Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by philcoders | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

philcoders

I posted this link as a new thread, but i think it is worth posting this also here,

http://www.elisoriano.com/blog/new-truths-belie-evolution-ev...

Would love to hear what the HN community thought on the arguments.

View on HN

I am a bioinformatician with a background in genetics.

The argument against evolution in the article, mainly the piltdown man hoax and new sequencing data on neanderthal is extremely weak.

I don't think a single example of scientific fraud is enough to discredit the entire community. I actually think the fact that the fraud was found out as a hoax shows that evidence is constantly being scrutinized and re-examined; which is exactly what science should be all about.

The point about sequence similarity/dis-similarity being not the ultimate evidence for common ancestry is actually an insightful point; however, I doubt the author of the article realized the insight. He was probably just parroting a statement he read in another article. I don't think you can make a strong statement about homology between genomes using only 65,000 bases of sequence from potentially heavily degraded sample. I think it is just an interesting starting point for further analysis with more data.

The rest of the article dealt with interpreting biblical statements to fit with current undeniable understanding of the universe. IE. Man is made from dust is consistent with humans being consisted of elements found in dust (crust) of the earth. I am sure it sounds nice to people who believe in the bible. But it makes me wonder what these interpretations will look like in a hundred years. Are these interpretations going to change with new understandings of the universe? Is the bible just full of vague statements that can constantly adapt to new understanding of the world? What good is that really?

I've always wondered what a creationist view of biology would look like. There are plenty of attacks against evolution, but never any clear explanation of how their belief system is in accordance with current data. Do new species suddenly pop into existence from nothing by god? Do god specifically implant new species into the womb of a surrogate specie? Why does god invent bunch of new species in the first place? Why not modify the environment to suit the species rather than modify species to suit the environment? I think creationism hides behind a wall of hand-wavy and foggy ideas that breaks down when explicitly examined.

"The rest of the article dealt with interpreting biblical statements to fit the current undeniable understanding of the universe.", (How do i correctly put a quote here in the replies?)

In Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth…

This is written before any scientist can confirm it. Thats not interpretation, its a clearly stated fact, "circle". And he points out if other religion gets it wrong.

> This is written before any scientist can confirm it. Thats not interpretation, its a clearly stated fact, "circle". And he points out if other religion gets it wrong.

The Earth was considered to be a flat disc, so there's nothing of value there. Please do some research before coming here with your bullshit.

Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution. Russell claims "with extraordinary [sic] few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

The Earth is a sphere, not a circle. That's not a nitpick either. They thought the Earth was a flat disk back then.

Regardless. Even if you were dumbly granted that the Earth was a flat disk, how would that have any barring on the rest of the Bible's arguments?

Plato was right about a lot of things, but does that mean he was also right about the elemental nature of the universe? (Everything being created from the base elements of fire, earth, wind and water)

Your argument is bad even if it were correct.

> The Earth is a sphere, not a circle.

The earth is an oblate spheroid, not a sphere.

> The earth is an oblate spheroid

To a first order approximation, such as would be suitable for a discussion on an Internet forum, the earth is basically a sphere...

> They thought the Earth was a flat disk back then.

What "they" are you talking about? Europeans haven't thought the earth was flat since the beginning of recorded history. It seems reasonably safe to extend that viewpoint to Mediterraneans.

>They thought the Earth was a flat disk back then. //

Evidence?

FWIW the word here used for "circle" (in the ancient Hebrew, chuwg, [1]) is that used for the arch or vault [a bi-concave ceiling] of the skies; they'd need to also consider the skies to be a disc for it to make sense that it should be interpreted as disc in the Isaiah 40:22 [2] reference. I think the most obstructive interpretation would still need to be something like "dome" - definitely not flat.

So, why not a flat circle? Well there are other words used for that exact thing, as in 2 Chronicles 4 / or 1 Kings 7:23 [3]:

>Now [Solomon] made the sea of cast metal [of the altar] ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference. //

This is the word for the plane shape "circle" ('agol) that matches the brim of a cup (or giant bowl-shaped altar!).

Note that the figures leaves the brim at 5 - 30/2pi ~= a hands breadth under some interpretations, just as Kings 7:26 suggests. But that verse 7:26 also says that the brim was like that of a lily, not a hands-breadth at the brim but fine and dainty ... and here in lies a very interesting piece of gematria [use of letters for numbers] associated with the Kings passage [4] which in short form encodes in a variant word form qava (=111) for qav (=106) in the oldest Hebrew version of the passage [that in Kings] is the ratio 111/106; the implication being that the true figures should be 30/10 x 111/106 which gives an excellent approximation to pi.

[1] http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Stro...

[2] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isa+40%3A22&vers...

[3] http://biblehub.com/niv/2_chronicles/4.htm or http://biblehub.com/1_kings/7-23.htm

[4] http://www.mathteacherctk.com/blog/2011/08/biblical-and-gema...

Yes, you can interpret circle as spherical if you wanted to. You can also interpret circle as a circular disk. Was it against all conventional wisdom at the time of this writing to hold a circular view of the world? Were there no other culture that thought the world was circular? I am no anthropologist so I can't comment on that last question.

This is just another example of vague statements.

> before any scientist can confirm it

Well, Isaiah was kicking about the Middle East in or around 650 BC. And somewhere in Greece at about this time, Pythagoras was one of a line of philosophers and astronomers who knew the earth was round. Eratosthenes comes along a couple of hundred years later, and he actually measured the circumference of the earth; pretty accurately too, considering the highly technical equipment (a well) he used!

In general, the ancients knew the earth was not flat, and had a pretty good idea of its shape and size a lot earlier than most people realise.

I just want to add that there are several references in the bible to there being an under the earth, and if we look at the latin where this is more clear, it doesn't mean inside, but below. The old testament is not scientifically accurate.

Believe whatever mythology you want, I will fully defend your right to do so. But do not try to force your agenda on those that don't follow or share your doctrine though made up fiction masquerading as science. Evolution through natural selection exists, it's demonstrable, and the only piece we do not have a precision view of is speciation. But not unlike the Higgs, when we have all the other pieces, we can extrapolate, and we have some pretty solid theories on how this happens, and evidence that through husbandry, we as humans have caused it to happen through human selection.

I sympathize with your problem. But the problem is, you have confused creationists with theistic evolutionists! They are the ones that say that evolution occurred, but God guided it. He didn't. He created EX NIHILO, from scratch, in the beginning (that's pure creationist thinking; theistic evolution is merely a compromise position by those who have departed from their Bible). For a view of what creationist biology might actually look like, I suggest you start here. I believe you will find it quite interesting:

http://creation.com/what-biology-textbooks-never-told-you-ab...

God bless.

Speaking for myself, I don't understand understand how people can choose a book of questionable origin and authenticity as their authority on matters concerning life and death.

Whatever that page is trying to say has most likely already been addressed here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

I scanned the link you posted, found it actually is confirming one of the arguments on the blog post, about the Piltdown man Hoax. And it says in the link you posted that science corrects errors. On the blog post link i posted, one of the arguments is that in the bible it is written the shape of the earth (circle)

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth… ISAIAH 40:22

One of the argument of the writer of the blog post, in his other articles (e.g http://esoriano.wordpress.com/2007/05/25/from-dust-to-man-a-...). is that Science and the Bible doesn't contradict each other. He points out mistakes of other religions, for the wrongful claims of other religions for example that the earth is only 6000 year old or so.

The 'arguments' you refer to are meant to support the idea that the theory of evolution is "senseless" (the author's own choice of words). Given that evolution is pretty much a scientific fact, the author clearly believes that the Bible contradicts science.

Now I'm going to be blunt: neither you nor the author have a sufficient understanding of the philosophy of science to be drawing any conclusions regarding science.

I've been trying to sit this one out, but I've got to be blunt with YOU: how can anyone with a "sufficient understanding of the philosophy of science" draw the conclusion that evolution works?! Simply put, the scientific process is supposed to be: observe -> hypothesize -> test -> revise. If life is supposed to have arisen by purely natural processes, then the information-building, error-checking and correcting code system that is our DNA must have somehow constructed itself. I am not aware of any experiments following the scientific process that have demonstrated that such a thing is even remotely possible. Instead you have a bunch of "just so" stories about the distant past that are untestable ancient history that we are supposed to believe because we are told to do so by "people who are smarter than you". Smacks more of religion than "science" to me. And don't tell me about any experiments that demonstrate rapid speciation as evidence of evolution - that is NOT the same thing and is an equivocation I see proponents of evolution use all the time. They are instead examples of genetic isolation and information LOSS and are incapable of generating more complex, "higher" organisms. It is for this reason that some scientists have adopted the idea of intelligent design: information can only be created by an intelligent designer. I would expect a forum populated by people who write code to see that. I think that the idea of even a simple computer being able to construct AND program itself would be preposterous to most people here. And yet that is what the GTE proposes. Perhaps that points too much in the direction of a god for some people to accept, but the evidence seems to be clearly on the side of ID, IF you are truly following a "scientific" process.

An organism made out of 100 trillion machines? "Science" says it happened by accident. Not much point in arguing though. I'll just leave people with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id2rZS59xSE

Evidence is not on the side of ID. ID is not a scientific theory. It cannot be confirmed or falsified. It does not explain anything. Its premise is flawed (I don't know how X happened therefore Y must be true). Believe in ID if you want but don't confuse it with science.

Indirect evidence, at least beyond the step of abiogensis, is overwhelming. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

There are probably no documented examples of macroevolution that would satisfy you because what you're looking for are systemic functional changes in non-microscopic species, in the wild, which then forms a stable population as a separate species. Such changes are the accumulation of minor changes (which have been observed), but are not observable in aggregate in modern times because there has not been enough time to observe them. And if such examples were given, you'd say that's just a variation of an existing species. The perspective required to judge a separate species in your view is longer than the time phylogeny has been rigorously undertaken by scientists. You are asking for the impossible and using that to declare a theory you don't like as invalid.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

The GTE as you call it is not a finished theory. There have been significant changes in the past few decades (Lynn Margulis's work on endosymbiosis, for example), and there will be more changes in the future.

Intelligent Design is not based on evidence. It is not falsifiable. It is not a scientific theory. It is a quasi-theory-of-the-gaps based on the assumption that the progress of evolution is too small and too slow to have resulted in humans. It ignores the mountains of indirect evidence pointing to macroevolution. ID rejects the theory of evolution on the grounds that there is too little direct evidence, or that the probability (not that anyone can calculate it properly, but Creationists pretend they can) of evolution is too low, and posits an alternate "theory" of a designer, for which there is no evidence, nothing that allows calculating a probability of such a designer, and which completely ignores where the designer came from, typically by punting and declaring the designer God, and stating that God exists inherently, which is riddled with assumptions, and regardless of whether it's true says nothing about the nature of that God or what it might want or do.

The changes you refer to are examples of the equivocation I was speaking of. One cannot simply point to "changes" in an organism, micro- or not, call that evolution, and then say it must be true. And just because there are similarities evident in different types of organisms, it does not necessarily follow that they are of common descent. If they were designed by the same designer, would you not expect to find some features in common? But this does not mean there is a natural mechanism to turn molecules into a genetic code that can in turn be read by a a decoding system (after all, what good is a code without the decoder?) which can then construct an organism. Even the simplest of organisms must have intricate, complex machinery inside for it to exist. I know of no method whereby this machinery can come into existence without intelligent direction. And even this simplest of organisms has no means of improving upon itself to create a "higher" organism. You say that the accumulation of minor changes (via mutations, perhaps?) is the mechanism whereby evolution works. I posit to you that such changes are examples of broken genetics whereby information is LOST, not gained, and are incapable of building a higher organism. See works such as Michael Behe's "The Edge of Evolution" for a more in-depth look at such changes.

To use your turn of phrase: Evolution is not based on evidence. It is not falsifiable. It is not a scientific theory. It is a quasi-theory-of-the-gaps based on the assumption that there is no higher intelligence that created anything, and all we see HAS to be the result of natural processes. It ignores the mountains of indirect evidence pointing to design.

My point is: we see cars, computers, planes, etc. around us all the time, but we would never dream of suggesting that they are the result of natural processes. They are the obvious result of SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY, which requires some intelligence for its existence. The more we learn about the inner workings of cells, even at the molecular level, the more obvious it is that we are dealing with a SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY.

The problem with 'intelligent design' is that it's such an infantile way of trying to understand the world. Stating "God did it", rather than using one's brain to figure out the mechanisms of how the world works, is just lazy, regressive thinking that doesn't advance our knowledge and understanding in any way whatsoever.

>Such changes are the accumulation of minor changes (which have been observed), but are not observable in aggregate in modern times because there has not been enough time to observe them. //

Is that really true? Drosophila are used for genetic studies with a [shortest] breeding cycle of 7 days and have several ways to introduce mutations that would mimic natural mutagenic mechanisms [but accelerated] as well as being able to apply a lab version of selective pressure [which again would seem to be accelerated].

So far as I can tell we've been doing evolution experiments on drosophila since 1910 or earlier; but lets say a conservative 60 years. That's a potential 3000 generations. What's the least related variant?

For comparison the youngest Neanderthal ancestor is dated as 45000 years old (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morpho...) which puts it within this order of generations.

Macro-evolution isn't rigorous. For example we've long been told it's incontrovertible that 'humans developed from a common ancestor with [knuckle-walking] modern chimps', that this should be believed as a facile result of evolutionary theory and holding out on that assertion is unscientific - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morpho... is an example. Then some evidence is actually found http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091001/full/news.2009.966.ht... that disproves the assertion that was supposed to be based on sound scientific theory and evidence. But of course the theory stand unfalsified because it didn't demonstrate the result claimed at all, it was bad science in the first place.

But 'dogs definitely evolved from modern wolves though!' ... http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/0117/Did-dogs-really-e....

But at least we have evidence of speciation and evolution of dinosaur features:

>"the diversity of dome shapes, and their association with boss and spike ornamentation, suggests that the domes were important for spe- cies recognition (Goodwin and Horner 2004)."

... and the following year everyone agrees that in fact that Dracorex, Stygimoloch and Pachycephalosaurus are just different aged version of the same animal (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091031002314.ht...). And there were similar results for other "species" of dinosaur.

I like this http://www.walkingwithdinosaurs.com/news/editorial/t-rex-gro... as an example of the type of thinking going on. The professor writing it is clearly holding on to the concept that you can give valid incite in to speciation and evolution based on the visual appearance of very limited fossilised remains despite the point of the article being that doing this in the past failed completely in producing truthful results.

It's seems pretty clear relying on "indirect evidence" isn't producing valid results in these cases.

On to your last para. There are enough holes in most Creationists viewpoints not to need to lie about the problems. You say creationism "completely ignores where the designer came from" but it's uncontroversial Christian theology [in common with the other Abrahamic religions] that God is eternal. 'Well who created God?' is the usual response. That, perhaps ironically, exactly mirrors one objection to the Big-Bang - the need for a prime mover. If the Big-Bang doesn't need a prime mover why does God, and vice-versa?

If the earth were as old as lots of people seem to believe, there would be adequate evidence for macroevolution in the fossil record which COULD then be observed. But the fact remains that all of the predicted transitional fossils are notably MISSING. The vast majority of fossils show no change at all when compared to their modern counterparts. I do not see how this can equate to a "mountain of evidence" for macroevolution. And that's assuming you have already got past the problem (which you have already graciously acknowledged) of abiogenesis. Doesn't all of this tell you something?

Well said, HillObeans. I would like to ask permission to quote you in my forthcoming book, Darwin's Knickers (or maybe I'll call it, Knickers to Darwin - I haven't really decided yet [see one of my earlier posts on this deliberation]). I could really learn from you. I have a lot of respect for ID people, as well as for creationists. At least they have taken the trouble to learn and understand the science they're commenting on. Unlike most others.

I just don't understand it. What is it exactly that creationists argue against? What part of the theory of evolution do you disagree with? Is it the fact that there is a thing called DNA? That DNA determines traits of organisms? That DNA gets mixed up as organisms multiply? That some traits are better than others? That this process leads to evolution and natural selection?

I'm sure there are, within the field of evolutionary biology, numerous claims that will turn out to be false, as well as many phenomena not yet understood and explained.

But draw from this the conclusion that the theory of evolution is flawed and must be replaced with creationism, is absurd. The basic claims of the theory are well understood and have been confirmed in the real world over and over again.

Just stop the nonsense.

I see what the author did there, he used DNA to disprove evolution.

It's a poorly argued essay.

The author starts from an assumption that the Bible is true and cherry-picks evidence in an attempt to support that, choosing the interpretation (or misinterpretation) that best fits into his pre-existing biases.

Not convincing unless one has already been indoctrinated into the belief that everything is 'God-given', rather than being more open-minded and inquisitive about the nature of the world.

"Ludicrous"?

Did you read it? Which one did you find ludicrous?

"Elements and minerals found in our body is exactly what are stated in the Bible that we came from the dust (crust) of the earth."

The two pie charts for the Earth's crust look pretty different to me - although the fact that the same colour is used for different elements in the two charts is obviously trying to hide this (the only consistently coloured one is oxygen).

Yeah, I kept looking at that chart, trying to work out the point he was trying to make. It was a very confused essay, in general.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com