From Newsgroup: talk.origins
I Googled the topics and added Duane Gish. It just demonstrates that
Wells' Icons were all well used creationist denial Icons.
Wells' icons
1 MillerrCoUrey experiment
2 Darwin's tree of life
3 Homology in vertebrate limbs
4 Haeckel's embryos
5 Archaeopteryx
6 Peppered moth
7 Darwin's finches
8 Four-winged fruit flies
9 Fossil horses
10 Hominid evolution
I tried homology first because Gish's denial was multi level and
included, claims of a drosophila experiment to deny vertebrate homology.
Google does note this argument, but does not note that Gish's evidence
was for suspected genes associated with drosophila eyes and not for
vertebrate limbs depicted in his homology slide. The quote that he put
up came from someone talking about a drosophila experiment that occurred
years before any actual genes had been identified as being responsible
for drosophila eyes. It would have been a shift within species and did
not have much to do with homologous structures. There is no reason why
the genes responsible for the development of homologous structures
cannot be swapped out or changed over time. Any changes just have to
work within what is already working.
QUOTE from below:
"Unproven" Genetic Basis: Gish also questioned the genetic basis of
homology, suggesting that similar genes for reptile legs and bird wings
should be present if they evolved from an ancestral leg, but that
evidence presented by evolutionists doesn't consistently support this.
END QUOTE:
Homology in vertebrate limbs and Duane Gish
rCo Definition: Homology refers to the similarity in anatomical structures, physiology, or development of different species due to
descent from a common evolutionary ancestor.
rCo Vertebrate Forelimbs as an Example: The classic example of homology is the forelimbs of vertebrates, such as the human arm, bird wing, and
whale flipper. Despite their different functions (grasping, flying,
swimming), they are all composed of similar bones rCo the humerus, radius,
and ulna rCo arranged in a comparable pattern. This underlying similarity, despite functional divergence, is explained by the idea that these
structures were inherited from a common ancestor who had a similar limb structure, which was then modified over time through evolution to suit different purposes.
rCo Evidence for Evolution: Homologous structures like the vertebrate forelimb provide strong evidence for the theory of evolution and common ancestry. They suggest that diverse species have evolved from a common ancestor, adapting the inherited structures to their specific
environments and functions.
rCo The Pentadactyl Limb: The presence of a pentadactyl limb (five-fingered limb) in various vertebrates, including humans, bats, and whales, further strengthens the argument for common descent. Even though
their limbs serve different purposes, the shared basic structure points towards a common ancestor with a similar limb design.
Duane Gish's arguments and criticism
rCo Duane Gish was a prominent creationist who engaged in debates against the theory of evolution.
rCo Gish's Arguments Against Homology:
o Lack of direct evidence: Gish and other creationists argued that homology does not prove evolution, as nobody has witnessed the gradual
changes in millions of generations from a common ancestor to a bird or a human.
o Alternative Explanation: They suggested that similarities could be explained by a "common design" by a creator, where similar structures
are used to solve similar functional problems.
o "Unproven" Genetic Basis: Gish also questioned the genetic basis of homology, suggesting that similar genes for reptile legs and bird wings
should be present if they evolved from an ancestral leg, but that
evidence presented by evolutionists doesn't consistently support this.
o "Gish Gallop": Gish was known for using a debating tactic called the "Gish Gallop," where he would present a large number of arguments, some accurate and some inaccurate or misleading, in a short time frame,
making it difficult for his opponents to address them all comprehensively.
1 MillerrCoUrey experiment
Google
Duane Gish
Duane Gish (1921-2013) was an American biochemist and a prominent
advocate of young Earth creationism. He served as a Vice President of
the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and was known for his numerous publications and debates arguing against evolutionary theory.
Gish's arguments against the Miller-Urey experiment
Gish and other creationists used the perceived shortcomings of the
Miller-Urey experiment to argue against the possibility of abiogenesis
and, by extension, against evolution.
Some of the key points of their critique included:
rCo Atmospheric Composition: Gish claimed the gases used in the experiment (methane, ammonia, and hydrogen) were not representative of the Earth's
early atmosphere, which he argued was likely oxidizing (containing
oxygen) rather than reducing. However, more recent research suggests the
early Earth's atmosphere might have been reducing, containing elements
like methane, ammonia, and hydrogen, supporting the conditions used in
the Miller-Urey experiment.
rCo Destruction of Products: Gish argued that lightning and other harsh conditions on the early Earth would have destroyed any organic compounds formed, according to the Iowa State Daily.
rCo Chirality: Gish highlighted the fact that the experiment produced a racemic mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids, while living
organisms exclusively utilize left-handed amino acids.
rCo The Law of Biogenesis and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Gish argued that the Miller-Urey experiment contradicted these fundamental
laws, which he interpreted as stating that life cannot arise from
non-life and that order cannot arise spontaneously from disorder.
Darwin's Tree of Life and Duane Gish:
Gish would put up the tree of life slide only to claim that the branches
were not connected. The fossil evidence was fragmentary. The tree of
life no longer depends on morphology and fossils. The DNA and protein sequences fill in all the gaps. Forensic geneology proves that genetics
can fill in the gaps and identify the identity of persons who's genetic
data is not available. Behe understands that we can reconstruct
ancestral sequences. Some of his claims of finding 2 neutral mutations
being on the edge of evolution depend on the ability to identify the
ancestral sequence and determine when the neutral mutations occurred.
Darwin's Tree of Life and Duane Gish: contrasting perspectives
Charles Darwin's "Tree of Life" is a foundational concept in
evolutionary biology, illustrating the idea that all life on Earth
shares a common ancestor and has diversified over time through a
branching process of descent with modification. This concept is visually represented by a tree-like diagram where each branch represents a
species, and the points where branches diverge indicate a common ancestor. Duane Gish, a biochemist and prominent young-Earth creationist, was a
vocal opponent of evolutionary theory, including Darwin's concept of the
Tree of Life. He argued against evolution, particularly the concept of
common descent, and advocated for creationism based on a literal interpretation of the Genesis story.
Gish's arguments against evolution and the Tree of Life
Gish primarily challenged the scientific evidence for evolution, often presenting arguments that focused on perceived weaknesses in
evolutionary theory, rather than presenting a scientific case for
creationism. His arguments included:
rCo The fossil record: Gish claimed that the fossil record lacks transitional forms, which he considered evidence against evolution. He
also asserted that the Cambrian Explosion, a period of rapid
diversification of animal life, contradicts evolutionary expectations of gradual change.
rCo Second Law of Thermodynamics: Gish argued that the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that systems tend towards disorder,
prevents the natural emergence of complex life and the ongoing evolution
of organisms. Critics countered that Gish's interpretation of the Second
Law was oversimplified and failed to account for localized order within
open systems like Earth.
rCo Probability of life's origin: Gish used calculations of vanishingly small probabilities of random assembly of biological molecules to argue against the naturalistic origin of life, effectively creating a straw
man of scientific theories on abiogenesis.
rCo Homology and vestigial organs: Gish dismissed the evidence from homology (shared characteristics due to common ancestry) and vestigial
organs, again often misrepresenting evolutionary explanations for these phenomena.
4 Haeckel's embryos
Duane Gish and creationist use of the controversy
rCo Duane Gish, a prominent creationist debater, often used the controversy surrounding Haeckel's embryo drawings as an argument against evolution.
rCo He claimed that the inaccuracies in Haeckel's drawings constituted scientific fraud, which in turn supposedly undermines the entire theory
of evolution, according to the National Center for Science Education.
rCo Creationists have sometimes argued that if Darwin relied on Haeckel, and Haeckel was a fraud, then Darwin and the theory of evolution are
also fraudulent.
rCo However, modern biology textbooks have moved away from using Haeckel's original drawings, instead opting for photographs of real embryos to illustrate embryological development.
rCo While acknowledging the inaccuracies in Haeckel's drawings, many scientists and educators emphasize that comparative embryology still
provides strong evidence for common descent, even without relying on
Haeckel's potentially flawed illustrations.
In essence, Duane Gish and other creationists used the acknowledged
historical inaccuracies and the ensuing debate surrounding Haeckel's
embryo drawings as a rhetorical tool in their debates against evolution.
While some of Haeckel's depictions were inaccurate, it's important to differentiate between those historical shortcomings and the broader
scientific understanding of evolution and the supporting evidence from comparative embryology. Modern science relies on more accurate data and techniques, but still recognizes the value of comparative embryology in understanding evolutionary relationships.
5 Archaeopteryx
rCo Creationist Perspective:
Gish, affiliated with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), viewed Archaeopteryx as evidence supporting a biblical creation model, where
birds were created on Day 5 of the creation week, fully formed and able
to fly.
rCo Transitional Fossil Challenge:
Creationists like Gish reject the idea of transitional fossils, arguing
that Archaeopteryx, despite its bird-like features, was simply a bird,
not an evolutionary link between reptiles and birds, according to the ICR.
rCo Gish's Claims:
Gish asserted that Archaeopteryx possessed feathers identical to modern
birds and was capable of flight, suggesting it was not a transitional form.
rCo Scientific Counterarguments:
Scientific literature has extensively documented the anatomical features
of Archaeopteryx, including its feathered wings, claws on its wings, and teeth, which provide evidence of its reptilian ancestry and its place as
a transitional form between reptiles and birds.
rCo Gish's Legacy:
Despite scientific evidence supporting Archaeopteryx's transitional
status, Gish's arguments have been influential within creationist
circles, shaping their interpretation of the fossil record.
rCo Beyond Archaeopteryx:
Gish's work extended beyond Archaeopteryx, encompassing broader
challenges to evolutionary biology and promoting a young-Earth
creationist perspective.
6 Peppered moth
The Peppered Moth (Biston betularia) and Duane Gish are linked through
the creation-evolution debate.
Peppered Moth evolution
rCo The peppered moth is considered a classic example of natural selection in action.
rCo Before the Industrial Revolution, the light-colored peppered moth (var. typica) was more common in England.
rCo With industrialization, pollution darkened trees, providing camouflage for the darker form (var. carbonaria), which increased in frequency due
to predatory birds eating the more visible lighter moths.
rCo As pollution decreased with clean air acts, the light form became camouflaged again and its numbers rebounded.
rCo Bernard Kettlewell's experiments in the 1950s provided strong evidence for this selection process.
rCo Subsequent research, including Michael Majerus's extensive study, further confirmed the role of bird predation and camouflage in the
moth's evolution.
Duane Gish's critique
rCo Duane Gish, a prominent creationist and biochemist, used the peppered moth example in his arguments against evolution.
rCo He challenged the validity of the peppered moth story and experiments, questioning the conclusions drawn from them.
rCo Gish often focused on what he claimed were methodological flaws in the experiments and alleged "fraud" in staging photographs of moths on tree trunks.
rCo Creationists have argued that the peppered moth story is not "evolution in action" because both light and dark forms existed before
and after the Industrial Revolution, representing variation within a
species rather than the development of a new species or "basic kind".
Galapagos finches and Duane Gish
Duane Gish's opposition to evolution
rCo Duane Gish (1921-2013) was a prominent biochemist and creationist, known for his debates against evolutionary theory.
rCo He worked at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), which promotes a young-earth creationist perspective.
rCo Gish's arguments against evolution included claims that the fossil record lacked transitional forms and that the Second Law of
Thermodynamics prevented the natural emergence of complex life.
rCo His book "Evolution: The Fossils Say No!" was a widely circulated resource for creationists.
rCo Gish was criticized for oversimplifying scientific concepts and using outdated information or mischaracterizations of evolutionary theory in
his arguments, according to the National Center for Science Education.
The contrasting perspectives
rCo The Galapagos finches provide powerful evidence for evolution by natural selection and adaptive radiation, supporting Darwin's theory of evolution.
rCo Duane Gish, representing a creationist viewpoint, actively challenged the scientific consensus on evolution, including the evidence from the Galapagos finches.
rCo Creationists like Gish often contend that observed changes in finch beak size are examples of microevolution (variation within a species)
but do not demonstrate the kind of "information-adding" evolution
required to produce new species. However, this argument ignores the
evidence from the Grants' research and genomic studies showing the
development of new finch species and the genetic basis for beak shape variations.
Four-winged fruit flies and Duane Gish
Google doesnrCOt give a summary, but links to articles citing Gish. This
one is inaccurate, but has the basic Gish gallop denial.
https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/5901808.real-question-god/
QUOTE:
Until I heard a lecture by Dr Duane Gish, a marine biologist, whose job
for years had been to irradiate fruit fly larvae to cause mutations.
They created literally millions of mutations -- some blind, some with
four wings on one side, none on the other...but they never made a better
fruit fly!
If we all arrived by random mutations, where is the fossil evidence of
all the ones that went wrong? Where are all the transitional species?
There simply aren't any -- none -- anywhere!
END QUOTE:
Gish was an immunologist and not a marine biologist. When I saw Gish
put up the slide of the 4 winged fruit fly it was to claim that
mutations produced nonfunctional wings. The bithorax mutation doubled
that body segment, but didnrCOt get the nerves and muscles quite right.
It wasnrCOt just a mutation reverting halteres to the actual second set of wings.
Duane Gish and fossil horses
Duane Gish was a prominent creationist who challenged the scientific
evidence for evolution, including the evolution of horses.
Gish's arguments
rCo Gaps in the fossil record: Gish argued that gaps in the fossil record of horses disproved evolution and pointed to the lack of complete
transitional forms between major groups.
rCo No clear progression: He claimed that the fossil record does not show a clear, smooth progression from small, multi-toed ancestors to the
large, single-toed modern horse.
rCo Variations within kinds: He suggested that the horse fossils represent variations within "created kinds," rather than evidence of evolution
across different species or genera.
rCo Contradictory evidence: Gish highlighted what he saw as contradictions in the fossil record, such as the finding of both three-toed and
one-toed horse fossils in the same layer, or irregularities in the
number of ribs in the supposed horse evolutionary series.
Hominid evolution and Duane Gish
My recollection was that Gish would make fun of the fossils that
existed. He kept claiming that all the known hominid fossils would fit
onto a pool table, and he would claim that Lucy was obviously just an ape. Google:
Key arguments and criticisms:
rCo Fossil Gaps:
Gish argued that the fossil record contained significant gaps, which he interpreted as evidence against evolution. He emphasized the relatively
small number of fossils found compared to the vast number of species
estimated to have existed.
rCo Misinterpretations and Errors:
He highlighted instances where fossil discoveries were initially misinterpreted or later found to be hoaxes, such as the Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man.
rCo Geological Column:
Gish claimed the geological column was based on evolutionary theory, but
it is actually based on radiometric dating, which provides absolute ages
for rock layers, according to the search results.
rCo Creation Model:
Gish proposed a creation model to explain the diversity of life,
suggesting that gaps in the fossil record supported his view. However,
this model doesn't align with the observed order of fossils in
geological strata, according to the search results.
rCo Quote Mining and Misrepresentation:
He was known for using quotes from evolutionary scientists out of
context and misrepresenting their views, according to the search results.
In essence, Gish's arguments against hominin evolution, and evolution in general, relied on selective presentation of fossil evidence, misinterpretations of scientific data, and claims that gaps in the
fossil record supported his creationist views.
Ron Okimoto
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2