User talk:Standonbible/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

apology

I replied here although you may miss it in all the noise. Sorry i missed your genuine point in the first post. There were a few keywords and arguments you made that were very similar to the many trolls that have passed through. At least now you have everyones attention in a good way. ;) David D. (Talk) 04:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand and I appreciate that. I think that a lot of people pass through WP that aren't familiar with WP policy or even the five pillars (check out some of my early edits for an example!) and they tend to put a sour taste in everyone's mouth. I think I have come up with a good compromise for the whole situation - I'd like you to check it out and support it if you would. standonbible 13:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Evolution

Hey Standonbible, I am also a creationist and cannot tolerate Wikipedia's sickening bias towards evolution. But trying to get these blockheads to listen to reason is like trying to teach a mouse to read; IT ISN'T POSSIBLE. These guys are bullheaded and stubborn; they are completely decieved by a filthy lie, and a great many of the Proverbs talk about how fools mock at reason and wisdom. It's great that you want to get the page changed, but I doubt it's going to happen because evolutionist bigots have a monopoly on Wikipedia. I'd advise you to try this site instead. It is only edited by creationists. Ratso 22:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ratso, I appreciate your support. Note that I told the other editors I would stay off the Talk:Evolution page for a while at FeloniousMonk's page. Hopefully if we stick to the five pillars as closely as possible and ask for specific examples when they accuse us of pushing POV we will be able to make positive changes slowly but surely. And by the way that creationwiki looks neat. standonbible^Talk! 23:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes creationwiki has one thing going for it: it contains absolutely no science. Thus there is nothing to counter dogmatic, self-chosen mental blindness. Pretty cool. •Jim62sch• 10:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You shut your mouth! You have no idea what you're talking about! Evolution has nothing going for it; it is the "self-chosen mental blindness". Wikipedia's article on evolution contains no science; it is biased and wishes evolution to be true. Now you can stop your uneducated comments and actually check out the backgrounds of the users, who are scientists, and stop your bashing and ungrounded criticism. Thanks. BadE 01:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you go to EvoWiki (or EvilWiki as I call it) and edit there since you hate Creationism so much? BadE 01:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to start a fight here. Yes, JimPsycho or whatever, Creationwiki does not allow anyone but creationists to edit, but then again Wikipedia and this EvoWiki don't take edits from creationists, so what's the difference? There's no difference. So stop your whining and complaining about creationist sites such as Creationwiki, and stop your inflammatory comments, both of you guys. Ratso 01:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad example

Standonbible and Ratso, I am shocked that Christians would use either subversive or disingenuous methods to change an article-like evolution. The Evolution article is pure science and not POV, which obviously POV is what you are pushing. Perhaps I should gather other evolution proponents (both secular and Christian) to attack the creationwiki site.Oh wait, that would be unethical (nor Christ-like)! It is obvious your intent is not to improve an encyclopedia article but POV push. It is shameful. How can you witness to someone you just mislead?GetAgrippa 12:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Subversive or disingenuous, hmmm? What is so disingenuous about stating that I want to stick to the five pillars as much as possible and ask for specific examples of what is so POV about my proposed edits?

Obviously we disagree on whether the Evolution article is "pure science". You accuse me of pushing POV but you fail to explain how requesting better citations for possibly disputed statements is POV. My "obvious" intent is to clarify possibly disputed statements with more targeted sourcing, not to POV push. Give me an example of:

• How I mislead (misrepresented my position, said one thing at one place and another thing somewhere else).
• How I was subversive (probably when I told Ratso to stick more closely to the five pillars.
• Where I have edit-warred.
• Where my proposed edits are POV if you take into consideration that I consider the evolutionary model to be highly disputed (note, it would be POV to state those considerations in an edit, but it is not POV to use those considerations to see where better sourcing is needed).
• Where I have proposed an edit that makes ID or creationism seem more likely.

Here's how I can witness: "From the creation of the world, God's invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that mankind is without excuse." Creation declares the power of God, not the random forces of nature. Out of respect for the five pillars I don't push this view in my edits, but it is something you can expect when you ask about witnessing.

Your accusations are unfounded and show a deep disregard for WP:AGF if someone disagrees with your POV. standonbible^Talk! 13:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Standonbible I apologize for my poor word choice. You were upfront that you are a creationist and you have not broken any rules on this Wiki (at least to my knowledge). However you are naive about evolution, which your discussion with Roland below is good example. My POV has nothing to do with contributing to this article, nor will my POV shade any contribution to this article. My comment is really a "heart" issue. I believe your intent is not neutral to improve a science article. Would you deny that your intent is to introduce wording into the Evolution article which raises suspect or questions the veracity of evolution? That is my point. This is not a personal attack nor questioning your honesty, it has nothing to do with my POV about evolution, but this is a question of the heart. It is clear that some secular editors see your effort as disingenous and an attempt to introduce creationism. That is why I comment and why I am concerned.GetAgrippa 17:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My intent is not "to introduce wording into the Evolution article which raises suspect or questions the veracity of evolution". Rather, my intent is to introduce wording that will allow readers to explore all aspects of evolutionary theory so that they can decide for themselves. I believe that the secular editor's views on my edits result from many past creationist edits that were disingenious and that presupposition about creationists has been applied to me. standonbible^Talk! 03:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

standonbible, I hope you got the main massage from the lengthy discussion over at Evolution. Your proposed edits cannot be applied solely to the Evolution article (the reason why I consistently use Gravity as an analogy to show the weird conclusions that must arise for other scientific articles if we follow your edits). Articles that expound this conundrum further are uniformitarianism, Occam's Razor/parsimony, and most importantly the scientific method.--Roland Deschain 15:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, Roland, and I appreciate the way you are expressing yourself here. Som many people lose their heads in this kind of discussion that a peaceful discussion like yours is refreshing.

I also understand that since the majority share your point of view, I won't be able to do much of anything about it. But here's my point of view: gravitational attraction between two masses is a phenomenon that takes place 100% of the time under any circumstances. However, the theory of evolution (as accepted by the majority of scientists) is a very random process that only takes place under certain circumstances (environmental stress, reproduction rates, etc.). I would argue that it hasn't been observed to happen at all, but that is another discussion. :-). Since significant evolutionary progress taking place under any given circumstances is not guaranteed, it is quite speculative to state affirmatively that all the diversity of life results from evolution in the past. In contrast, gravitational attraction always takes place under all circumstances. Hence my comparison with something that might happen under certain circumstances - like a landslide caused by water freezing and cracking rocks. Obviously you and the majority of editors don't see it this way so I suppose that's how it will have to stand. Thanks! standonbible^Talk! 15:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Evolution is the antithesis of a random process ;). Nobody would believe or defend that we have evolved through a random process. Evolution takes place under every situation ever observed (just like gravity); no organism has been observed that does not evolve, even when the environment is perfect and no stress is applied. Evolution is just as much a constant as gravity, albeit a far more complex constant with many more variables (Gravity has only mass and distance, lucky physicists). Nobody has every observed no evolution taking place (as nobody has ever observed a mass not produce a gravitational pull), so these two examples are closely intertwined. Again, my main point is that evolution always (every generation) takes place. If you can find me an organism found not to evolve, I'd be greatly surprised (notice I didn't say anything about rates of evolution).--Roland Deschain 15:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we are confusing definitions here :-). I am not talking about natural selection or speciation - those, like gravity, occur the same way under any given circumstances. I am talking about the mutations that are required to create new traits and cause evolutionary progress. You state "no organism has been observed that does not evolve" - it is true that no group of organisms is unaffected by natural selection but, on the flip side, new traits arising through random mutation are rarely observed at all. Every generation undergoes changes, but usually those changes stem from variation within the genetic code, not new traits that gene duplication and polyploidy create. Genetic variation cannot give reptiles feathers or fish lungs - you need specific (yet random) beneficial mutations for that, and such mutations are pretty rare.

To bring it back to the gravity example: a rock allowed to fall above a cliff will always cause a landslide. But only occasionally will water freeze and crack the rock, allowing it to fall. Likewise, change always happens between generations. But only occasionally (if ever) will the mutations take place that are necessary to turn worms to Wikipedians. standonbible^Talk! 16:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"new traits arising through random mutation are rarely observed at all"

• You are deeply mistaken there. The speed with which new traits evolve surprised even the more conservative evolutionary scientists. Nylon-eating bacteria are just one example of the top of my head that shows how quickly new traits evolve (the website also has rebuttals to creationist objections). The evolution of the molecular machinery for eye sight (a huge amount of literature is out there) shows just how easily genome duplications produce utterly new traits (some not even related to sight). Now, all these things have been observed only in the last 100 years. But evolution had at least 3 billion years to happen.

The nylon-eating bacteria was a frameshift mutation that shifted a set of base pairs over X number of pairs. However, the bacteria always mutated this way when subjected to a certain environmental stress. That is because the genetic code was already written for the nylon digestion enzyme but was hidden under a frameshift layering. Either the Designer of the bacteria wrote this ability to mutate and reveal new abilities that were already there into the original DNA code, or this enzyme used to exist but an earlier frameshift mutation had temporarily hidden them. For example: if your browser accidentally rendered www.microsoft.com backwards and it was an explanation of how to fix the problem with the browser, you wouldn't assume that such accidental renderings generate all self-help articles. Rather, you would commend the designers of the Microsoft homepage for being able to design their source in such a helpful way - so that it would reveal new information when the new information was needed. standonbible^Talk! 03:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that your statement "evolution had at least 3 billion years to happen" is an "argument from incredulity" - the same thing that proponents of ID are often accused of presenting. For example, often ID proponents show how large the odds of abiogenesis not happening are and say "look: it's so unlikely it can't happen". This is an argument from incredulity. However, saying "it had so long to happen" is the same kind of argument. More on the rest of your argument later. standonbible^Talk! 03:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Genetic variation cannot give reptiles feathers or fish lungs"

• Again, a very mistaken statement. Lung fish do exist (Lungfish), exactly as would be predicted by evolution. To say that genetic variation cannot give fish lungs is a deeply ignorant and uneducated statement. The lung fish are there and the genetic analysis shows them to be between the fish and the amphibians (exactly as evolution would predict). Feathered reptile fossils have also been found (last year payed $50 bucks to see all those fossils in one place, the feathers are beautifully preserved) (Feathered dinosaurs. I do remember the false fossil, but that took scientists less than two weeks to expose as such. Now, these finding are only 20 years old. Keep your eyes open for many more feathered reptile fossils. The genetic evidence alone shows birds to be closely related to reptiles. The research to find the genetic basis for feather has just started, so look out in the next couple of decades for more confirmation that reptiles indeed (over millions of years) grew feathers and beaks ;).

When I said "genetic variation cannot give fish lungs" I meant that natural selection cannot give the information for lungs to a creature without that information. If the information for lungs does not exist in a particular genome, genetic variation can't bring it out - you need a series of mutations. That's all that I was saying. standonbible^Talk! 03:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

But I'm not here to argue about the validity of evolution (the 200,000 scientific articles published in the last 75 years can do that much better). I only advise you that next time you start a discussion over at Evolution to actually bring along verifiable sources.--Roland Deschain 17:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. But now you know my position. I suppose that if I brought a link to a peer-reviewed article from Ebscohost or something that stated "Mutations necessary for evolutionary progress happen only rarely" that would suffice?

I'll continue the conversation shortly - not for the sake of the Evolution article but just so that you know what I think about the examples you cited :-). Till then, 18:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't get hung up on the rare beneficial mutation (I totally agree that beneficial mutations are rare). But rare mutation x 3 billion years x a vast vast vast number of organisms that have lived makes all the difference. Michael Behe, the scientific front man for Intelligent Design (and a really smart guy) tried to use the rare beneficial mutation fact during the Dover trial to show evolution lacking. Read up the transcript to see how that argument is destroyed.--Roland Deschain 19:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so you have "rare mutations X 3,000,000,000 years X all the organisms that have ever lived = evolution". Fine. Unfortunately, if the first factor is 0, it doesn't matter if you have 3 trillion years: evolution would still be flat. You've mentioned one example so far: the nylon-eating bacteria. And that information (for the new enzyme) was already in the gene because it had been designed that way; no matter how many times you subject the bacteria to that stress you still get the new enzyme. As of yet I haven't seen any random mutations that actually increase the usable information in the genome (i.e. both have new alleles and provide an advantageous physical trait that will insure the new genotype is passed on through the population). standonbible^Talk! 03:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts...

From what I can tell, much of what you say, standonbible, is based on your limited knowledge in the areas being discussed (disclaimer: I don't mean this as an insult and would point out that all of us have more ignorance than knowledge). The reason i mention this is that you did not seem to be aware, or disagree with the biological observation, that an increase in genetic information is possible. You had said we should continue on the talk page, so i am intersted to hear your perspective on this issue. I am reading with interest the discussion above and I think you are clearly very bright. With that in mind there are a few things I would like to point out to get us on the right track.

1. There is a misconception that evolution is about marching forward to improvement. The theory of evolution does not consider the quality of change. It only considers what survives. The fittest is not always the best. Look at humans, they can't make vit C
2. A similarity between scientists and creationists is we all have more questions than answers!
3. A difference between scientists and creationists is that the scientists often have more information available to make informed analysis
4. I know a university lecturer in biology who is deeply religious and has a joint appointment in religious studies. Biologists are not all atheists and i think that says a lot more than any scientific argument for evolution.
5. With respect to the origin of life, simple cells on Earth are highly derived from an evolutionary perspective. In other words, no modern organism can be used as a model for the first cell since they are the end point of evolution. We need to consider their ancestors. The probability to come up with a modern cell is a different problem to calculating the probability of the first cell. Scientists have very little idea of what the first cell might have been and the few models that do exist are almost certainly wrong, however, that is the nature of science. The most important point I can make here, with respect to evolution and the origin of life, is that they are very different questions. The theory of evolution only addresses the diversity of life, it does not address how life began. Scientific models for evolution are not weakened by our huge ignorance with respect to the origin of life.

I think that this is enough for starters but these represent some common arugments that I come across from students in biology classes. David D. (Talk) 18:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey David D. - I must say that I agree with the majority of your statements for the most part. No arguments - I understand that evolutionary progress is more about what survives than what gets better. I would also state that I don't think a Christian can hold to a position that is contrary to that taught in the Bible if they understand the issues, but that is an entirely different discussion.

Obviously the debate was about evolution and not abiogenesis, but I'd be happy to tackle abiogenesis as well. According to a Nature article (I can't remember where it was but I can find it if I need to), scientists have decided that the minimum number of genes necessary to support reproducing, material-ingesting life is somewhere around 200 genes. Absolute minimum. A basic gene has around 1,000 base pairs, which means that 200,000 DNA base pairs must be in the right order for reproduction and ingestion of nutrients to take place. Obviously a different type of code than DNA could have formed, but since we are talking about a certain amount of information the necessary odds would still apply. Even if the right amino acids had formed randomly, they had somehow folded into proteins, and through a combination of hypercycles and clay crystal capsules had formed a DNA chain, it would still have only one out of 10^120,412 possible combinations that would support life. If every particle in the universe (10⁸⁰) attempted to form into the right arrangement 10 times every second, it would still take 10¹⁸⁸ years before you would be guaranteed to have the right combination. The universe (by evolutionary standards) has only been around for 10¹⁰ years, which means the universe is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times too young to support abiogenesis - once.standonbible^Talk! 04:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor points regarding vandal warnings

Regarding [1] - when issuing a warning it is good to use {{subst:warning}} rather than {{warning}} . Among other issues, it reduces server load (or something like that, I don't fully understand the details). Second and very nitpicky- blatant vandal is generally for a blatant vandal who has few or no other warnings. Since the user has two prior warnings, test3 might have made more sense (this is a very minor note and is arguably more stylistic than anything else). JoshuaZ 03:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, man. standonbible^Talk! 03:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Your Intro:

You write in your intro: "Since no random gene duplication or polyploidy has been seen to actually increase the usable information in the genome or cause new traits to appear"

Now, I'll be the last to tell you to write what in your intro, but that statement is false. There are at last 5000 papers that I can find that deal with evolution as a result of gene duplication. Here are some if you are interested:

• [2]
• Gene duplications and the origins of vertebrate development
• Duplication and divergence: the evolution of new genes and old ideas.
• The evolution of morphological complexity in zebrafish stripes

I write this because the above sentence is a favorite creationist argument. I might be totally wrong on this (I read the transcripts a long time ago), but that argument was used by the creationist in 1987 when the supreme court rules that creationism was unconstitutional. These papers weren't published at the time, but the known hemoglobin (allows transport of oxygen through blood) evolution, through gene duplication, was used to show that the above absolutist statement was false.--Roland Deschain 05:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's see here. The first article was a speculative description of how antibody-based immune systems might have come about - "This might have happened, that might have happened" but no example of an actual, observed mutation of the type we are talking about is given. Likewise, the second is speculation about evolutionary history but lacks examples. The fourth attempts to read the process of evolution in reverse in a particular area, but it has no examples.

The third article you gave looks like it would be rather interesting - a list of the occurrences and consequences of gene duplication. Unfortunately I can't get the actual article from it so I can't evaluate what it says past the abstract.

I think that the disagreement is over how "usable information in the genome or cause new traits to appear" is defined. I would like to see an example of a random mutation that gives a heritable, advantageous trait to the organism (in order for natural selection to "disseminate" new genetic information it must be both heritable and advantageous).

Oh - and the Supreme Court never ruled that creationism was unconstitutional - it struck down laws banning the teaching of evolution. Big difference. standonbible^Talk! 04:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you on the evolution page

And I thought I would say hi. You are doing well by trying to inject some rationality into the discussion and help people work constructively. Although creationists are always looking in speciation for evidence of a Creator (which I do not think is particularly fruitful), I thought I would compile a short list of suggested other places to look for evidence of God in science. These are far harder to consider because they require more thought and investigation. However, they are far more likely in my estimation to have positive results than hashing over the same old speciation ground that everyone has beat to death for more than 150 years. Plus, the science involved is very cool. You can find a cursory list of these areas on my homepage. If you want to know more, let me know.--ReasonIsBest 07:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Reason! Thanks for the vote of confidence; I am sure that we both have similar goals for Wikipedia. Unfortunately your characterization is not exactly correct; I don't go around looking for evidence for a Creator. Romans 1:20 says that God created the entire universe as a testimony to His creative power - and that people who ignore this are without excuse. The Bible is self-proving and it is supported by science. I am not trying to shove God into well-established scientific ideas; Darwin formulated the speculative hypothesis of universal common descent by natural selection as a way of rejecting God (his daughter had died at a very young age and his journal entries reflect his anger towards God). Darwinian evolution fell flat after we understood genetics, but the scientific community recreated it using mutation theory.

You will notice that I have not mentioned God on the evolution page because I am not trying to shove the supernatural into science; rather I am trying to make the article more informative so that people can see the large flaws in evolutionary theory for themselves.

Anyways, thanks for the comment. I checked out your list on your home page and it looks pretty interesting - I'll have to look at it further. Thanks and happy editing! standonbible^Talk! 13:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well some people are looking for evidence in science to "prove" or support their beliefs. I am sure you are aware of some in creation science or intelligent design who are. Some are like me. We know that there is no physical evidence for certain beliefs, we just choose to have them, by faith. We don't worry about the physical evidence, which might not exist. If we are wrong, so what? Evolution of course has been altered in significant ways since Darwin proposed it. There are even Lamarckian ideas being introduced into it in some ways. I would not expect it to stay the same for the next 500 years, or even next 50 years. The theory is going to be forced to incorporate new evidence. It might eventually be superceded or replaced of course. All scientific theories are on the potential chopping block. But in the meantime, many parts of evolution are extremely well established. And also, the theory of evolution appears to have incredible powers of prediction, or at least it is believed to have them. And since it is useful, or it is felt to be useful, it is widely accepted and prominent. I compiled the list of ideas because I feel that a lot of effort is being "wasted" in trying to find holes in evolution by religious people. Some want to support their faith, some want proof of their faith, some want to prove the bible is "right", or some other holy book, some have decided that evolution is satanic somehow, etc. However, creationists are unlikely to find holes or problems with evolution after 150 years of intense effort. Much more well-trained scientists are frantically looking for holes themselves, since if one can find evidence of something that evolution can not explain, they will make their careers. It is not blindly accepted. It is tested and studied over and over and over by an army of scientists. It is extremely well-established. However, if a person wants to look at an area which is far more fecund with possibilities for investigating evidence of a creator, then there are many of them. Off the top of my head, I made a short list. These are all mysterious areas, and not well understood at all, and areas in which even scientists and atheists of various stripes will seriously contemplate the existence of a creator or what might be viewed by some as "supernatural" influences (although it might not be called "supernatural" of course). The only drawback is that to study these is very very difficult. It is also exciting, because the science in these areas is far more intricate and compelling than something as deadly dull as random mutations feeding into natural selection (sorry I am not a biologist). I would be glad to discuss them with you further.--ReasonIsBest 16:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)