Evolution on Trial by Bill Whitehouse

I've only done a quick scan through some of the chapeters and I didn't see anywhere that he was discussing biological evolution at all. He is talking about abiogenesis which is understood to be an area of active research (which is a translation of "I dunno" ) As you read it I'd like you to point out where he actually discusses evolution and evolutionary theory.

Thanks for responding. Whether or not the treatment is even-handed is really the call of the reader. So far, the book doesn't seem to come to any conclusions. It's just a matter of presenting evidence.Of course, as we in the justice system understand -- or I'll just speak for myself -- although a trial is supposed to theoretically be a "search for the truth," as we all know, this is not always what we find.As far as I can see, the basic elements of evolutionary theory with respect to origins of life are being put forth. I think it's important that one not necessarily be tied to this name or that name, but take a look at the evidence itself, completely apart from any arguments from authority.In any real-world trial, jurors are instructed to maintain an open mind and not form conclusions until all of the evidence has been presented. And, as well, one is disqualified from sitting as a juror in a case where they have pre-existing biases and prejudices concerning the case. All of the evidence must be presented inside the trial.I'll let you know my verdict when the case is over.Moe

Please . . . and thank you.

It could be that Moe can't find the mistakes himself because either he doesn't understand the theory or he doesn't understand the science. In that case, he will need to have the mistakes explained to him.

---

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

How do you define evolution o evolutionary theory? You seem to be implying that origins of life has nothing to do with evolution, and I'm not quite sure how you come to that conclusion.JOKE: "I have no problem with evolutionary theory. It's the fan club that I sometimes find irritating." ~Moe (1961 - ____)

Moe is female.

Evolution is the study of how the species transform through time from previously existing species. The theory of evolution assumes that species already exist, and then attempts to explain how new species come about. In other words, life is assumed to exist already. Strictly speaking, the theory of evolution is not concerned with the origins of life, although the ideas of natural selection acting on random variations undoubtably has a role there.

---

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

Why is it that an ARBITRARY distinction is being made between what you have defined as evolution and explanations for the origin of life? Are you saying that questions concerning the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution? And if it has nothing to do with evolution, then how to you explain the existence of your first species? In other words, are you telling me that evolutionists are to some extent assuming their conclusions and saying that there is no need to explain the origin of life?Thanks! Moe (The female, not the football player)

I find it very odd that the although the trial is supposed to be about the trial almost nothing is said about what is actually being taught. Yet that should surely be the central issue of the trial.What is even odder is that the material the trial does cover is not material I'd expect to be given prominent coverage in a school curriculum. It's material that would have been dealt with in summary, if at all.

Hi Moe, welcome to EvC I'm an ex-astrophysicist/cosmologist, so I leave evolution arguments to everyone else here at EvC. But I did glance through the book and noticed one rather alarming point.

quote:

---

"Was the Yucatan crater the result of a statistical anomaly?" asked the defense lawyer. "In other words, can we assume that between, say, 3.8 billion years ago and 65 million years ago, there were probably few, if any, large-sized meteoric impacts on Earth?"

​

"Such an assumption would be a reasonable one," the professor said.
  —Sweet Mysteries of Life - Part One

---

I was very surprised by this... reading on I discovered why such a bizarre notion is claimed:

quote:

---

"The Chicxlub[sic], Yucatan crater, by way of comparison, is calculated to have been created by an object some 300 kilometers in diameter. Thus, it is intermediate in size between meteorites capable of evaporating the ocean and meteorites able to boil away the 200 meter photic zone near the ocean's surface.

---

oh my, I am really really glad Chicxulub was not 300km across!!! Ouch! I can't remember the correct rough size myself as old age (well into my 30's!) is affecting my memory, but a quick sneak to Wiki reveals:

quote:

---

Chicxulub Crater (IPA: /t‘ik‘u'lub/) is an ancient impact crater buried underneath the Yucatán Peninsula, with its center located approximately underneath the town of Chicxulub, Yucatán, Mexico. Investigations suggest that this impact structure is dated from the late Cretaceous Period, about 65 million years ago. The meteorite's estimated size was about 10 km (6 mi) in diameter, releasing an estimated 5.01023 joules of energy, approximately 100,000 gigatons of TNT[1], on impact.

---

So I'm afraid I have to conclude that there are some serious scientific errors in this text.

Although I understand your point that no where that I've encountered so far do we find what Corrigan actually teaches in the classroom except through alluding to Peoples Exhibit A (the curriculum materials), I'm not really sure that this is the central point around which the trial revolves. I think the trial is about evolutionary accounts concerning the origin of life and a critical assessment of the various assumptions and theories that make up that evolutionary account of life.Am I misreading it?

He says:"Therefore, the cause of that which natural selection comes to act upon still stands in need of an explanation. You cannot use natural selection as an explanation for that which natural explanation clearly presupposes without becoming entangled in completely circular thinking, and this certainly does not constitute an explanation of any kind."He does not understand, therefore, that what natural selection acts on is mutation.He says:"Moreover, the idea of the accumulation of small variations does not really account for either the origins of life in general..."But of course the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life.He says:"... or for the origins of the different biological blueprints, so to speak, on which the notion of species difference is based."This looks like plain nonsense to me, but maybe you can explain it.What are these "different biological blueprints"?He says:"Genetics is not the science which provides an account of the story of the origins of this capacity. Rather, genetics is merely the science which delineates how such a capacity operates once it has arisen."This is a flat lie. Of course the theory of genetics provides an account of the origin of variation.Genetics is not, of course, "merely the science which delineates how such a capacity operates once it has arisen." That would be the law of natural selection.He says:"Everything that is necessary for understanding this material has been included within the context of the direct and cross examinations which take place during the trial."Obviously this is not true. The evidence for science is not compressed in his book.He says that his book will allow you to:"Be the first kid on your block to actually know what one is talking about when the conversation turns to evolutionary theory."And yet he does not know what the theory of evolution is.And you haven't been bothered to learn what you're talking about, but you demand that I explain it to you.You're lucky that I had a spare ten minutes.As for your falsehood about how I am "evading the question", no, I am not. But unless I have some spare time, as I do right now, why should I waste my precious hours on explaining what the question is --- to someone who has been too lazy to find that out for himself?If you want to know about biology, second-hand biology textbooks are cheap.If you can't be bothered to learn, why are you asking these asinine questions?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The evolutionary model describes how populations imperfect replicators under selective pressure may change over time. It says nothing about the orgin of those replicators. It also says nothing about the origins of the chemicals of which life is made up. Nor does it say anything about the origin of spacetime which those chemicals are embedded in.It is a matter of bounding the field of study. This is done in ALL areas to make progress and communication organized enough to be manageable.The original imperfect replicator may have been zapped into existance by a god, powerful alien, scientist in our own future or have always existed in an eternal universe. None of that matters to the science involved in biological evolution.If you think that ALL study should be mushed together into one big whole that's fine. It still says nothing about the CHEMISTRY of abiogenesis.Asking a biologist to dig into the chemistry is silly just as asking the chemist to delve into the quarks in the protons.Of course, we are all interested in orgin of life questions. They are being actively researched by chemists as we type.The source of "life" makes not one iota of difference to study of biological evolution that I can see. Can you or the author offer any reason whatsoever that it might?

Because evolution only starts once you have life. The origin of life is still open, whether through natural mechanisms as studied in the science of abiogenesis or by supernatural mechanisms as in god-did-it, is irrelevant to evolution.definitions:

quote:

---

evolution” -noun
1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
6. a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements: the evolutions of a figure skater.
7. an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.
8. Mathematics. the extraction of a root from a quantity. Compare involution (def. 8).
9. a movement or one of a series of movements of troops, ships, etc., as for disposition in order of battle or in line on parade.
10. any similar movement, esp. in close order drill.

---

Seeing as we are discussing the science of evolution we are refering to definition #3: "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."Other definitions are "descent with modification" and "change in the frequency of alleles in a population" ...We can simplify this to be "change in species over time" but the essential element is that existing species change -- and you need to have an existing species to begin with.So the fact is that evolution does not have anything to do with the origins of life, just what happens afterwards.If you are going to discuss a science then you need to use the terms as they are defined in the science eh?Welcome to the Fray Ms Moe

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Well, let's be honest. In a way you find that very odd.And yet we are debating creationists. So in another way, this is crushingly inevitable.They can't debate what is actually taught, so they have to debate something else.It is not really "odd" that they can't debate science. It's inevitable.