female'

But, when read in context (Matthew 19:3-12), anyone can see that Christ was not referring to the creative aspect of Genesis, but to the explanation of marriage. Christ was using scripture the same way the Church does today, to explain how, when a couple is married, nothing can break that bond save death. The verse also doesn't eliminate the concept of "guided evolution," which is that evolution is the process by which God created life.

What also has to be noted about what the Apostles believed is that they didn't have the benefit of modern science. They had no knowledge of cells, DNA, germ theory, or the like. If Jesus had gone around talking about such things, He would've been viewed as a looney by even more people than He already was. Jesus' teaching to them had to be in the terms they would understand. Note, though, that Jesus' citation of Genesis isn't lessened by evolution in this context, and I doubt that any reference of the Apostles would have lessened weight either.

To avoid repeating myself a third time, all I'll say is yes, I do say ID is completely worthless from a scientific standpoint. By itself it has no scientific grounds to stand on, as it is a demonstrably invalid hypothesis.

I would heavily suggest that you read thoroughly what I've already sent you (and linked to on my blog). I already dealt with the chirality on amino acids, but I guess I need to do so more thoroughly.

Before life began, there could only have existed a racemic mixture of organic molecules - i.e. where both "handed" forms occurred in equal numbers. In a racemic mixture, there's an equal chance that, when forming a random polymer, that the left- or right-handed forms will be included. Any organic chemistry student should be able to tell you that in order to be biologically useful, the chirality (handedness) of all members of a subtype of organic molecule half to be the same, or else the structures won't be reproducible. So, how did we get from a racemic mixture to having L-amino acids and D-carbohydrates? Well, because enzymes and ribozymes are set up, using shape and chemical bonds, that only certain substrates (reactants) are usable, biological catalysts are able to discriminate between stereoisomers, be they constitutional isomers (having different connectivity), enantiomers (having mirror connectivity, like D- and L-glucose), or other forms of isomers. But, we're still left with how that first biological catalyst got there, because that has have substituents that have the same isomeric form in order to be reproducible. The RNA World hypothesis (note how often I use it, perhaps you should become more educated about it) deals with this, in that when RNA forms strands that replicates themselves, they all have to have the same stereoisomer of ribose (D-ribose) in order to create copies of itself. The initial strand would form randomly - and though the odds were low, it had an enormous amount of tries at it, so eventually one would form. That strand would make copies of itself (semiconservative replication, pair bonding, annealing, and all sorts of stuff). These copies would, because they spent most of their time (initially) as plain single strands, suffer a relatively high rate of mutation. However, the D-isomers would always be used afterwards, because only D-RNA would be able to make a copy off a D-RNA strand. Eventually, due to mutation, the strand would be able to fold on itself and, after a few more goes at it, became catalytically active. The reactions it catalyzed would all involve either achiral molecules or a specific type of chiral molecule (either D or L, but never both). This would be because, like any active site, it could only accommodate one type. This would further encourage the formation/usage of only one chiral form. We could have just as easily ended up with L-carbohydrates and D-amino acids, but we didn't. In either case, God isn't required for it to happen, just a million years or so (which, at 4.5 billion, the Earth has a few to spare).

How does one explain the evolutionary process that leads a caterpillar to spin a cocoon and then grow wings and fly away?

I'm not an entomologist, so I can only guess at this, but a number of animals (including the lab favorite, D. melanogaster) go through a pupal stage before growing wings. Perhaps (and I'm just throwing this out as an idea/untested hypothesis, since this is out of my field) a mutation occurred that delayed maturation of the larva of a species into an adult form. (Such a hypothesis is supported by the fact that the progenitor cells for adult structures in flies and the like already exist by the time the larva hatches, yet don't mature and form the adult structures until later.) The larva, in its worm-like morphology, had mouthparts that were kinda-sorta adapted to a certain type of food. This type of food was different from that which the adult, with its mature mouthparts and wings, could get at. Such an arrangement had a selective advantage, as it meant that larva weren't competing with adults for the same food source, allowing more numbers of both to exist at the same time. These would reproduce more than those who, like grasshoppers, kept the same morphology throughout the lifecycle (natural selection). Within this group, those who mutated in ways that improved the shape of the mouthparts would also be selected for, as they would mature faster and thus see more generations. The pupal covering being the last exoskeleton the larva has, the changes inside would, initially, be a resumption of the maturation process into the fully mature fly. This is just one scenario that I could think up by myself. I'm sure that if you wanted to, you could go look up current theories yourself.

Scripture often tells us that God uses the animal kingdom to teach humanity truth.

And where, may I ask, does it tell us that? The Bible isn't the only work that used animals as examples (see Aesop). In any case, that God uses animals doesn't mean that He specifically designed them. Remember, God is the master of turning the works of evil towards good ends; He can just as easily turn the works of random chance and natural selection to His own purposes.

About cell components: a)bacteria and archaea do just fine without them b) endosymbiosis c)vesicle formation. Look up the latter two on your own, though I've already dealt with endysymbiosis in my ripping to shreds of that article by Rosevear you asked me to read. Vesicle formation is quite simple, and I'll explain it to you if you ask (though, at this point, I feel I should be charging for all the cell and molecular bio info I'm putting online).

The bombardier beetle example is so like the ATPase example that I'm going to refer you back to my dismemberment of Rosevear's article so as not to repeat myself too much. If you have further questions on how formerly unassociated systems give rise to new systems (which is all any example for Irreducible Complexity is), feel free to ask. Remember, though that resorting to Irreducible Complexity is an example of the argumentum ad ignorantium logical fallacy.

I really, emphatically suggest you go through what I've already sent you, especially since I've beaten you to using the math you say disproves evolution.

Oh, and I already know that "to be a soldier for Christ, you must bow before His throne and accept His words and acknowledge that teaching anything to His flock that is contrary to His Holy Word is a sin." That's why I'm taking the effort to try to get you to stop. Evolution doesn't go against scripture, but lying and willfully deceiving others surely does.

In the name of Him who is the Word, the Light, and the Truth,

[TheSquire]

Since Doug's traveling cross country doing talks this Holy Week, I'm not sure when he'll have the time to sit down and really respond to this email, let alone write a good response to my previous one. I'm planning to do my taxes before I go back to skool, so at least I can keep myself out of trouble 'til his response.

UPDATE: Doug finally had time in his busy schedule to send a proper reply.

:: The Squire 2:24 AM :: email this post :: ::
...

Smart People Dealing With Stupid People

PZ Meyers at Pharyngula devotes most of his blogging to debunking high-profile IDers and creationists (rather than li'l ol' me, who just picks on the locals). Most recently, he took apart the stock creationist crap that someone tossed together and called a blog post.

:: The Squire 2:09 AM :: email this post :: ::
...

Cool Local Blogger

Narciblog is an (apparently) local blogger who recently came across the Evolution/ID correspondence series. He/She/It had a few kind words for myself, so why don't you go over and check out its/her/his blog. I'll be putting Narciblog in the "Illinois Blogs" category until I figure out if there's a better place for it.

:: The Squire 12:42 AM :: email this post :: ::
...

Good Reading

Kevin, M.D. links to the New England Journal of Medicine's takes on the Terri Schiavo case.

:: The Squire 9:57 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

Read First, Then Reply

::This post is part of the Evolution/ID Correspondence Series::

I recieved this reply from Doug the creationist yesterday, and apologize for not posting it earlier. I've been doing other things with my break, like reading and getting my hair cut, and have only just got caught up with my blog reading and email. Brief synopsis: Doug's busy and doesn't have much time to read my previous reply, so he skimmed the science stuff and shot me back this email to tide me over.

Hello [TheSquire],

I must admit that to see your closing statement mentioning Christ in a positive light was quite unexpected. Of course most evolutionists are vitriolic towards any mention of the blessed One.

As for my personal background, I am not sure where 'rural' education entered the picture... I was born and raised in NYC and went to NY City High School. I graduated from the State University of NY at Stony Brook. True, I did not major in a 'hard' science, however I did take many science courses and have always been fascinated by the subject.

As for your understanding of my being a "Protestant," I guess that would be partially true. I am a Jew who has accepted Jesus as the promised Messiah of the Scriptures. I am also a full time minister who teaches on "Biblical Typology" in Protestant churches across the Midwest. Yesterday (Sunday) I was gone from about 6:30 am till about 10:30 pm - between traveling and teaching in 2 different services. This week ( I leave tomorrow) will be in the Pittsburgh area, then Youngstown, OH and finally in the Ft. Wayne area. I will be speaking on the Passover / Last Supper.

Unfortunately - I am right int he middle of my busy season so I am not able to write such a full response this day, but I will try to respond briefly.

Yes, I believe the Scriptures and make no apologies about that. The Apostles did have scriptures - how else did the Apostle Paul make the statement in 2 Timothy 3:16 - 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The Scriptures he spoke of are what we commonly call the Old Testament. He commonly used these to share in synagogues in the first century proving that Jesus was the Messiah (Christ).

Jesus Himself believed the Genesis account as He quoted from it historically in Matthew 19:4. There are many more places where I could show you that the Apostles believed the literal account of Genesis by the context of their writings, but I lack time here.

May I ask as a summary question - are you saying that ID is 100% without merit? That there is not a single valid point (or plausible evolutionary problem) made by any of the ID'ers?

Again - some major problems that I have...

*Chance forming all the components of a cell - and then forming them within a cell wall. No evidence for this and a HUGE improbability.

*Left handedness of amino acids. Chance?

How does one explain the evolutionary process that leads a caterpillar to spin a cocoon and then grow wings and fly away? Scripture often tells us that God uses the animal kingdom to teach humanity truth. (ie. the Fox is an example of craftiness [cf. Luke 13:32] - the ant is an example of diligence, etc. The butterfly is a perfect example of death, burial and resurrection. (Very appropriate considering what week we are in.)

* The bombardier beetle Combining chemicals in it's rear portion that (in combustion) help it defend itself by shooting out an explosive and deadly 200 degree spray. How do these elements occur by time and chance - when one wrong mixture within the creature would of necessity destroy the creature and therefore disallow natural selection to take place?

Anyway - there is much more to say (and I haven't really addressed any of your responses yet either) but I have less that 24 hours to go before I have to leave for several days and so I have to end this here.

I do wish you the best, but to be a soldier for Christ, you must bow before His throne and accept His words and acknowledge the teaching this to His flock contrary to His Holy Word is a sin.

That is love - knowledge of Him and His Holy Word.

Therefore, I wish you His love,

In the Great Designer of life,
Doug

::sigh::

Doug the Creationist should read my novels before replying - or at least send me a "I've got it, am really busy, will read it in a few days and respond then" type email instead. This would be good, because I can refute a couple of his examples from this email using the same means by which I refuted some of his earlier stuff.

UPDATE: Doug would like to make a grammer [sic] correction:

Lest you think me a hick - I discovered a grammer error and wanted to correct it...


I do wish you the best, but to be a soldier for Christ, you must bow before His throne and accept His words and acknowledge that teaching anything to His flock that is contrary to His Holy Word is a sin.


Be well,

Doug

UPDATE: After a few days, I've finally gotten around to replying.

:: The Squire 9:26 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

More Owasippe News

The Muskegon Chronicle rounds up Owasippe's neigbors on Big Blue Lake and find that most, if not all, are opposed to the sale. Since Big Blue itself is a major population center in the township, this might bode well for those trying to save the camp. If the locals don't want the rezoning, which specifically allows residential building on Big Blue, I'd expect the township board to vote against the rezoning change. With the way the sale of the camp is set up, no rezoning means no sale. That'd force the council to deal with the Owasippe Outdoor Education Center group, since they'd be effectively prohibited from selling to anyone who'd want to develop the property.

:: The Squire 5:25 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

Reading Fun

Although I didn't contribute to it, Grand Rounds XXVI has been posted.

From what I've read so far, Multiple Mentality's post on Terry Schiavo's bulemia (Ya know, the underlying condition that caused her to be hypokalemic, which triggered her heart attact - at age 27 - that deprived her brain of oxygen and started the whole legal mess? That.) is a good read. As always, the whole group is made of must-reads.

NOTE: It's a good idea to finish my sentences.

:: The Squire 4:24 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

More Legal Messes

Ed Kilgore, guest posting at Talking Points Memo while Josh Marshall is off getting hitched, outlines the legislative mess that'll result from the bill that congress passed allowing the Terri Schiavo's case to be heard in federal court, what with every little minor concern being brought before congress (and, of course, only being heard if there's a crass political angle to it). All is not lost, though. Atrios passed without a quorum and may not, in fact, be a law at all.

:: The Squire 6:44 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

New Comments Policy

Not that anyone's done something wrong, but upon finding out that the autodisemvoweller (and the entire site it was hosted on) has been taken down, I've been forced to come up with a new comments policy.

While I've not had a problem with this, yet, it has been my unused policy that anyone who was negatively diruptive in the comments sections would have their contributions disemvowelled. Since I'm too lazy to go through an one-thousand character post and manually disemvowel it, I relied on the ability to have a web-based algorithm to do it for me. With the autodisemvoweller's apparent demise, it looks like I'll have to, at least temporarily, switch to using the dialectizer. Depending on the severity of the infraction, trolls and bottom feeders will be subject to being dialectized into Elmer Fudd, Moron, Pig Latin, and Swedish Chef. Chronic abusers will have their IP banned.

:: The Squire 9:55 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

Trailing Smoke...

Wow, this year's tournament has been providing upsets left and right. My bracket is in shambles, but it appears that everyone else's brackets are faring about the same. The fact that perennial favorites UNC and Duke are still in the tournament are probable the only things keeping some people's brackets afloat. With the field so upset as it is, I'll be helped greatly if my pick to win it all, UIUC, actually does.

Strikethrough indicates a pick that didn't survive the first round

The Sweet Sixteen
My Picks	The Real Sixteen
(1)Illinois	(1)Illinois
(5)Alabama	(12)Wisconsin-Milwaukee
(3)Arizona	(3)Arizona
(2)OK State	(2)OK State
(1)Washington	(1)Washington
(5)Georgia Tech	(4)Louisville
(3)Gonzaga	(6)Texas Tech
(2)Wake Forest	(7)West Virginia
(1)North Carolina	(1)North Carolina
(4)Florida	(5)Villanova
(6)Wisconsin	(6)Wisconsin
(2)UConn	(1)North Carolina State
(1)Duke	(1)Duke
(4)Syracuse	(5)Michigan State
(3)Oklahoma	(6)Utah
(2)Kentucky	(2)Kentucky

This is definitely an interesting tournament. I've half stopped rooting for my bracket and have been pulling for the teams that'll mess up other people - like Southern Illinois or Mississippi State, for example. With two of my final four out (UConn and Gonzaga), my own bracket may be in jeopardy. What with all the upsets so far, I may win yet, though.

:: The Squire 7:05 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

Salient Point

ILPundit points out that by removing Michael Schiavo's right to act as proxy for his wife weakens the bonds of marriage that the GOP and Christian right seem so keen on harping about. I also agree with him that I'd rather have my potential spouse or kids being my proxy rather than my parents, though hopefully I'll never be in a situation where it'll come to that.

Before anyone piles onto me, I don't believe in a "right to die" any crap like that. Suicide is wrong. Killing is wrong. Any attempt to end someone's life for the sake of ending it is wrong. So what matters, morally, is whether or not Terri Schiavo has a functioning brain, and whether or not having an intact brain stem and "lower brain" functions counts as being alive. It ca be argued that being human requires the potentiality for consciousness. If Terri isn't conscious, and can never become conscious, then she's just as dead as a week-old corpse. The problem is proving that she can never become conscious - something that, to obtain a degree of certainty, requires more tests.

Legally, in the state of Florida, whether or not Terri is "alive" isn't the point of contention. It's a matter of deciding who best understands what Terri would've wanted in this situation. The courts have decided that the person best able to act as proxy for Terri is her husband, Michael. Terri's parents already had their day in court and weren't able to convince the judge that she would've wanted to live, yet this point gets shunted into the background. The courts don't exist to directly decide moral points, they decide legal points, and Terri's parents seem to be behind in this regard.

It appears that, since they know that their legal ground is tenuous at best, the "Save Terri" group of bloggers and opiners have decided that ad hominem attacks against Michael and the judge in the case are among the best tools to get what they want. I'm sorry, but whenever I see anyone arguing along those lines, I tune them out - their case should be good enough without the need to resort to such dishonest tactics.

So, my opinion is that no one is in a right moral position to withdraw treatment on Terri, since she's not dead in a physiological sense and she has yet to be ruled neurologically dead, but that there's little to no legal ground with which to keep her alive.

UPDATE: Maurice Bernstein, M.D., has some thoughts about the recent turn of events in the Schiavo case; part one is here, and part two is here. Also, via Kevin, M.D., ABC news has an article up on what actually happens to people in vegetative states who die after having food and water withheld.

:: The Squire 5:14 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

Something I Didn't Know About

Doctor Charles notes the evolutionary advantages (and modern uses) of keeping a, gasp, mutation such as colorblindness around.

There must be a reason why color blindness is so common in men. Nature would have weeded out the gene quickly if it were completely useless. It is speculated that seeing the world in a more gray scale might have some advantages.

Color blind hunters are better able to pick out prey against a confusing background. A dozen prehistoric hunters would have done well to have at least one such member in their posse. An 8% prevalence equals 1 in 12. More contemporary military leaders often recruited color blind soldiers to help them see through certain types of camouflage.

I wonder how ID would explain colorblindness (without resorting to the "punnishment of God" arguement that Jesus really wasn't keen on).

:: The Squire 11:41 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

Bracket Update

I did much better earlier in the day, with only the later games brining bad news upon my bracket.

Upsets I called: (10)NC State over (7)Charlotte, (9)Iowa St. over (8)Minnesota.

Upsets I didn't call: (13)Vermont over (4)Syracuse - knocking out another of my Sweet 16 teams, (9)Mississippi State over (8)Stanford, and of course (14)Bucknell over (3)Kansas. Not that I'm sad that Kansas lost, it's just that I would've like it if they'd stuck around to lose to (6)Wisconsin.

Condolences go out to: the two guys in my pool who picked Kansas as their projected national champions.

In my pool - a fundraiser for the Illinois Policy Debate Team - I am currently ranked 16th out of 45 and am tied with a whole crapload of people. However, in terms of possible points remaining, I'm tied with a bunch of other people for second, so things aren't so bad, yet.

Note: My Sweet Sixteen are (1)Illinois, (5)Alabama, (3)Arizona, (2)OK State, (1)Washington, (5)Georgia Tech, (3)Gonzaga, (2)Wake Forest, (1)North Carolina, (4)Florida, (6)Wisconsin, (2)UConn, (1)Duke, (4)Syracuse, (3)Oklahoma, and (2)Kentucky. We'll see what tomorrow brings.

:: The Squire 11:33 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

Being Nice Takes Longer

::This post is part of the Evolution/ID Correspondence Series::

It took a while (because I had to look up a few facts) for me to completely pull this one together, but here's my response to Doug the Creationist's most recent correspondence with me. As you can likely tell, it's quite long, so get comfortable in your seats.

Subject: Some Weekend Reading

Doug,

I, too, am doing this out of love - tough love. Through a combination of faulty catechesis and an apparently poor science education, you have come, in your ignorance, to support a hypothesis that is scientifically invalid, namely, Intelligent Design. I do this not only out of love for you and those like you, but also for those you try to keep ignorant through the dissemination of Intelligent Design. High school science education is woefully lacking in this country, especially in rural areas - students who come from such backgrounds need to be given firm foundations in science courses, not pseudoscience such as creationism. By educating you, and those like you, I can only hope that through educating you I can save you from committing the sins of deception and lying. Leading the Lord's flock away from truth, in any form, is a very serious sin, and I hope that through our correspondence you will repent of such behavior.

Before you get any ideas otherwise, as you may have, I am no atheist. Neither am I agnostic. I am a practicing Catholic and, through the local student chapel, I am an Extraordinary Minister of the Holy Eucharist, as well as a second-time RCIA Sponsor. I attended a Benedictine-run high school, and I go to Mass multiple times a week. I do not have an encyclopaedic knowledge of Scripture, though given a few minutes I can find the passages I want.

From what you've said about evolution, specifically that "If evolution is true, then life is pointless and meaningless," I can surmise that you were brought up in, or are now a member of, a Protestant church that relies heavily upon the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura. This doctrine fails on many points, among them the fact that the Apostles managed just fine without Scripture, and the fact that nowhere in the Bible does it say that Scripture itself is the only authority. From this false doctrine you then believe that the entirety of the Bible is literally true, even though the entirety of the Torah (including Genesis) is known to been oral tradition before it was written down, and therefore subject to human error in transmission. A literary analysis of the first story of creation can come to the reasonable conclusion that it was a song (or adapted from a song), as seen from its repetition. Its main focus is not that God made everything in six days, but that God made everything, in an order, and that it was good. The second story of creation exists to explain the existence of sin and the spiritual reason for why we are different from the animals - we possess the knowledge of right and wrong, which is how we are "in the image and likeness of God," but this comes at a price, that we are thrown out of harmony with our own natures (original sin) and that must physically labor to sustain ourselves - as opposed to the animals, which merely take what they need from what is around them. The second story can also be seen as a very distantly removed story about the transition from being hunter-gatherers towards an agrarian society. Are all these things literal truths? No, but they are universal truths, things which do not change over time and different circumstances. That is what Sola Scriptura misses, and that is what you miss when you insist on a literal creation.

When you look at the text of Genesis itself, it merely states that God created things - no mention is made of how He did so. Many scientists, including myself, view the application of the Scientific Method and the body of knowledge it has produced as an ongoing investigation into the nature - the nuts and bolts - of God's wonderful creation. You, apparently, lean towards a similar interpretation yourself:

Once again - I do not reject evolution for that reason ( I reject it because it is not mathematically probable), but if there is a Creator and Designer, then we would expect Him to be very orderly - And He is. Mathematically orderly, chemically orderly and morally orderly. When laws of physics are broken, people get hurt. When moral laws are broken, people get hurt.

There is an order to creation - go ask a physicist. Monsignor Stuart Swetland, the campus Catholic chaplain, had his original B.S. in Physics, and has a t-shirt that says "And God said: [Maxwell's equations] ...and there was light." He holds a bunch of Doctorates now, is on faculty at the university, and was actually the source of part of what I was saying about original sin. (Before moving off of physics, I must quote Capt. Montgomery Scott from Star Trek here and mention that "Ye cannae break the laws of physics!" I'm a trekkie, I can't help it.) From physics directly flows the study of Chemistry, the interactions between the electrons of atoms. Many of these atoms form molecules. Those containing carbon are incredibly versatile, and as such carbon is the basis for most, if not all, organic molecules. These can arise through various means. The amino acids are known to have come from the prebiotic soup. Nucleic acids are a bit harder to create, but analogous precursors (which I'll mention again later) with similar catalytic properties could be constructed from 2-carbon molecules, which are much more abundant. The sugar backbone of RNA and DNA themselves differ by only one atom (which is important in DNA's stability) and since the nucleoside bases used by both DNA and RNA are similar (three are exactly the same, while the other two differ only by a methyl group) it is easy to transfer information between the two data media. In fact, this transference takes place all the time, is called either transcription or reverse transcription, depending on the direction of the transfer. Without transcription, genes in DNA couldn't be translated into proteins, which are what actually do most of the work of the cell. The RNA copies of genes are translated into proteins (which themselves are strings of amino acids) by ribosomes. Ribosomes themselves are merely groups of a few RNA strands that, together, are catalytically active and can use other RNA tags attached to amino acids to order those amino acids according to the instructions in the gene and to link the amino acids together into proteins. Current data indicates that ribosomes may be the oldest part of the cell machinery, and it is easy to assume that if RNA can facilitate the coordination of different strands of RNA to create a protein, that RNA catalysts (called ribozymes) may have also existed that could function as RNA copying machinery to replicate genetic material. In fact, short nuclear RNAs have been found that, when associated with each other, can excise out segments of other RNAs and re-attatch the pieces so that the new, shorter RNA makes sense to the ribosomes. Once RNA machinery, and then proteins, got going, all that was needed to create the most primitive cell would be to enclose a ribosome, some other RNAs, some amino acids, and some free nucleotides in a lipid bilayer (most likely formed from a bubble in the sea where this all occurred). Who's to say that God did not use this method to create a cell, over spans of geologic time? Remember, God has all the time in the world. He can be patient. Since God is not necessarily excluded from creation, even though evolution exists, there is no moral vacuum. Science is not atheistic, and neither is evolution. Science is, however, agnostic, because the presence or absence of God cannot (currently, and likely for some time) be proven from direct, recreatable observation. The Scientific Method doesn't reject God, it merely rejects faulty hypotheses.

If you managed to get through that, I think it might be a good time to ask what level of science education you have received. In your most recent email, you continued to cite "problems" which I had already resolved, which makes me fear that the subject matter I used went way over your head. In fact, it looks to me like the only education you have in things like molecular biology have come from the Intelligent Design materials you have read. Perhaps if I knew what level of education you've received I can better tailor my explanations to you. It might also be helpful, if you intend to continue learning about biology, to take classes at a nearby university or community college, especially ones that focus on evolution. That way you won't be arguing from ignorance, but will have a full command of the facts.

I will admit that I was a bit arrogant in accepting your concession. However, you had just deprived me of what looked to be shaping up to be the most interesting explanation I have ever received - namely, just what electrical impulses have to do with data storage in DNA. I assumed that I had sufficiently demonstrated the scientific fallacies behind that and the other points you had made. In any case, you continue to say that evolution is mathematically impossible, and that in fact this is the sole reason that, you say, you dismiss evolution. Yet, not once have you backed up this claim that is so central to your position. Since you have been skittish to bring out the math, though, I will do so for you.

E. coli, a human gut bacteria and a laboratory favorite, has a genome consisting of a single, circular chromosome of 4.6 x 10⁶ base pairs of DNA. Without any mutagens present, DNA polymerase III, the protein responsible for the vast majority of E. coli's DNA replication, will make an error (i.e. cause a mutation) once every 10⁴ to 10⁵ base pairs. Error repair mechanisms reduce this rate to once every 10⁶ base pairs by comparing the newly synthesized strand to the already existing strand. Obviously, this means that each base pair has approximately a one-in-a-million chance to be mutated at any given time. However, since bacteria are so small, 4.6 million bacteria, enough to statistically ensure that each non-fatal base pair mutation in the E. coli chromosome is represented. This seemingly large amount of bacteria can easily fit on the head of a pin - your gut houses many, many more than this puny number of E. coli. Seeing as well-nurtured bacteria can reach such population sizes within a matter of hours, novel genes - especially those that encode for antibiotic existence - are evolved all the time. Admittedly, humans have a much larger genome and reproduce much slower - which is why we evolve and develop novel traits much more slowly. Consider, though, the many billions of sperm that your and my testicles each produce daily, and thus all the chances for mutations that those numbers present. Many of these contain mutations, and it is these mutations that have caused the variability in humanity (and in all species). From the color of our hair, eyes, and skin, to the antigens on our red blood cells, many mutations are benign and even helpful.

In the process of gamete production, known as Meiosis, the set of chromosomes inherited from one parent and the set from the other parent match up, like chromosome to like chromosome. The chromosomes rely, in part, on the large amount of gene and sequence similarities between the two homologous (similar) chromosomes. Consider, for a moment, a very successful, but small, species, such as a lizard. As a species, it may have a range of hundreds of miles, but each individual of that species isn't going to go much farther than a mile to find a mate and reproduce. This can cause discreet (or continuous) populations to arise within the species. Take, now, a population at one end of the range and another population of the same species from the most distant portion of the range. You acknowledge that microevolution, i.e. adaptation, occurs. It is not unreasonable that the adaptations occurring within populations at one far end of a species' range are very different from those in a populations at the other end, since the conditions in the two areas may be very different themselves. As the adaptations pile up, the genes, and thus the base pair sequence, changes. Given enough time (on the order of thousands of years, usually), the two distant populations may change so much that when individuals from the distant populations are brought together by humans and mated, their offspring will be sterile (like a mule) because its parental chromosomes are so dissimilar. Initially, each population may be able to reproduce with individuals from the middle of the range, since these outlying groups have each had enough reproductive contact with the mid-range groups in order to maintain genetic similarities, but as each population continues to adapt the differences will become greater and the many populations will become genetically isolated, constituting individual species. Now, this is by no means the only way for speciation to occur, but it makes explicit, logical use of molecular genetics and adaptation, both of which you, I think, accept. (In fact, this has happened, and is documented, and if I could for the life of me remember the species name I'd give it to you to look up. It involved different subspecies of a species of lizard in California and Oregon, I remember that well enough.)

Now that I've given you all that to read, I think it would be fitting to deal with the rest of your most recent letter.

First, I've taken the time to investigate the list of people whose names you tossed at me: Dr. Henry Morris, Dr. Duane Gish, Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo, and Dr. Richard Bliss. Having looked them up, none of them have published anything related to evolution in peer reviewed journals. Dr. Morris is a civil engineer with no training in biology, whose papers are case studies in Red Herring arguements and false conclusions. The most obvious of these, his diatribe about the Entropy and the second law of thermodynamics, logically prohibits all life, which is in itself absurd and invalidates his argument on the topic. Dr. Duane Gish, while having done credible work with Tobacco Mosaic Virus and other projects back in the '50s-'70s, has been caught red-handed repeating arguments that he knows to have been demonstrated false. He is a liar, and since science operates on academic integrity he has no credibility scientifically. Dr. Mastropaolo is a kinesiologist, who has no training in evolution and his only papers on the subject have not been peer-reviewed. And, last and least, "Dr." Bliss received his doctorate from a diploma mill. I am not impressed.

As opposed to those men who either have no training or no remaining credibility, I have been taught and will be taught by a number of professors who work directly on human development and evolutionary issues. For example, next spring I will be taking a class taught by Prof. Carl Woese, whose research and arguments led to the defining of Archaea as a separate taxon and thus a massive re-arranging of the "tree of life." He is a well respected "distinguished leader in his field" and has peer-reviewed work to back him up.

I've already covered your objections to the RNA World hypothesis, but if you want more you can look at this post on my blog, in which I discuss (and take apart) the paper by Dr. David Rosevar that you directed me to.

Oh, and I've read about 50 pages into the PDF you sent me. I ran across the first errors in the first paragraph of "facts" and wrote a blog post about it. From as far as I've gotten, it seems to me that the author is willing to misstate scientific facts, invent facts, and libel dead people, all while wearing a tinfoil hat and expounding on the nonexistent evolutionist/ACLU/communist/humanist/spiritualist(Huh? I've never heard of that one)/atheist/fascist/witchcraft conspiracy. Factually, it appears to rank down there with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, in that both are easily demonstrated to be loads of crap.

Also, about your statement that the valid results obtained by scientists using evolutionary theory doesn't validate the theory itself: let me ask you to do something worthwhile with ID. Take bacterial antibiotic resistance. Evolution describes the mechanism for its development and the same theory suggests means to slow down the development of antibiotic resistance. How does Intelligent Design, which denies that mutations can be beneficial to an organism, deal with antibiotic resistance?

To drive home my point, I think that a repeat of my argument for the rejection of Intelligent Design as a basis for scientific inquiry is in order. This is especially so because it appears you missed it the first time around. I'll make it into a numbered list so that it's easier to follow.

1. A hypothesis, in scientific usage, is "A supposition or conjecture put forth to account for known facts; esp. in the sciences, a provisional supposition from which to draw conclusions that shall be in accordance with known facts, and which serves as a starting-point for further investigation by which it may be proved or disproved and the true theory arrived at." (from the Oxford English Dictionary)
2. One using the scientific method

A. Starts with observation
B. Formulates an hypothesis to explain that observation
C. Determines a consequence (prediction) of the hypothesis
D. Tests that hypothesis's prediction in a situation where it can be disproved
E. Reformulates the hypothesis if it is disproved OR (after publishing a paper or two) devises a new test with which to test the hypothesis.

3. Hypothesis that cannot be disproved are invalid for the purposes of scientific inquiry (due to a violation of 2D)
4. Hypothesis that do not make predictions are also invalid (due to a violation of 2C)
5. Intelligent Design stipulates that an Intelligent Designer (i.e. the Abrahamic God, usually viewed through a Protestant Christian perspective) created everything, including all life.
6. The existence and/or powers of God are not able to be proven or disproved scientifically.
7. Because of point 6, Intelligent Design is an invalid hypothesis, as per point 3.
8. Intelligent Design makes no valid attempt to explain the observed relationships between species.
9. Because of point 8, Intelligent Design is again invalid as a hypothesis, as per point 4.
10. Point 8 also invalidates Intelligent Design's "Irreducible Complexity," as it is an example of an argumentum ad ignorantium.
Q.E.D.

Get it? Got it? Good.

Basically, for all the arguments going on about it, Intelligent Design is just as valid as the Time Cube, which is to say it's not scientifically valid at all. ID is an attempt to force Fundamentalist Christian beliefs into the public discourse by means of suppressing rational, evidence-based science.

SO, to recap: You're working off Sola Scriptura, which falsely dictates that you take Genesis 1 literally. This leads you to be sympathetic to ID, and your lack of science education leads you to agree with the unsound theory. Reading Genesis contextually, though, does not logically lead to a conflict between God and evolution. God could create using whatever method he so chose, and from what science tells us it looks to have been evolution. The laws of physics, filtered through chemistry, do not prohibit "abiogenesis" (misunderstandings about thermodynamics to the contrary). Primitive cells (no where near as complex as modern cells) could've (and likely did) emerge over geologic time. Mutations aren't always lethal, do not always kill, and nonlethal mutations are shown, using the math you promise and have yet to deliver with, to be quite common. Adaptation leads, de facto, to speciation over geologic time periods. Those that support ID either aren't trained to deal with evolutionary topics, or have thoroughly discredited themselves within the scientific community so as to make themselves irrelevant to modern scientific discussions. Their arguments are filled with false conclusions, argumenta ad ignorantia, Red Herrings, and the occasional ad hominem attack mixed in with some libel for good measure. Such essays are occasionally written while wearing tinfoil hats and looking over one's shoulder for black helicopters. Irreducible Complexity having been demonstrated elsewhere as a logical fallacy, Intelligent Design doesn't have a leg to stand on as a scientific hypothesis. Evolution, not containing any logical fallacies that aren't easily refuted by a half-educated premedical student (like myself), is what's left standing.

If you're even still reading at this point, Doug, it should be obvious that I did not write to you to "find the Truth." I'm doing that already, through my church and through my studies of genetics and evolution (which is what three of my four in-major advanced classes are/will be on). I'm doing this out of concern for the sins you are committing out of your ignorance, that do not just injure yourself but also impact negatively on other people in my campus community. Restated, I'm trying to defend the defenseless from a person, you, who doesn't know better. As our miscommunications have shown, I'm relatively new to apologetics. Unfortunately, my chosen profession will likely not allow me to pursue it to the fullest extent possible. But, as my job will involve healing people, I think that's an acceptable tradeoff.

I can only hope that our exchange will encourage you to learn more about molecular biology and learn the real truth about evolutionary theory. Our exchange has taught me a number of things, foremost among them that I should use my own faith to diffuse the argument that God and evolution are incompatible.

May the peace of Christ be with us both as we seek out the truths of God's creation.

[TheSquire]

This'll probably take a day or two for Doug (or any likely reader) to read through and respond to - which is fine by me, since I have a practice MCAT tomorrow and will be leaving for my folk's place shortly thereafter.

UPDATE: Doug the creationist has replied - but if you're looking for some good scientific stuff, you'll have to wait.

:: The Squire 7:32 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

Providing Examples

PZ Meyers at Pharyngula has a wonderful post, based off of a recent article in Nature, about your friend the X Chromosome.

UPDATE: Helps if I put up the right URL.

:: The Squire 2:14 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

Common Themes

Unapologetic Catholic is himself dealing with an IDer, 'cept the one he's thrashing about is a priest who should know better.

Extra points go to Unapologetic for use of St. Augustine in his arguement.

:: The Squire 2:01 PM :: email this post :: ::
...

Preview

Because I want someone else to look over the novel that will be my next response to Doug the creationst, I am going to sit on the draft of my response for a bit. However, I will post some of the concluding paragraphs (that chart out where my response has already been).

SO, to recap: You're working off Sola Scriptura, which falsely dictates that you take Genesis 1 literally. This leads you to be sympathetic to ID, and your lack of science education leads you to agree with the unsound theory. Reading Genesis contextually, though, does not logically lead to a conflict between God and evolution. God could create using whatever method he so chose, and from what science tells us it looks to have been evolution. The laws of physics, filtered through chemistry, do not prohibit "abiogenesis" (misunderstandings about thermodynamics to the contrary). Primitive cells (no where near as complex as modern cells) could've (and likely did) emerge over geologic time. Mutations aren't always lethal, do not always kill, and nonlethal mutations are shown, using the math you promise and have yet to deliver with, to be quite common. Adaptation leads, de facto, to speciation over geologic time periods. Those that support ID either aren't trained to deal with evolutionary topics, or have thoroughly discredited themselves within the scientific community so as to make themselves irrelevant to modern scientific discussions. Their arguments are filled with false conclusions, argumenta ad ignorantia, Red Herrings, and the occasional ad hominem attack mixed in with some libel for good measure. Such essays are occasionally written while wearing tinfoil hats and looking over one's shoulder for black helicopters. Irreducible Complexity having been demonstrated elsewhere as a logical fallacy, Intelligent Design doesn't have a leg to stand on as a scientific hypothesis. Evolution, not containing any logical fallacies that aren't easily refuted by a half-educated premedical student (like myself), is what's left standing.

If you're even still reading at this point, Doug, it should be obvious that I did not write to you to "find the Truth." I'm doing that already, through my church and through my studies of genetics and evolution (which is what three of my four in-major advanced classes are/will be on). I'm doing this out of concern for the sins you are committing out of your ignorance, that do not just injure yourself but also impact negatively on other people in my campus community. Restated, I'm trying to defend the defenseless from a person, you, who doesn't know better. As our miscommunications have shown, I'm relatively new to apologetics. Unfortunately, my chosen profession will likely not allow me to pursue it to the fullest extent possible. But, as my job will involve healing people, I think that's an acceptable tradeoff.

Hopefully I'll send my reply to him this afternoon (and post it here), and then it'll be off to spring break at home after my practice MCAT on Saturday.

:: The Squire 6:52 AM :: email this post :: ::
...

NCAA Bracket Roundup

Dealing with lighter topics now, the first day of the NCAA Men's basketball tournament is over and it's time to see how I fared.

I'm proud to say that I called the upset of (9)Nevada over (8)Texas. However, that's the only upset I called today. The other ones I predicted were (10)Creighton over (7)W. Virginia - though I'm not too upset about that one, since Creighton only lost by 2 points, and (11)UTEP over (6)Utah. The ones I didn't see were (5)Alabama's horrible loss to (12)Wisconsin-Milwaukee and (6)Louisiana State's thrashing at the hands of (11)Alabama-Birmingham. I had Alabama going to the 16, but beyond that my bracket's still holding together decently. We'll see how it fares.

:: The Squire 1:34 AM :: email this post :: ::
...

Response Research, Part II

::This post is part of the Evolution/ID Correspondence Series::

In his most recent email, Doug the creationist spouts off a list of "Distinguished leaders in their fields" who support Intelligent Design. They are: Dr. Henry Morris, Dr. Duane Gish, Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo, and Dr. Richard Bliss.

Distinguished scientists all have one thing in common - they are published in peer-reviewed journals, and "distinguished" scientists are usually cited many times in other academic articles. Google recently came out with a wonderful tool that searches all things academic named Google Scholar. The advanced search page allows one to plug in the name of an author and search for it, so I've done that with each of the "distinguished leaders" that Doug provided me. Each name is hyperlinked to the Google Scholar results page for that person's name as an author.

Dr. Henry Morris has a few citations to his name, but there are no peer reviewed journal articles to his name (though, since both "Henry" and "Morris" are common names, a few articles by real scientists in other disciplines pop up in the search results). The only article of his that Google finds isn't peer reviewed and is present on the Creationist site, icr.org, that Doug already directed me to. Looking at icr.org's own bio on him, Dr. Morris has no formal training in biology or chemistry, and has done no work in either field. His articles, at least those to which Doug directed me, reflect this in their nonsense and overlooking of basic facts. In fact, Dr. Morris appears to merely be a master of the Red Herring arguement.

Dr. Duane Gish fares even worse. The only article Google can find that he authored is on the icr.org site. Not only that, but Google also finds a well-written takedown of nearly everything that Gish has written (that I heavily suggest that Doug read). Returning, reluctantly, to icr.org, Dr. Gish's bio includes work on Tobacco Mosaic Virus back in the 1950s, and some other work ending in the 1970s. While more qualified by training than Dr. Morris, his documented academic dishonesty in persuing creationism/ID destroys any credibility he may have once had. The scientific community doesn't tolerate lying very well.

Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo does a bit better for himself than Gish. Nobody in recent history cites Mastropaolo, but besides the apparently obligatory mention on icr.org's webiste he also has an article in the "Creation Research Society Quarterly" (online as PDF in a California library) that suffers from the fallacy argumentum ad ignorantium, in that he fails to take into account the proteins evolved by many different bacteria to provide for antibiotic resistance. His icr.org bio lists a number of accomplishments, (and that he did some of his studies at the UofI) but he hasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal since 1992. Other than some maximum-stress stuff (which is outside my field and I don't pretend to understand), the rest of his recent, non-peer reviewed work appears to be outside his range of expertise. I am not impressed.

Dr. Richard Bliss has one citation in the year that he died and no peer-reviewed articles. The google search did turn up a website that commented on Bliss' doctorate having come from a diploma mill. Not even icr.org has him on their list of "creation scientists." Hmmm, scratch him off our list...

Well, that exhausts the list Doug supplied me; but, just for kicks, I'll plug in the author of the article Doug sent me to in his previous email.

Dr. David Rosevear doesn't even show up on google's scholar search. No citations, no articles, nothing. I'm less than impressed.

Doug asked me if I'd read or even heard of these men. I hadn't, and for good reason - their work, that of it which actually might be called science, has yet to stand up to peer review. That anyone takes these men seriously at all is very sad indeed.

:: The Squire 1:15 AM :: email this post :: ::
...