Paul Taylor E-mail Debate Part 2By BluJugganaut on comment
Below are the final e-mail exchanges between BluJugganaut and Creation Today host Paul Taylor:
Date: 2011-07-05 15:22:33Dear Paul,
I commited no such fallacy. As my last email showed, the list of scientific disciplines I posted that support evolution was justified and I explained why. Using evidence is not a fallacy. It would have been a fallacy if I made such a list without being able to back up my statements.
You claim that Micro- and Macro-evolution are different. Could you please define each for me so I know where you are coming from?
Could you also direct me to a proposed case of macro-evolution where an increase of genetic information is required? I would also like to point out a speciation process called Polyploidy, which involves duplication of chromosomes. The resultant offspring has an increased number of chromosomes – copies – that can diverge in genetic make-up. This process is a fitting example of increase in genetic information – entire new chromosomes!
The fossil dating, I know, is disagreed with by Creationists. I would like to hear your reasons for not accepting the method of radiometric dating.
Also, studying embryo development has been discredited?
Date: Tuesday, 5 July, 2011, 20:36
The research for all these issues is easy to find. A good university library will turn up reasons why even serious evolutionists do not use the “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny” argument anymore.
I’m sorry, but you will have to accept that your list of “disciplines” which you allege support evolution do not do so. The bait and switch problem applies. However, it is not an error of yours – you have probably made it because you have previously been taught that the difference between micro and macro evolution is simply one of scale. That is because very few biologists have any experience either in information theory or in thermodynamics.
I explained the difference between speciation and macro-evolution in the previous email. In brief – speciation is a selection from existing genetic information. This is observed, rapid and factual. Macro-evolution requires a spontaneous creation of new genetic information at each stage. This is not observed, reckoned to occur over millions of years, and impossible by scientific laws in other disciplines.
Polyploidy has been answered a number of times before. see, for example, http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j20_2/j20_2_82-89.pdf
I didn’t actually mention radiometric dating. I was very careful not to do so, to see if you would bring it up. Radiometric dating is a very strong suit for creationists. One notable piece of research was the analysis of uranium decay within zircon crystals, carried out by a team under the supervision of the Institute for Creation Research. Their results were published in the books Radioactivity and the Age of the Earth, volumes 1 & 2. Their research shows that the zircon crystals give radically different ages when calculated by uranium/lead and by helium diffusion. Another paper in the book shows how different radiometric methods, analyzing the same samples, give radically different results.
I didn’t mention radiometric dating because fossils are not dated by radiometric dating, contrary to popular opinion.
Date: 2011-07-05 16:28:18Dear Paul,
Ontogeny Recapitualtes Phylogeny is still a valid theory today. It is even viewed under the microscope. You are most likely thinking of Ernst Haeckle who thought that developing embryos went through ADULT stages of the evolutionary tree (i.e. the embryo started looking like an adult fish, then adult amphibian, etc…). This idea was shown to be false, as it turns out that the embryo goes through embryonic stages of the evolutionary tree.
This link shows a picture of two dolphin embryos, each at different stages of development: http://qcpages.qc.edu/Biology/Lahti/Research/RelselImages/dolphinembryo.jpg
As you can see, the embryo has leg buds, but these soon disappear. These pictures are not frauds, and embryology has not been scrapped as a whole because a scientist once got a detail wrong at some point. To suggest so is ludicrous.
I must again ask you to tell me of an alleged example of macro-evolution that would require an addition of genetic information.
Addressing Polyploidy, you first claim that there is no means by which information can be increased. You have linked to a paper that describes such processes, and proposes that the duplicated genes usually become detrimental to the organism. Either you have not read the article, or you are deliberately shifting the goalposts. The article states in the first paragraph “Gene duplications do indeed add extra material to the genome, for example, by aberrations in the division of chromosomes during mitosis or meiosis, or by
erroneous DNA replication.”
Since you first claimed that “Macro-evolution … requires the spontaneous input of new information – something which is demonstrably impossible by the laws of information science.” You have just sent me a link which, according to your own logic, proves that macro-evolution can indeed occur. Even according to this article, new material, or information, is added. The issue at hand is whether such duplications are ever beneficial.
As for the radiometric dating, I have not studied the subject at all and must research further. Note however that the date I gave when addressing Marsupial migration was superficial and does not take away from my arguement as far as I am concerned. I do know however that fossils are not dated in such a way, but that the surrounding rock is.
All your points have been answered, and your evidences refuted. The references for these are easy to find, on our website, and on those of Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International.
You are simply incorrect about “ontology recapitulates phylogeny”. It is a discredited discipline. This is quite apart from the fraudulent drawings of the founder of the discipline, Ernst Haeckel. Serious evolutionists do not use the theory. You will find this easy to check in your university library.
The dolphin limb buds are not what they appear. All embryos, while immature, will seem to have formations that alter as they become more developed. Once again, this proves nothing. And you are relying on the discredited notions referred to above. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/1105dolphin-legs.asp
Macro-evolution requires new information at each stage. That is the definition of evolution. That is how you suppose humans have eventually arisen from “lesser” forms.
We could continue this correspondence forever, but it serves little purpose. Suffice to say that you know of at least one person who has been involved in science education for a lifetime, who does not accept evolution, and you know of a first-class zoology student who does not believe it. There are senior research scientists in pretty much every discipline who do not believe in evolution. So the idea that evolution is a proven fact is clearly not the case.
It IS clearly the case, however, that the majority of scientists are on your side, and believe in evolution. There is no doubt about that. Of course, science has never proceeded by majority vote.
What is more important – and I will leave you with this thought – is to question WHY you believe in evolution. It is not because of the evidence – because I can show that every piece of evidence you produce has an alternative explanation. It could be that the evidence, on balance, convinces you – that would be a reasonable supposition. But why does the evidence convince you, when it doesn’t convince me? It is because, as the educationalist Mark Roques said, evidence is always interpreted in the light of a person’s worldview. Lewontin at least admitted that the evidence does not necessarily verify evolution – but evolution has to be believed anyway, because the alternative is out of the question. As long as you can cling to a naturalistic explanation of the universe, you do not have to make an account with God.
It seems that you wish to end this exchange, and while I believe that is indeed getting nowhere and that this should be our final exchange on this subject, I must clear up one final thing from your last email.
You quote, “Macro-evolution requires new information at each stage. That is the definition of evolution. That is how you suppose humans have eventually arisen from “lesser” forms.”
I do not infact define “macro-evolution” as such. I define macro-evolution as the formation of two or more new species unable to interbreed with each other. I do not define it as an increase in information. Ape-to-human does not require new information, but modification of already present information. Taking the Morganucodon species from earlier, not even a transition from this species to human requires new information. It’s simply a modification of old/present genes. By your own definition, Morganucodon to human evolution is micro-evolution (unless of course someone can find a feature of humans that requires and entire new gene to appear in the genome.) This is also shown is your inability to state a single transition requiring new information after I asked for such twice in previous emails. You also failed to refute Polyploidy (though you attempted to shift the goalposts), a satisfactory explanation for an increase in information.
Whenever I came to you with evidence or refutation, you either ignored it and changed the subject or, in the embryology case, dismissed an entire scientific discipline as completely discredited, when such a statement is obviously false.
Again, thank you for the discussion, and I will continue watching your show. I may leave comments on your videos. If you ever see the user BluJugganaut, that’s me. I’m sorry that the discussion has not been entirely productive. Hope you have a pleasant Summer. =)
So strange that so many scientists that accept Evolution and are Theists disagree with him! You would think that Scientists that believe in God would embrace the “evidence” Paul so proudly promotes. Evidence that has NOT been in any serious Scientific Journal as far as I can tell. I wonder why!? I’ve read the entire discussion and not once have I seen Paul make a valid rebuttal. This man is a joke! Plain and simple!