David Smallberg <das@ucla-cs.ARPA> <das> (09/23/84)
...
Why do we care about the past? So that we can predict the future. Isn't
that a major goal of science?
OK, evolutionists and creation scientists, forget the argument about origins
for a minute and look to the future:
Post some things your science predicts. To be helpful, they
should be verifiable in the near future. To be especially
helpful, post something that your model predicts which is
different from what others predict, and can be tested soon.
(After all, if there are no differences in the models' predictions
for the next few thousand years, then for all practical purposes, it
doesn't really matter which one we accept.)
As an example, evolution predicts that if we look at previously unanalyzed
biochemicals which perform similar functions in different critters [I'll
bet you wanted me to say "species" or "kind"], we should find that the degree
of similarity in their molecular structures is for the most part directly
related to the previously deduced degree of relatedness of the critters.
This would be a consequence of an evolutionary theory, but only a coincidence
in a creation science model. If observed, this would be a point in favor of
that evolutionary model, since coincidence has no predictive power.
-- David Smallberg, das@ucla-cs.ARPA, {ihnp4,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!dasward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (09/24/84)
[] > post something that your model predicts which is > different from what others predict, and can be tested soon. Wassa matta with you? Don't you listen? Mr. Dubois just finished telling you they have no model! :=) > (After all, if there are no differences in the models' predictions > for the next few thousand years, then for all practical purposes, it > doesn't really matter which one we accept.) It matters to me! If our children are taught that religion and science are the same thing, then this present attack on science will have served its puropse, and science will die. >:=( -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (09/24/84)
Of course, the experiment you allude to has been performed between many
species, the most notable being comparisons between chimpanzee and
human hemoglobin molecules, which differ only by a few amino acids
in several subunits; for the most part they are alike. And, as you
say, "relatedness" predicts the number of similarities or differences
between proteins.
On the other hand, I'm not sure just how a creationist is supposed to
react to this, other than claim that God made it that way. Just what DOES
a creationist believe anyway? I've seen statements as to what they don't
believe, but I'm still waiting for someone to claim with a straight face
that the earth is 6000 years old. Or that it is billions of years old,
except that once the earth became habitable, God temporarily rescinded the
laws of physics and suddenly placed all our present day plants and
animals, not to mention Adam and Eve, here. Or some variant.
Naturally, I'm not trying to place words in anyone's mouth. What CAN
one say from a creationist's stand with any certainty? It still sounds
like religion to me...
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPAhammond@mouton.UUCP (09/24/84)
Baloney We are, I assme, talking about a creator postulated to be at least as intelligent as we are! It strikes me as strong evidence for a creator if similar functions are performed by similar molecules in distinct but similar animal/plant groups. E.g. I used TTL in the earliest computer interfaces I worked on, and I used LSTTL in the most recent. That doesn't mean the boards share a common ancestor ( :-) ) but a common creator. Why is it reasonable to assume a creator would come up with a workable molecular system, such as the proteins and DNA/RNA and then not use it every place he/she/it could? Rich Hammond
rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) (09/27/84)
> Baloney > We are, I assme, talking about a creator postulated to be at least as > intelligent as we are! It strikes me as strong evidence for a creator > if similar functions are performed by similar molecules in distinct > but similar animal/plant groups. Why didn't the creator use the SAME molecules for the same functions in different criters (kinds or species). Take cytocrome, one of the respiratory enzymes, as an example. It performs exactly the same function in me, in a chimpanzee, and in the plants on my desk. Why does the ape's protein resemble mine almost exactly, while the plant's are much different. Remember that none of these are improvements. The variation in function is to small to measure. Ralph Hartley rlh@cvl siesmo!rlgvax!cvl!rlh
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (09/28/84)
[][][][]
This kind of discussion quickly gets bogged down into arguments
of what *you* would do if you were God. (I'd get rid of New Jersey,
but that's neither here nor there.)
The interesting thing about the biochemical similarities between
species is that they are a pretty good measure of how *long* it has
been since a common ancestor existed for two species (according to
the fossil record). They are *not* a good measure of how physically
similar two species are. (Except insofar as the second is correlated
with the former, by no means an invariable rule)
Incidentally, the same phenomenon can be seen in human blood proteins.
This can be used to show that (among other things) that Boers have
a significant amount of Bantu ancestry.
Ethan Vishniacdk@browngr.UUCP (David Kantrowitz) (09/30/84)
>> Baloney >> We are, I assme, talking about a creator postulated to be at least as >> intelligent as we are! It strikes me as strong evidence for a creator >> if similar functions are performed by similar molecules in distinct >> but similar animal/plant groups. >Why didn't the creator use the SAME molecules for the same functions in >different criters (kinds or species). Take cytocrome, one of the respiratory >enzymes, as an example. It performs exactly the same function in me, in a >chimpanzee, and in the plants on my desk. Why does the ape's protein >resemble mine almost exactly, while the plant's are much different. >Remember that none of these are improvements. The variation in function >is to small to measure. That's sounds very arrogant. Do you claim to know absolutely everything about the differences between those two enzymes to believe the difference insignificant? Years ago scientists believed the spleen to be an unimportant organ, so they surgically removed it. Thank God, they didn't remove mine. Don't be so hasty to think that current scientific knowledge has the ultimate say on anything. And if God is the author, how much more so.
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (10/03/84)
> Years ago scientists believed the spleen to be an unimportant > organ, so they surgically removed it. Thank God, they didn't remove mine. I'm pretty sure no scientist ever removed anybody's spleen. Medical science is as much an oxymoron as computer science or religious science (excuse me...creationist science). -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
dk@browngr.UUCP (David Kantrowitz) (10/08/84)
You missed my point and concentrated on a minor detail, forcing me to repeat the argument: Science has evolved. We discover new things all the time. This implies that our current scientific knowledge is imperfect and incomplete. So, if we see no significant difference between two enzymes, we don't dare conclude that the Creator has erred (or therefore that there is no Creator and things happen by chance). Our past experiences should only make us more humbly aware of the limitations of our understanding, when compared with the designs of One whose knowledge is perfect and complete. Additionally, if the Creator chose to create the world according to a system of "natural laws", it may have been necessary to create two similar enzymes in order to get just the right numbers of the right kinds of animals. There is a story about King David. He wanted to know what the purpose of spiders is in the world. One day he was being pursued, and he hid in a cave. Along came a spider and made a web on the opening of the cave, making it clear to his pursuer that no one had entered the cave (for otherwise they would have broken the web). Know that a creature's purpose is unknown to us, and every creation has its time and place. For example, Gold is said to have been created specifically so that it would be used in building parts of the temple in Israel (Bais HaMikdash). Accordingly, the many uses gold has been put to in history are insignificant compared to its use in the temple. So the fact that you don't know the significance of one enzyme means merely that you haven't had the privilege of seeing it do *its* thing.
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (10/12/84)
[]
A couple of people, both creationists, have insisted in recent
articles that the point of this discussion is whether or not science
has anything to say about the existence of God. I was shocked to
hear this. I think most of the other people in this discussion
group must have been equally surprised.
The point of this discussion group is, I think, whether or not
science has anything to say about the origin of species, and if so
does "scientific creationism" qualify as a legitimate scientific
hypothesis. This touches on the existence of God only if you
believe that evolution necessarily implies atheism. The logical
leap involved there is too great for me.
"I can't help it if my Ethan Vishniac
knee jerks" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
Department of Astronomy
University of Texas
Austin, Texas 78712