Dreaded Memes: July 2008

On one of the discussion groups I participate in, the issue of creationism came up. I posted the following to the group as a means of comparing and contrasting between Creationism and Evolution. My argument is that there are a number of core differences between how creationists and scientists deal with their respective ideas. One of the first and most poignant things one notices is that in evolutionary biology, work proceeds apace without any reference to creationism. One could read through journals and never encounter a single reference to creationism. Put more bluntly, evolutionary biology stands on its own as a scientific theory. It explains phenomena based upon its own rules and need not look to creationist literature for definition. On the other hand, Creationism is what I call a negative theory. By this neologism, I mean that creationism can only define itself in reference to evolutionary biology. There are no free-standing creationist ideas, meaning that all of creationism can be encapsulated in the statement: “Evolutionary biology is wrong, therefore creationism is true”. This is stunningly sloppy logic. It is akin to assuming that because I don’t care for eggplant, that I must like okra.

I’ll spare you the discussion group specific run-up and jump right into it:

I Googled for the exact same terms, changing ONLY the word
creationism or evolution. I will take a representative sample of text
from *each* result which appears to best demonstrate the respective
positions. My first search was "Genetic evidence for evolution" and
"Genetic evidence for creationism":
Here is a representative sample from a paper on evolution:
From the Abstract:
Rapid evolution driven by positive Darwinian selection is a recurrent  theme in male reproductive protein evolution. In contrast, positive  selection has never been demonstrated for female reproductive  proteins. Here, we perform phylogeny-based tests on three female  mammalian fertilization proteins and demonstrate positive selection  promoting their divergence. Two of these female fertilization  proteins, the zona pellucida glycoproteins ZP2 and ZP3, are part of  the mammalian egg coat. Several sites identified in ZP3 as likely to  be under positive selection are located in a region previously  demonstrated to be involved in species-specific sperm-egg interaction,  suggesting the selective pressure is related to male-female  interaction. The results provide long-sought evidence for two  evolutionary hypotheses: sperm competition and sexual conflict.
From the Discussion:
We have demonstrated that the female reproductive proteins ZP2, ZP3,  and OGP are subjected to positive Darwinian selection. These results  lend support to the models of sperm competition (1, 18, 19), sexual  conflict (2, 20, 37), and cryptic female choice (15) driving the  evolution of reproductive proteins, because these models involve male-  female interactions. It is important for functional as well as  evolutionary studies to examine the rapid evolution of both female and  male reproductive proteins. Functional studies can glean important  information not only from conserved regions of the molecules but also  from the divergent regions under positive selection, because the  latter may be functionally important for specificity. Our analysis  identified several sites in ZP3 under positive selection. These  include a region previously implicated as functionally important in  sperm-egg interaction (41–43). Additionally, a region in ZP3  immediately following the signal sequence was identified (Fig. 1  Right) for which tests of functional importance have not been reported  and which our data predict might also play a role in species  specificity. The sites we identified in ZP2 as likely to be under  positive selection are candidates to test for functional importance in  ZP2's role as receptor for acrosome-reacted sperm (21, 27).
It is likely that the evolution of additional female and male  reproductive proteins also are promoted by positive Darwinian  selection. For example, many reproductive proteins (including ZP2,  ZP3, and the sperm protamines analyzed here, but not OGP) are found in  the 10% most divergent sequences from an aligned set of 2,820 human-  rodent orthologs (ref. 51 and our unpublished analyses). These  reproductive molecules are as divergent as many genes involved in  immune response. Another ZP glycoprotein (ZP1) is also among these  rapidly evolving proteins, but insufficient phylogenetic sampling to  date precluded its analysis by using likelihood ratio tests. Future  sequencing and phylogenetic analyses of these reproductive proteins  are necessary to determine whether their rapid divergence is promoted  by positive selection or caused by lack of constraint. It also will be  important to determine in general what proportion of reproductive  proteins show signs of selectively driven rapid evolution seen herein.
Our demonstration of positive Darwinian selection in female as well as  male reproductive proteins lends support for models of sexual conflict  and sperm competition driving the divergence of reproductive proteins  (2, 20, 37). Although the nature of the selective pressure remains  unclear, our observation that selection acts to diversify a region in  ZP3 previously identified as functionally important for species  specificity suggests that the selective pressure may be related to  male-female interaction, in this case sperm-egg interaction.
The entire paper, so that you can read the whole thing (I cut out  2/3rds of the paper for the sake of length and because it gets VERY  technical), is located at: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
One will note that in neither the abstract OR the discussion is ANY  reference made to creationism. (You will not find it in the technical  text that I omitted either) You will also notice, in the conclusion,  that the authors make a positive argument FOR evolution not a negative  argument *against* creationism. This is what we would expect from a  proper scientific paper.
Here is what the search for creationism pulled up:
32. Genetic Distances
Similarities between different forms of life can now be measured with  sophisticated genetic techniques.
Proteins. “Genetic distances” can be calculated by taking a specific  protein and examining the sequence of its components. The fewer  changes needed to convert a protein of one organism into the  corresponding protein of another organism, supposedly the closer their  relationship. These studies seriously contradict the theory of  evolution.a
An early computer-based study of cytochrome c, a protein used in  energy production, compared 47 different forms of life. This study  found many contradictions with evolution based on this one protein.  For example, according to evolution, the rattlesnake should have been  most closely related to other reptiles. Instead, of these 47 forms  (all that were sequenced at that time), the one most similar to the  rattlesnake was man.b Since this study, experts have discovered  hundreds of similar contradictions.c
DNA and RNA. Comparisons can also be made between the genetic material  of different organisms. The list of organisms that have had all their  genes sequenced and entered in databases, such as “GenBank,” is  doubling each year. Computer comparisons of each gene with all other  genes in the database show too many genes that are completely  unrelated to any others.d Therefore, an evolutionary relationship  between genes is highly unlikely. Furthermore, there is no trace at  the molecular level for the traditional evolutionary series: simple  sea life fish amphibians reptiles mammals.e Each category of  organism appears to be almost equally isolated.f
Humans vs. Chimpanzees. Evolutionists say that the chimpanzee is the  closest living relative to humans. For two decades (1984–2004),  evolutionists and the media claimed that human DNA is about 99%  similar to chimpanzee DNA. These statements had little scientific  justification, because they were made before anyone had completed the  sequencing of human DNA and long before the sequencing of chimpanzee  DNA had begun.
Chimpanzee and human DNA have now been completely sequenced and  rigorously compared. The differences, which total about 4%, are far  greater and more complicated than evolutionists suspected.g Those  differences include about “thirty-five million single-nucleotide  changes, five million insertions/deletions, and various chromosomal  rearrangements.”h Although it’s only 4%, a huge DNA chasm separates  humans from chimpanzees.
Finally, evolutionary trees, based on the outward appearance of  organisms, can now be compared with the organisms’ genetic  information. They conflict in major ways.i
A couple of things you will otice. Firstly, there is hardly a  sentence that doesn't talk about evolutionists or evolution. If  creationism is such a strong scientific position why is it that it  cannot stand on its own? (And in this instance, I quoted the page in  its entirety). Secondly, you will notice that not a *single* argument  in favor of creationism is made. This was from In the Beginning:  Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood which is a book put  out by the Center for Scientific Creation (which is why I favored this  over the ICR although a page came up for them which, upon reading, had  the same kinds of flaws). The letters standing on their own all  represent footnotes which I ran down and found that those quoting  evolutionary biologists or other scientists were all misquotations (in  fact, one such quotation is such a flagrant and obvious one that I  merely had to put in the name of the scientist quoted and the first  several hits were ALL about the misquotation which makes one wonder  why a purportedly scientific organization would put it in their book  and on their website).
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences37.html
One last comment before moving on. I have been FAR more generous with  creationism than with evolution. After I had found my representative  sample for creationism and genetics, I kept looking for results,  following some 25 links in the hopes of finding ONE paper that had the  kind of scientific gravitas that my representative evolutionary  biology sample did. I could not find one. EVERY web page I found was  similar in that it did not make a case FOR creationism, it made a case  AGAINST evolution. I took the *third* result from my search on  evolution (third on the first page of results) purposely eschewing  TalkOrigins pages.
In other words, while taking pretty much the first thing I could find for evolutionary biology I looked for the BEST thing I could find for creationism and the most solidly academic thing I could find still didn’t stand on its own.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Comparing and Contrasting Creationism and Evolution

Friday, July 18, 2008

Obama Should Stop Lecturing African Americans

Monday, July 7, 2008

I feel like Mr. Peabody