October 25, 2007

Scientist Retracts 1955 Errors Now Cited as Evidence by Creationists

Sometimes it can take a half-century to realize you’ve made a mistake. Homer Jacobson, a professor emeritus of chemistry at the City University of New York’s Brooklyn College, learned that lesson when he decided to Google himself and found that incorrect statements he made in 1955 had come back to haunt him.

To make amends, Mr. Jacobson retracted two statements from an article published in American Scientist magazine more than five decades ago. In a letter in the magazine’s November-December issue, Mr. Jacobson said he had made incorrect assessments of how improbable it would have been for processes on the early earth to bring about the first organisms.

Mr. Jacobson said that it is not normal to retract such old errors but that he was motivated because creationists were now quoting his article to support their cause. “I am deeply embarrassed to have been the originator of such misstatements, allowing bad science to have come into the purview of those who use it for anti-science ends,” he said.

Rosalind Reid, editor of American Scientist, applauded Mr. Jacobson in an editorial in the same issue. “Jacobson responded in the noblest tradition of science,” she wrote. The episode is described in today’s New York Times.

In his original article, Mr. Jacobson asserted that it was “utterly improbable, in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life,” for the environment to create a single amino-acid molecule. He now says that statement was based on a calculation assuming there was no external source of energy involved in forming amino acids.

But in 1953, only two years before Mr. Jacobson wrote those words, a young chemist named Stanley L. Miller and the Nobel laureate Harold C. Urey had published a paper in the journal Science showing how lightning could have caused simple molecules to form amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.

Now Mr. Jacobson notes that electrical discharges, such as lightning, and other forms of energy on the early earth could have provided the energy to produce amino acids. His earlier statement “is completely inapplicable,” he said in the letter. —Richard Monastersky

Comments

1. don’t worry, they wil continue to quote him, and ignore his current comments.

   — MLM    Oct 25, 02:09 PM    #

2. This article gets my vote for the Most Misleading Headline Award. I clicked on ithe link because I was wondering how a single scientist could make one thousand nine hundred and fifty five errors.

   — statmam    Oct 25, 02:56 PM    #

3. Were they all in the same article?

   — Diana    Oct 25, 03:23 PM    #

4. Wow!! Dr. Jacobson is an ethical man, a role model, and a source of inspiration for all. It takes a tough person to recognize a mistake and prevent it from being reproduced. Rather than detracting from Jacobson’s accomplishments, this certainly has added to it. Everyone makes mistakes. Not everyone will admit it.

   — kgotthardt    Oct 25, 03:32 PM    #

5. Statmam – the convention when listing a number would be to include a comma (i.e. 1,955). As such, it is perfectly clear and grammatically correct for them to have written it as they did. The way you read it is really funny for sure, and understandeable, but more about how you read it than it being a “misleading headline”.

   — chilly    Oct 25, 03:33 PM    #

6. As a longtime headline writer and editor I must defend the Chronicle. Had the publication meant the headline to say what statmam erroneously assumed, the writers would have made it clear by using the comma in the numeral form, to wit: 1,955 errors. The form for the year in the headline is the common way of noting calendar years. Don’t pick nits when your own blind your eyes.

   — Justan Editor    Oct 25, 03:37 PM    #

7. I read 1955 as a year since there was no comma between the 1 and the 9.
   MLM is correct, he will be quoted anyway. But, Mr. Jacobson definitely gets my applause!

   — Jim    Oct 25, 03:41 PM    #

8. The author published an article which he believed to have been true in 1955. If he has new evidence upon which to base a new opinion, than write a new article and cite the evidence.

   — Ross    Oct 25, 04:09 PM    #

9. Maybe if Darwin was still around, he might change a few comments too. We will never know. Someday if we get to meet the CREATOR, amybe HE will let us know what happened.

   — stuffy    Oct 25, 04:13 PM    #

10. If this is going to be a grammar lesson, then why not focus on the words as well as the numbers? Why would anyone retract an error? Logically, one corrects errors and retracts statements that are erroneous.

    — Dorothy    Oct 25, 04:22 PM    #

11. Give Statman a break, he was just going for an easy laugh.

    However, had the Chronicle wished to avoid the potential for such mis-reading, they had only to make “mistakes” singular. The article discusses only one mistake – that of having made two erroneous statements in a single article.

    — hereza nit    Oct 25, 04:24 PM    #

12. Dr. Jacobson was right the first time; it is not only improbable, but impossible for life to create on its own. Only a Creator can create life. And regarding the now-bogus Stanley Miller experiment, I have only one question: Who created Stanley Miller??

    — Tom Cole    Oct 25, 04:34 PM    #

13. What appalls me most is that, of the first seven comments, five concerned the composition of the link headline. I live and teach in a not particularly forward thinking part of the US, where educational attainment is near the bottom of the nation and religious fundamentalism seems to be at an all-time high. The situation is not funny. Dr. Jacobson made the decision to address an incorrect conclusion, not simply because it was incorrect, but because it was being used to support a cause outside of science. If we went back through the literature, we would find many errors that subsequent research caught and corrected. The subversion of such an error for theological reasons, regardless of whether we personally agree with the theology, is the basis for Dr. Jacobson’s retraction. And I believe that his action warrants our respect and admiration. Others have noted that not many would take such a bold stand and that the retraction will be ignored by those that find the original error useful. But Dr. Jacobson has done all that he could have to address the problem. Thank you, sir.

    — rcp    Oct 25, 04:46 PM    #

14. Commas, misreadings, criticism and applause aside, it dismays me, as a person of faith AND as a person who values science, that these disparate parts of life seem to some to be irreconcilable. I, for one, view them as two different viewpoints that need not be proven true in order to be valid. (Using the term valid in the popular sense, not the scientific.) I happily live in a world and at a time of great strides in science and technology. I equally happily live in a world and at a time when my faith sustains me in the face of social ills and general human buttheadedness. I’ve just never completely understood why anyone would want to talk me out of either position. Maybe that’s the mark of an idealist.

    — barbara    Oct 25, 04:49 PM    #

15. To Mr. Jacobson:
    To make an assumption in a paper which is later shown not to true does not normally require/necessitate a retraction. Otherwise 90 percent or more of theoretical papers would need to be retracted. simple case, we all know that molecules do not have harmonic potentials, yet 95 percent of biomodelers still use simple harmonic potentials. You state your assumptions, and it is obvious that the conclusions depend on your assumptions/suppositions/premises. This sounds more like political correctness and does more harm to science that it does good. Like the Japanese researcher who has now been asked to retract a Science paper. Erratum in both cases are more in order than retractions. The Schon case was clearly scientific misconduct, but for neither of these cases, does that apppear to be the case. With Jacobson’s work it appears not so much an erratum, but a failure to clearly state his assumptions/suppositions/premises. But to be fair to Jacobson, many other scientist also do not do so clearly and explicitly. Just because something is possible, walking through a wall is possible, the probably that it occurred also must be taken into account, and it does not mean it did occur. Circumstantial evidence is not enough to prove an event occurred. A simple retraction of the paper does not address either issue, and again will only muddle the whole issue. Political correctness has no place in science and those against creationism need to chill out. Creationism is not a simple God created the universe. In molecular biology and molecular biophysics, we are not dealing with the creation of the whole universe, we are only really dealing with/investigating how life possibly formed on earth and in our solar system (if indeed we find any evidence of it on Mars, ...). We are doing what many claim some higher life form or ‘intelligence’ possibly did in the molecular biology labs. We are only scratching the surface, and only now because we are starting to develop and use new tools. In most other fields of science, physics especially most theories have been replaced by better ones: the very simplest Bohr theory of the atom, classical mechanics to name the two most obvious and readily discussed. Biology is undergoing a similar EVOLUTION, where simple evolution as formulated by Darwin has been shown to be way too simplistic, as were Bohr’s theory of the atom and classical mechanics. When one finds new evidence which is not explainable by the old/simple model, one works to revise it. With molecular biology and genetics, a hybrid model which mixes points from both evolution and creationism (insertion of genes into an organism which can create a new species). It will not be long before we make new life forms also, and those who attacked creationists (and molecular biologists and molecular biophysicists/biophysical chemists) will look even more foolish/silly than those who try to keep the shell models of the stars, the Bohr theory of the atom, and classical mechanics. Most theories are overly simplified models, especially at their early stage. Evolution is not a mature and highly scientific theory. No real scientist takes any of our first generation theories/models seriously or as God’s gift to us. We are continually moving forward. Molecular biology is really a misnomer, as early biology is to molecular biology what alchemy is to chemistry. Unfortunate, but true. We just do not have such a clear work like alchemy (a lot of the biological theories still being presented, which have very little molecular and genetic basis) for old and antiquated biology.

    — Karl    Oct 25, 05:01 PM    #

16. Perhaps the Creator’s method of creation was exactly what Stanley Miller described. I continue to be amazed at how the defenders of “Creationist” theory and other fundamentalist Christian beliefs have the arrogance to claim to know the mind and method of the Creator. These folks also feel free to anthropomorphise and assign a gender to the Creator. How presumptuous and limited.

    — scotteebee    Oct 25, 05:28 PM    #

17. Barbara, I completely agree with you. While I know and accept that science and faith are two completely different things, I know that they are not mutually exclusive.

    — CE    Oct 25, 05:40 PM    #

18. Is his earlier statement completely inapplicable?” There’s as much science in saying that lightening “could have” created amino acids as there is in saying God “could have” created amino acids. There’s no proof of either.

    — Tracy G.    Oct 25, 05:48 PM    #

19. Barbara and CE, I agree with you. Faith and science answer different questions; it’s possible to believe in the Bible and in evolution. In my Catholic high school, we studied Genesis in religion class and then went on to anthropology where we learned all about austrolopithicus and cro magnon. Science answers how and religion answers why.

    — geekette    Oct 25, 06:00 PM    #

20. To say that people of faith cannot know the heart and mind of is irresponsible. The basis for a believer is the Bible which is Gods spoken word. All you have to do is read it to know his heart and mind. Therefore the fundamental question is simply is there, or is there not a God? If there isn’t a God, then evolution and any other theories can be debated for eternity. If there really is a God then some people will have some serious explaining to do.

    — John    Oct 25, 08:07 PM    #

21. Everybody’s wonderin’ what and where they all came from.

    Everybody’s worryin’ ‘bout where they’re gonna go when the whole thing’s done.

    But no one knows for certain and so it’s all the same to me.

    I think I’ll just let the mystery be. —Iris Dement

    — marci    Oct 25, 08:37 PM    #

22. Tracy G.—Laboratory experiments have been conducted to test the lightning-amino acid hypothesis. As far as I’m aware, no such studies exist on the god-amino acid hypothesis.

    — Tracy G.'s Father    Oct 25, 09:06 PM    #

23. Dear Geekette, does religion explain why God fumferred around all those millions of years before settling down to create his chef-d’oeuvre, a creature in his Own image? Or why some children die of meningitis and some don’t?

    — arnold asrelsky    Oct 25, 09:15 PM    #

24. While Karl discusses the theory of science, the rest vent their personal inclinations. I’d rather stick with Karl and his approach to science. Our personal credo matters little in this context. At least as long it makes us into decently acting humans. Retraction by Dr. Jacobson? A noble gesture, indeed. Has it changed anything? Not at all. Will the debate persist? For sure, as long the mysteries of Nature surround us. Scientists will continue to unravel the mysteries, and theologians will continue to look for the Greater Purpose behind them. Anything wrong with either? To me, not at all.

    — Dag von Lubitz    Oct 25, 09:53 PM    #

25. First a brief comment…isn’t amazing how the topic can shift so quickly into statements about belief, when the article was about data.
    Second and more important is the role of information and electronic storage. There was a time when old ideas just sort of died and were forgotten, especially when their proponents died. Now with the web and electronic storage olds ideas can be as current as new ones. I don’t think there is anything in the google search engine that assesses the validity of the information it digs up.
    My point is that perhaps we need something to help determine what is a currently accepted idea, and what is no longer accepted. It seems to me that, well done, wiki’s might do that.
    In this context, I think the retractation is entirely appropriate, even though it may be ineffective, since the original statement is still in active conversation.
    This new information age is creating its own set of problems, for which we need to find good solutions.

    cheers,

    joe

    — Joseph Bellina    Oct 26, 06:09 AM    #

26. Objective information continually accumulates. What it means is subject to reevaluation and revision. The process is ever ongoing. Currently “accepted” is not necessarily correct. It is nearly always not quite accurate, and is sometimes very inaccurate. But this is the scientific process. An epistemology that is based on emergent accuracy is a very different perspective from one based on some sort of static unchanging “truth.” We can’t just make up the answers. We can seek truth and understanding and “enlightenment.” I was amused about the comment on Darwin. Look, Darwin knew nothing of molecular genetics! No well informed scientist claims that Darwin had any sort of complete understanding of evolution and the processes involved in it. The notion of science as a “body of knowledge” must include that it is a dynamic, ever changing bundle of incomplete information. Science is a process. It is a means of gaining and revising knowledge and understanding.

    — Joe Erwin    Oct 26, 07:54 AM    #

27. RCP is right on target, it seems to me, and so is Rosalind Reid, in saying that Professor Jacobson “responded in the noblest tradition of science.” A case can be made for the separation of science and religion; as Georges-Henri LeMaitre, priest and astrophysicist who formulated the modern theory of the Big Bang, put it, “Looking in the Bible for scientific truths is like looking for religious truths in the binomial theorem.” Professor Jacobson did the honorable, right thing. When have you ever seen a creationist or an ID-er or one of that stamp who had the courage and the honesty and the integrity to admit they made a mistake? I’d like to see their Get Out of Exodus 20:16 Free cards. Claiming to represent that old-time religion, which they don’t even realize isn’t all that old, they resort to every sneaky, slimy trick to save an unsalvageable literalistic interpretation of the not-so Good Book. Jacobson for President!

    — Dan Kirklin    Oct 26, 08:30 AM    #

28. Dan, I was a young earth creationist. I found out that the dogma I had been led to believe was not supportable by the evidence. Now I am not a creationist. But that did not turn me into a “Darwinist.” It is now clear to me that evolution is a very complex and ongoing process that we can best learn about using scientific method. Understanding is emergent. Understanding is subject to revision. Dogma? Not so much.

    — Joe Erwin    Oct 26, 08:46 AM    #

29. I think creationism is a fine and wonderful faith to have. It’s the anti-evolution that I doubt.

    And fortunate for me, the first is not proven, the later is established and, indeed “mature.”

    — Dave    Oct 26, 08:57 AM    #

30. Comment #13 shows me that there are still people out there with common sense and the ability to think. Thank you RCP for your great comment. I could not have said it better.

    — sn    Oct 26, 10:54 AM    #

31. Dan, apparrently you don’t know much about the Bible and you don’t know many if any creationists or IDers. You sound bitter and philosophically biased toward the Bible without actual facts to back up your statements.

    The fundamental laws of thermodynamics and mathematical probabilty are stretched to the extreme so that they become faith statements when dealing with origins cosmology and of life from an evolutionary world view.

    Creationists have retracted true mis-statements and errors and seem to be more honest than the vast majority of evolutionists.

    True, the Bible is not a science text book, but there are many scientific statements made in the Bible and they have been determined to be true thousands of years before modern science could cath up to their accuracy (there are too many to mention in this forum).

    Joe, maybe if you dig again in the creation literature you can-in a scientific way-correct your error and come back to the Light.

    — Dan 2    Oct 26, 11:57 AM    #

32. Joe, was the dogma creation or religion? There is a difference. Creation can be supported by factual evidence. The facts are not in dispute, but the interpretation of the facts. I encourage anyone that has an open mind (unfortunately it’s not the creationists that are closed minded) to search the other side from reputable sources.

    — Dan 2    Oct 26, 12:18 PM    #

33. The Flat Earthers eventually had to reconcile their faith with scientific evidence as they eventually must do with evolution, another scientific fact. The conclusion is simple, God created evolution and its mechanism DNA. If they don’t come to this conclusion, then who do they propose brought it into existence?

    — John B.    Oct 26, 02:19 PM    #

34. John, on what evidence do you base your “God created evolution” statement. That is your BELIEF. Where’s the evidence.

    The “flat earthers” were the scientists of the day. Anyone that read the Bible (there weren’t many then or now) would/could see that the Creator in the Bible got it right before the scientists. Just as today, the theologians of that day capitulated to the ignorance of the so called enlightened.

    How could matter produce itself in violation of basic thermodynamic laws? Or, how could the universe be infinitely old in violation of basic thermodynamic laws?

    Do the math (if you can) on the probability of DNA sequencing by random chance processes and tell anyone with a straight face that DNA by chance is probable. There’s not enough time in the evolutionary universe for chance to allow for the compexity of simple molecules let alone DNA or life. Also, biological testing has refuted the old idea of abiogenesis and concludes that life comes from life. Therefore, how can evolution be said to be anything other than just another faith system devoid of factual evidence for its support?

    — Dan 2    Oct 26, 04:06 PM    #

35. Even after it became clear to me that that “young earth” creation was obviously incorrect, and that evolutionary change by natural selection certainly occurred, I continued to be puzzled about how sufficient genetic variation could have originated to provide a basis for selection at the rates that evidence indicated had occurred. Among other things, it seemed to me that some kinds of replication errors were more likely than others, and that there must be points of vulnerability. It seemed to me that the term “randomness” was being misused and misunderstood. That replication errors had random consequences (i.e., that they could prove beneficial, detrimental, or neutral in varying degrees seemed plausible). That they occurred randomly, as in any chemical bond being as unlikely as any other to not replicate perfectly, seemed untenable. So, I began to feel that the use of the term “random” or “by chance” was just sort of a mathematical abstraction and euphamism for errors with unknown causes and/or effects. During the 30+ years since I began thinking that way, much more has been learned about genetic replication and replication errors. Now it is quite clear that there are elements within genomes, including the parts until recently thought to be nonfunctional, that actually promote and cause replication errors. These fragments, e.g., transposons, promote the kind of variability within genetic material that provides an abundant basis for selection to occur at every functional level of organization. I will continue to learn and alter what I think on the basis of evidence as it emerges. I will not accept a dogma in advance and force all data to conform with what I think I know. I don’t mind if you believe all these processes were specially created or guided; I just see no compelling reason to believe that—other than because someone told you you should. That is not enough for me. Invoking “laws” of thermodynamics does not do much for me. It is just another absolutist authoritarian crutch. If you are comforted by religion and its explanations, fine. Feel free to believe whatever you can. I came to realize that I could not honestly believe what I was raised believing. What I retained, though, was a belief that honesty was important and valuable.

    — Joe Erwin    Oct 26, 05:41 PM    #

36. The debate between science and religion will never be solved in our life time by people who are responding to the retraction of a statement from a well intentioned researcher. Although we are gifted with logical thoughts, we only think based upon the limitations of our experiences and knowledge. We must realize that the world is larger than the sum of our experiences and knowledge.

    Could we ask questions with farther and further depth? If amino acid can be form through the energy released from a lightening strike, who or what caused the chemical to be here in the first place? If the chemicals were in the rocks or soil, who or what caused the rock or soil to be here? If the rocks or soil came from space or another galaxy, who or what caused that galaxy to be there? If that galaxy exists, who or what governs the galaxies? What is on the other side of the last galaxy? Is evolution or a creator responsible for galaxies?

    — bbc    Oct 26, 05:49 PM    #

37. If anyone would like guidance as to how to reconcile faith and science, read the Dali Lama

    — Bill    Oct 26, 06:51 PM    #

38. Hi Dan 2:

    Asking me whether or not I can calculate the “probabilities of DNA sequencing by random chance processes” is a red herring. The processes of biochemistry follow precisely the laws of chemistry and physics so in that sense, they are not completely random and certainly not incalculable. It is inaccuracies in DNA replication that lead to evolutionary changes from generation to generation and the beneficial changes are more likely to proliferate.

    Science evolves when new ideas replace old so picking out old ideas like abiogenesis or Darwinism and saying they have been refuted isn’t saying much. That was a major point of the article.

    You don’t spell out what you want to say about thermodynamics, but this is the most laughable argument creationists make. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed energy systems, which the Earth is not.

    Cosmologists do not believe the universe is infinitely old so where you got that I have no idea.

    Bible believers accept the idea that the Earth is not flat because they eventually had to reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific fact. Likewise, they will eventually have to reconcile their beliefs with the scientific fact of evolution. I think the path to that reconciliation comes from the question, “If God didn’t create evolution, who did?”

    Science is not made up of ideas that people conjure up and accept on faith. It is systematic, demonstrable, and it evolves.

    It astonishes me that people who know very little about science proffer such specious arguments.

    So I ask you, am I a Bible believer or not?

    — John B.    Oct 26, 11:31 PM    #

39. John, you state that you are a creationist. Apparently you believe in a god. The God of the Bible is specific in how he created and it doesn’t include “goo to you” evolution. You can believe what you want, but it needs to based upon more than an opinion devoid of facts.

    I agree with your astonishment and realize that it doesn’t matter about the facts (your lack of understanding doesn’t amaze me, it is unfortunate). Most people will BELIEVE what thay want to believe-that’s the point. You have “conjured” up ideas that don’t meet the facts.

    Is the universe an open system or not?

    Beneficial mutations are an oxymoron (even in benefit there is a probem that accompanies any so called beneficial mutation-the point is it’s an error) and that follows the basic law(s)-entropy- as stated previously and the so called “beneficial” mutations can be rate calculated and they have been written about. As stated previously the math doesn’t work.

    Evolution from “molecules to man” doesn’t work with any known scientific or mathematical process. Therefore, how is it any different than any other faith devoid of facts.

    “He sits upon the circle of the earth. . .”, “The earth is hung upon nothing. . .”, “I will cast sins as far as the EAST IS FROM THE WEST. . .”, are just a few mentions of the Bible writers that indicated that the earth was/is not flat.

    John research your history and get it right if you want to accuse the bible of flat earth teaching.

    This forum doesn’t allow for a thorough in depth explanation; therefore, some things are written with an implied prior knowledge. The self existing universe is a philosophical possibility and at one time science went along. Now from what is known that can’t be a reality.

    Old ideas that are valid do matter and those are facts as we know them and shouldn’t be “conjured” away because of lack of understanding or because they don’t fit a particular worldview.

    — Dan 2    Oct 29, 12:29 PM    #

40. Joe, I agree it’s-the whole process-not random, but how did it get to that point? Was there a random guide to put the DNA together. Which came first the DNA “language” or the ability to understand the language? “Molecules to man” evolution is mathematically improbable (impossible).

    So, you want to dismiss scientific laws(the last time I checked religion has/had nothing to with that fact) and their implications because they don’t fit your worldview. Then, who is holding onto dogma?

    Again, were you burned by religion or the actual science within the Bible that can be logically defended?

    See #39 in response to the probability of “beneficial“mutations.

    You might check the actual rate of the so called “benificial” mutations and do the math. Again it doesn’t work.

    Natural selection does occur (micro-evolution) and works upon the code that is there. For “goo to you” evolution to work, millions upon millions of new codes would need to evolve in an organized upward direction for macro-evolution to occur. Again do the research first about the so called “good” mutation rate and then the math-it still doesn’t work. Also, directionally upward mutations would violate the “dogmatic” (that would be funny if it wasn’t referring to the sad fact of your dogmatic BELIEF-we just need to toss out viable scientific laws) entropy law.

    Get rid of your dogmatic faith (all origins cosmology is faith based-which faith best fits the facts?) before you toss out the accusations. I happened to go from a type of evolutionary faith system to a creationistic faith system because of the facts not because someone told me so.

    — Dan 2    Oct 29, 03:15 PM    #

41. So, here we go again, with the bizarre anti-science origins assertions…. Dan 2, I simply do not care what you choose to believe. And I don’t know why you care what I believe.

    Regarding scientific “laws,” I’m not discarding important explanatory principles that have been supported by a sufficient amount of evidence to be elevated (by humans) to the status of “laws.” What I reject is completely inappropriate assertions supposedly grounded in such laws. This is simply a cheap debating trick—invoking an authority in appropriately, then acusing someone of not accepting the authority as valid. This is a hallmark of authoritarian thinking of the kind that allows people to sustain “faith” in the face of evidence contradictory to their belief. This style of thinking allows one to ASSERT that he has a basis for “doing the math,” when he is ignorant of the processes that are known to contribute to genetic variation and selection.

    Now, as far as biblical “fact” goes, one thing is abundantly clear. The biblical account of origins simply cannot be literally true. If one chooses to believe that it is some sort of symbolic or allegorical statement, one can do so. To believe in literal validity for the biblical creation story required more “faith” than I could sustain. That chemical actions and reactions occur in the absence of a chemist is indisputable. I do not seek to prove that there is or was no Great Chemist, but I do not see any need to hypothesize one, or to claim that The Bible reveals Him. Now, in the “goo” days, there is no doubt that the QUANTITY of material that was available for potential chemical change was enormous. This huge quantity of stuff existed in both space and time. I do not know how one would calculate any sort of realistic probabilty from that information. A nearly infinite number of molecules and potential interactions within the context of very long periods of time creates a lot of potential and a lot of possibilities. That some of the changes and assemblies of chemicals would accumulate is not far-fetched. How did it all happen? Duh! I dunno. Being a mere mortal…. But I’m really quite confident that it did not happen the way I was led to believe as a little kid.

    Now, briefly, about “good” and “bad” mutations: what we get is a remarkable amount of accurate replication accompanied by some genetic variation that (at least) includes insertions, deletions, substitutions, and rearrangements. While some of these are so disruptive as to be lethal, most simply result in a background of variation in developmental regulatory influences—not even changes in specific protein synthesis. “Mutation rates” are not calculable in the ways people used to do them. For one thing, it is clear that they are not “constant.” For example, some genomes contain many more transposable elements than others. This means that variation can accumulate more rapidly in those systems than in systems that are less dynamic. Whether a change (“mutation”) is “good” or “bad” is not so easy to pin down. Beyond massively destructive lethal changes, complex variation accumulates and functional consequences are almost beyond comprehension, let alone quantification. I’m not saying no one can or should TRY, just that such calculations are very tough, especially as our knowledge of the processes involved is continuing to emerge. My guess is that you, Dan, are not sufficiently competent in bioinformatics to “do the math.”

    To answer your question, yes, I feel that I was burned by a religion that was based on a literal interpretation of The Bible as the ultimate authority and source of truth. “Actual science in the Bible that can be logically defended?” What planet are you ON! Sorry, ridicule is not a valid method of discourse for any of us.

    — Joe Erwin    Oct 30, 06:42 AM    #

42. Joe, thanks for the exchange. We’ll agree to disagree. What you believe is ok with me. But, that’s the point. You have blinders on to your own faith system and are inconsistent when you ridicule other’s faith.

    I’m not trying to ridicule, but to make a point. Were you doing the same when you ridiculed other’s faith systems-blinders? Are you open to the problems in your faith system? Doesn’t sound like it. Your discourses are full of inconsistent faith statements that you are presenting as science. It’s unfortunate that you can’t see that and have to resort to ridicule of others that have a different faith.

    Were you there in the beginning(Bible-Genesis)? You’re absolutely sure it didn’t happen that way? Sounds like dogmatic faith to me. Maybe you should ridicule your own absolutist attitude.

    You don’t know what I can or have calculated ( your faith statement-opinion- about my statements). Apparently you haven’t done the research (search the secular literature and creationist literature-it’s there) and really don’t know as much as you let on (my opinion about your statements).

    Apparently you haven’t read or reseached the idea that the Bible has any scientific data in it.

    I’ll give you a couple of examples. Circumcision on the 8th day. Why the 8th day? It’s the best day for the child because of the clotting mechanism. Also, why circumcision. For a nomadic tribe that had just escaped slavery from the most advanced nation known at the time (Egyptians didn’t practice circumcision) it was for better disease control and sanitation ( dicounting the religous significance). Where did these ignorant Hebrews learn about this practice? From their intelligent captors; no, their dogmatic God. There are hundreds more, but you have to believe of their existence before you would even begin to research their truth.
    The Mosaic laws were thousands of years ahead of there time-so to speak-in many scientific areas.

    Jeremiah 1:1-5 (Use the “archaic” KJV-then look up the words in the original langauge) shows the distinction between the the place of conception (the bellly-Fallopian tubes) and the place of growth (the womb-uterus). How did Jeremiah know the difference? He probably didn’t know female anatomy, but God did and He dictated the word to Jeremiah.

    Thanks again-just wanted to point out the inconsistency in your statements and that not all people of religous faith follow along blindly without reason. My reason for the switch in faith from the pseudoscience faith of evolution to Biblical creation was because of the evidence. Does your faith hold up to the evidence without twisting and disregarding the parts you don’t like-just pointing out the inconsistent statements that you’ve made?

    Maybe we can chat again sometime, Joe.

    — Dan 2    Oct 30, 12:23 PM    #

43. Maybe, Dan 2.

    I think your arguments fall under their own weight.

    No one could seriously accept every statement in a document because some statements included were true, nor would one be wise to claim that ALL statements in a document are false, just because some are.

    I fully support your rejection of pseudoscience. I do not understand how you can at the same time accept uncritically unsupportable conclusions.

    — Joe Erwin    Oct 31, 06:02 PM    #

Previous: Nobel Laureate Follows Apologies for Racial Comments With Resignation From Lab
Next: Researcher at Japanese University Stands By His Work as 'Science' Retracts Paper