Creation vs Evolution Debate Hovind vs Martin

Creation vs Evolution Debate

Hovind vs Martin

Defending Evolution: Martin Brazeau

Defending Creationism: Kent Hovind and Jonathan Sampson

Transcribed by Dean Watson

Martin: I have some questions about some specific items that come up in your seminars and your debates.

Kent: I�m ready, go for it.

Martin: One of them is about embryology, and specifically about gills. The supposed gill pouches of embryos where you say Hackle discovered the gill pouches of embryos and you proceed to say that he was proven wrong. Where exactly was he proven wrong?

Kent: OK, does the embryo have gills?

Martin: Which embryo?

Kent: Any embryo.

Martin: Fish embryos eventually develop gills that develop from pharyngeal pouches. The pharyngeal pouches are present in all vertebrate embryos. This was something discovered not by Haeckel but a Baltic German embryologist named Heinrich Rathke. I think claiming that Ernest Haeckel was lying is fair enough because he faked his drawings but I think it�s a very serious charge to turn around and say these embryos don�t have gill pouches or that there�s no comparison between the gill pouches of these embryos of fish and other vertebrates.

Kent: No, I think my charge is exactly correct. To say �that have a pharyngeal gill pouch�, even that is incorrect. They have�.

Martin: No it�s not actually�

Kent: Well, somebody may have decided to call it a pharyngeal gill pouch�.

Martin: No, Kent, in both fish and other Vertebrates these pouches derive from exactly the same precursor tissue from tissue called the neural crest, ok? In all vertebrate embryos they�re patterned by the same genes, the Hawk�s gene by the exact same pattern called the Hawk's code This is a basic discovery of embryology in the past twenty years and I don�t see how what you are saying actually improves student knowledge of biology. Really, what you are doing is just promoting ignorance.

Kent: Well I disagree. See, they are not gills; they are never gills in humans�..

Martin: No, they are not gills. No one is saying they�re gills; they are pharyngeal pouches.

Kent: They are implying�.

Martin: No they are not; they are implying they developed from similar precursor structures.

Kent: OK, let�s assume that all animals on the planet develop in a similar way.

Martin: They don�t.

Kent: They don�t right?

Martin: No.

Kent: But if they did, even if the pharyngeal pouches developed in a similar way which is what you�re implying or saying

Martin: They start out with the same tissues�.

Kent: Does that prove common ancestor or could that prove common designer?

Martin: That�s where you are wrong. It does not prove conclusively, it supports the view of common ancestry.

Kent: Why doesn�t it support the view of a common designer?

Martin: Well, why would it support the view of a common designer?

Kent: Well, if I notice there�s 8 or 10 different types of bridges in the world. There�s the truss type, the suspension type�.I notice all of them have similar construction design. They all start with a foundation. Wow, that proves they�re all evolving from spider webs.

Martin: No, that has nothing to do with evolution because�..

Kent: That�s my point�.

Martin: �because a bridge is a horrible analogy to a living thing. I mean it has nothing in common with a living thing.

Kent: I know, living things are billions of times more complicated but makes the problem worse�.

Martin: Exactly, and they reproduce which is the fundamental tenants of evolution. A thing can�t evolve unless it reproduces. Here we are talking about reproducing systems. Explain to me what this has to do with a common designer because I really don�t get it.

Kent: I�m sure you don�t get it but I�m going to help you ok? See, the commonalities, the similarities between the way organisms develop or between the way that they look. You know, chimpanzees and humans both have two eyes and both have similar colored hair and both chew with their mouth open. So, what does that prove? Well, it doesn�t prove anything. It could be interpreted as common ancestor or it could be interpreted as common designer. Why aren�t the kids ever shown the common designer?

Martin: You don�t understand exactly what similarity has to do with common ancestry. You put up a slide showing a picture from a textbook of vertebrate limbs and you say �look at these vertebrate limbs, evolutionists say this means they had a common ancestor�. Then you say this could just mean they had a common designer. If that�s the case do starfish have a different designer?

Kent: But let me ask you a question now. Is it true that the textbooks show the kids the similar four limb structure as I showed like 10 examples of in my seminar, and in the textbook says �this is evidence of a common ancestor�, is that what the book says?

Martin: It is evidence of a common ancestor.

Kent: No. It is evidence that they�re similar. Why are they similar, well�

Martin: Good question.

Kent: There we go - it�s not evidence of a common ancestor; it does mean they are similar.

Martin: But what you don�t understand is this explains the distribution of similarities. Why do all these animals have four limbs with the same structure but why are they also always vertebrates? Why can�t beetles have the same four limb structure if they also have a common designer? Why not?

Kent: Well, why do all motorcycles made by Suzuki, Honda and everybody else have two wheels and cars have 4 wheels? It�s a common design that works.

Martin: Machinery is a horrible example; this has nothing to do with living things. They�re not living things. I don�t see why you insist on using machinery as an example.

Kent: Well I�m trying to get you to see�.

Jonathan: I recall from my old biology classes in High School they would often times, all the time actually, and I recall one time specifically they used a spring mechanism to contrast a biological function and�.

Martin: Sure, you can draw an analogy to a functional system to avoid physical laws to explain how something works but we are talking about where things come from

Kent: Well I�m trying to give analogies to help people understand, um, ok, it is true that there are similarities between many different types of vertebrate animals but even in the vertebrate kingdom if you look at vertebrates, there are bazillions of differences.

Martin: Exactly, but how do you explain the distribution of similarities and differences with a common designer? How do you explain the nested hierarchy of forms?

Kent: OK, let�s take the nested hierarchy of; if I don�t compare it with living things I have to compare it with something inanimate, that�s about the few choices there are�

Martin: Right but again it�s irrelevant because inanimate objects don�t reproduce�

Kent: Well I understand that�.

Martin: �and so they don�t have the potential to have common ancestors. So it�s an irrelevant analogy, it�s ridiculous.

Kent: OK, have we ever observed, let�s just take dogs for example; there are 400 recognized breeds of dogs, less all the mutts in between, has anybody ever observed a dog produce something that would be classified as non-dog?

Martin: No because that�s not exactly how evolutionists classifies things in the first place. They classify things by common ancestry so if it came from a dog it would still be called a dog.

Kent: Wait; think what you just said �evolutionists classify things by common ancestry�. So if they�re classifying it based on their theory, of course it�s going to match their theory. Ah Duh!

Martin: Not really actually, no let�s think about it because it would actually be a falsifying point if you could find something that couldn�t be classified. Take something like a vertebrate that couldn�t be classified.

Kent: OK, where does the platypus fit in?

Martin: OK this is brilliant, I love this, I�m so glad you picked the platypus. What does the platypus have to do with anything?

Kent: The platypus reproduces. You get upset when I say something doesn�t reproduce. The platypus reproduces

Martin: OK let�s pick the platypus; I happen to be looking at a platypus picture right now.

Kent: What did it evolve from?

Martin: It�s a mammal.

Kent: You�re sure it�s a mammal?

Martin: I�m absolutely 100% certain it�s a mammal

Kent: Because somebody decided �here�s the qualifications of a mammal�, that right? If I decided to call my finger a hammer then it�s a hammer ok?

Martin: No, people have to agree that�s what it is. There has to be some basis for agreement. Your finger is not going to be called a hammer because I�m not going to agree to call it a hammer it doesn�t function to what everyone else calls a hammer

Kent: Well everyone else doesn�t agree with your evolution theory, I mean 70, 60% of Americans don�t agree with�.

Martin: Yeah but every biologist does

Kent: No they do not

Martin: Well 99%....

Kent: You�re making up that number

Martin: OK whatever

Kent: According to the New York Times�..

Martin: OK, let�s talk about this platypus; we were talking about the platypus�.

Kent: What did the platypus evolve from?

Martin: A mammal

Kent: It is a mammal already, it�s still a mammal. Was it at sometime in the past long ago and far away a non-platypus?

Martin: No, it can�t be because we are talking about the origin of the platypus. So that ontological object, a platypus, originated from a prior organism which we would call, we don�t know what because we don�t have an example of it, which is fine. What we are talking about is its common ancestor

Kent: Does a platypus have a common ancestor with a dragonfly if you go far enough back?

Martin: yes

Kent: Do you see that what you said is a faith statement, not a science statement?

Martin: No I don�t see it as a faith statement because somebody could falsify that statement

Kent: How would you falsify that?

Martin: Take your example of a platypus and a dragonfly and say what we would expect to see if two things shared something in common with each other or have a common ancestor. If two things are closely related to each other we would expect to see more in common with those two things�.

Jonathan: Wait wait wait, you�re giving evidence to support this. How do you falsify it? You just said you could falsify it.

Martin: Let�s find a primaric form, let�s take something like �what unites these two things?� We know they are both bilaterally symmetric. We know they have the capacity to form paired appendages and paired sensory organs. We know they are Eukaryotes and that they are multi-cellular. This is a unique character combination.

Jonathan: So they share properties, therefore they are related.

Martin: No, this is not �just sharing properties�; this is a unique character combination. Find an example of a dragonfly, say with a plant cell wall or a dragonfly that uses chlorophyll�.

Jonathan: Hold on, if I found a dragonfly with a plant cell wall you would herald this as evidence that they�re compared and related to plants.

Martin: No I wouldn�t actually because there is an agreed upon biologeny of the animals and plants and if so you violate that biologeny then the biologeny is falsified. If you find something that falsifies this which would be� a perfect example would be something primeric, like a dragonfly with a cell wall. Then you would have disproven the theory�.

Jonathan: See how ridiculous this is; You�re saying to prove that people and pinecones are not related you have to find a person with a pinecone growing out of their head.

Martin: No, �(unintelligible)�..if you wanted to prove that a pinecone and a human being are not related you take the two things they share in common that they�re eukaryotes and that they have certain cellular and molecular similarities and then you take that and you form a nested set and then you violate that nested set or you find an example that violates it, which is probably where you were going with the platypus example � expecting me to think that was a violation of the nested hierarchy which it is not.

Kent: I�m curious, what did it develop from?

Martin: A mammal.

Kent: That�s not an answer. You said it had a common ancestor with a dragonfly. Give me an example of something that�s half dragonfly and half platypus.

Martin: Ah see, there you are just being disingenuous because you know that�s not what anyone�s proposing because platypus and say human beings share a more recent common ancestor with each other than either does with the dragonfly so there cannot be in the evolutionary theory a half platypus half dragonfly. See you just don�t understand what people are asking. You just don�t understand the theory and you�re being disingenuous. If you (unintelligible) you would never ask for a half platypus and half dragonfly because where did all the other mammals come from?

Kent: I understand it much better than you realize and not sure that you do

Martin: Actually you don�t because��.

Jonathan: One second Martin, how do you come to the conclusion that two things are related simply because they have similar properties?

Martin: It�s not about similarities, it�s about�..

Jonathan: That�s what you just said; you were mentioning how the dragonfly and the platypus... (unintelligible)�eukaryotic cells�

Martin: No, unique character combinations and it�s about a nested hierarchy, ok?

Jonathan: So how do you come to the conclusion that just because they have similarities therefore they�re related?

Martin: OK, do you agree there�s at least a nested hierarchy that we can distribute forms in to?

Jonathan: You can create one if you want to.

(unintelligible both talking).

Jonathan: That doesn�t necessarily mean this is a nested hierarchy by which they descended. If you give me a bunch of�

Intermission fades in�..

Kent: All right folks, welcome back to the final segment of the creation science hour. It�s April 19 of 05 and this is Kent Hovind and Jonathan Sampson at creation science evangelism Dr.Dino.com, his website Dr.Dino live is the AOL instant message screen name if you want to get on and we have Martin on the phone right Martin?

Martin: Yes that�s right.

Kent: Good, so you�re from Sweden and living in Canada and you believe�.

Martin: No, I�m from Canada living in Sweden

Kent: Oh, you�re from Canada living in Sweden�

Martin: Yes

Kent: You�re calling from Sweden?

Martin: Yes, I�m actually calling from Linnaeus�s home town.

Kent: It�s got to be 2 in the morning there

Martin: No, it�s only a quarter to one.

Kent: quarter to one, ok, missed it by an hour. Um, so you believe that dragonflies and platypus have a common ancestor because they are bilaterally similar�

Martin: Yes but it is not a unique common ancestor. This is the important part ok, it�s a common ancestor shared with other things that are triploblastic multicellular eukaryotic bilaterally symmetric organs.

Kent: Right, now is this what you believe about having a common ancestor. Is this something that can be demonstrated empirically or just something that can be taken as theoretical?

Martin: Yes I think it can be demonstrated actually.

Kent: But you don�t see that as a religious belief, you see that as a science�.

Martin: No I don�t, I mean I don�t think things you can�t actually see necessarily require faith any more than I require faith I believing that there are electrons that are right now operating inside my computer or that there are stars very far that I can not see right now�

Kent: You�re using a physical analogy. You wouldn�t let me do that a few minutes ago.

Martin: Uh, because I�m not making an analogy to specific living things.

Kent: Yes you are

Martin: No I�m not, I�m making an analogy to your argument where you�re saying if I can�t see it then therefore it�s not scientific or that its faith based, but that is absolutely ridiculous. That�s an antiscientific statement because the purpose of science is to find out about things we cannot see that we cannot directly observe. That�s why we do science ok?

Kent: I agree

Martin: So then how can�t you agree that a common ancestor is something that we can learn about even if we can�t actually see who it is or find it?

Kent: It�s something you can believe in.

Martin: No, it�s something we can test.

Kent: You cannot test that a dragonfly and a platypus have a common ancestor.

Martin: Sure, you are trying to do it with me all night tonight. You are trying to test it. I mean whenever I say something, when I try to demonstrate there�s a nested hierarchy you try to bust it down � that�s testing it Kent.

Kent: Let�s test my hierarchy then; cars and filing cabinets are related.

Martin: Yeah but cars don�t reproduce so they can�t have common ancestors. It�s an irrelevant question.

Kent: Yeah but platypus have, they reproduce and they always produce platypus.

Martin: <laughing> That was stupid Kent, I�m sorry, you just made that up to get around my point. I mean that�s absolutely hilarious </laughing>

Kent: I�m correct. Platypus have always as far as anyone knows produce platypus.

Martin: Yes that�s right.

Kent: Let�s take dogs; people are more familiar with�

Martin: Oh yeah, you got to use dogs

Kent: Ok well people are a lot more familiar with that. There has been selective breeding going on for thousands of years

Martin: Sure

Kent: We�ve developed a wide range of strange looking ones from the Chihuahua to the Great Dane but they�re still dogs, they�re still inter-fertile, they�re still recognizable by a five year old as a dog, and yet you believe the dog somewhere in the past long ago and far away was something akin to a dragonfly or platypus or either�

Martin: No, it�s not akin to if by what you mean looks like a platypus or looks like a dog�

Kent: Or descended from. You believe they�re descended from something that was a common ancestor to all these living things.

Martin: Right

Kent: Right there is where you jump way out of science�

Martin: No

Kent: �and into faith

Martin: No, I�m sorry that�s not true actually because I can test that. You can show that a dog has more in common with something else. They�re so incredibly unique in its cellular and molecular system that it could not in any way, shape or form have a common ancestor with a dragonfly or a platypus but the fact is why is a dog and a platypus, why are they both mammals? Why? For what reason are they both mammals? What forces the creator to make them both mammals?

Kent: You told me you were in Linnaeus�s home town. Ok, he�s the one that set up our classification system

Martin: Yes, I�m glad you knew that.

Kent: It�s been modified a bunch since then but still the basic idea is pretty similar. We can classify things all we wanted�

Martin: Not really actually because he was pretty certain that there was a natural order to things that he was determining. And this is something we tend to agree with today.

Kent: Was Linnaeus a pretty smart scientist?

Martin: Yes he was a pretty clever guy.

Kent: Did he believe in creation?

Martin: Yeah, he sure did.

Kent: Ok why don�t you?

Martin: Uh, because I don�t think there�s anything to support it.

Kent: So you think he was wrong?

Martin: Yes he was wrong.

Kent: But he was right to classify dogs and platypus both as mammals but he was wrong to believe there must have been a designer for this

Martin: No, I don�t think he was wrong to believe that. I think he had some good reasons for that. Of course he lived in pre-Darwinian times so he didn�t have Darwin�s theory of evolution to explain� Do you accept Linnaeus�s classification to some degree?

Kent: Darwin�s theory ruined a lot of science in my opinion, made people (unintelligible) religious.

Martin: Oh well that�s fine but I mean you can�t have people believing the theory of atoms before there�s a theory of atoms (did exist?).

Kent: Darwin�s grandfather wrote most of the stuff for Darwin

Martin: Yeah but that wasn�t Darwin�s theory of evolution. That�s a very different (unintelligible). It wasn�t based on natural selection; it wasn�t based on common ancestry. So this is what we�re talking about. We are talking about the issue of common ancestry. Ancestry is based on the notion of nested sets, and that nested set pattern is derived from Linnaeus�s classification ok? And a nested pattern is the mathematical necessary consequence of any branching process.

Kent: I don�t understand how you don�t see that that�s religion and a faith. How can I explain�?

Martin: Because it can be tested because we know if there is a branching process going on that if there is, then we should expect to see this nested hierarchy, that if there is no nested hierarchy or if we can find violations of the nested hierarchy, you test the theory.

Kent: Ok, there�s an article in a recent science magazine about; I�m going to look it up as we speak, about amoeba having five times more DNA than mammals.

Martin: Sure, actually it has the largest gene of any eukaryote.

Kent: Why would an amoeba have five times more DNA than a mammal?

Martin: Why not?

Kent: That�s not an answer.

Martin: No, I mean I don�t see what this question has to do with common ancestry or how common ancestry is untestable. You�re just dragging the point off trying to get me to explain genomics and I�m not trying to explain genomics. I�m trying to explain common ancestry to you and why scientists think it�s actually a credible theory.

Kent: Ok, here�s the article. Scientific American 2004 page 62, �if amphibians evolved before mammals why do some amphibians have five times more DNA than mammals and some amoeba have a thousand times more DNA than mammals?�

Martin: And a (unintelligible) fish has 30 times as much DNA as we have but I mean, ok, first of all, have you ever heard of a chromosome duplication?

Kent: Oh yeah.

Martin: yeah, there�s your answer.

Kent: There�s my answer? Are you saying it�s just simply duplicated information, it�s not new information? That�s what you are implying.

Martin: Sure, why couldn�t it be duplicated information and why isn�t that new information?

Kent: The polyploidy? That�s not new information.

Martin: Sure, why not? You just then changed the, those genes are free to evolve however they want. But now you are just drawing the problem away from the point I was making about common ancestry because this has nothing to do with common ancestry. I consider this an incredible victory for me because it�s clear you don�t want to discuss common ancestry.

Jonathan: Martin you said to disprove common ancestry. I think this is the only example you gave, to �find a plant cell within a dragonfly�, and that would disprove common ancestry?

Martin: That�s one example of how you could do it. There�s many different ways of doing it.

Kent: Now wait wait wait�.

Jonathan: Now wouldn�t a creationist be shooting himself in the foot to do that?

Martin: No because god can make things however he wants and you (just have?) proven there was no restrictions on how he could make thing.

Kent: See, here�s the problem Martin; if the person who believes in evolution is doing the classification then the classification will always fit their evolution theory.

Martin: Sure but that�s the thing, because they have a classification they�ve built a vigorous tree that now you cannot have violations in it. All you need to do to test it, you as a creationist, go into the lab, take their tree that they produced and study any of these organisms based on the character distribution provided by the tree and find a counter example that has to come from way off on another branch of their same tree that they drew.

Kent: Ok, let me try to give you one. Are there any animals that you know of that contain chlorophyll?

Martin: There�s none that I know of.

Kent: Ok, is that because if it contains chlorophyll it�s no longer classed as an animal?

Martin: No. See, that�s exactly where you miss the point. It�s not similarity�.

Kent: Jonathan has chlorophyll in him right now, he had lemonade earlier.

Martin: This is not about similarities. This is not about individual characters. This is about unique combinations of characters. Chlorophyll in a cell wall in a dragonfly would not end up classified as a plant; it would be classified as what the heck is this? That would be a violation of the nested set. That�s a perfect example of how to test it.

Kent: Ok hang on Martin. You are totally missing Jonathans point. He asked you earlier �how would you falsify your evolution theory�. You told us twenty ways you would prove it. How would you falsify the evolution�

Martin: I just explained how you would falsify it.

Jonathan: Find a pinecone growing out of somebody�s head�

Kent: Find a pinecone in somebody�s head.

Jonathan: �that would prove that prove humans and trees are not related.

Kent: Are there any plants that move?

Martin: No, actually that�s a very good example showing a human growing a pinecone out of his head would be something evolution could not explain because�

Jonathan: Oh come on.

Martin: No, because pinecones belong to pine trees which are a separate place that all belong to a separate common ancestor and that this feature, pinecones, is a unique attribute which defines that group.

Jonathan: That would not disprove evolution. That would simply, if anything, modify the evolutionary theory.

Martin: You clearly don�t understand the basic premises on which the theory of common ancestry is based. You would never think that.

Kent: The theory of common ancestry is built on the assumption that evolution is true and therefore it is not falsifiable�

Martin: No it�s not. It�s built on the assumption of actually a very strongly supported mathematical assumption that nested hierarchies are generated by branching processes.

Kent: Ok we have to close in two minutes. Let me ask you one final question here. And I ask this to everyone who believes in evolution if I get an opportunity to ask them. Have you accepted the theory of evolution because you really think there�s scientific evidence or because the creation theory would affect your lifestyle if you accepted it?

Martin: I accept it because not only do I believe that there�s good evidence for it but I�ve actually seen and handled much of that evidence on a daily basis.

Kent: You�ve seen evidence that dogs produce non-dogs?

Martin: Uh no because no one ever said dogs produce non-dogs but I have seen very good evidence have come from another ancestor that is closely related to other carnivorous mammals.

Kent: Well you are certainly welcome to believe that however I don�t think you understand�

Martin: Yeah I know Kent, I�ve heard all this before, but it�s been nice talking to you. Have a good evening.

Kent: Glad to have you on the program. Folks we�re about out of time here. People are certainly welcome to believe that but that�s a religion if I ever heard it and I resent paying for that to be taught in the school system. So, that�s our stand here and we are not government funded and we take the position that if somebody wants to believe that a dragonfly and a platypus have a common ancestor that�s wonderful. I don�t want to pay for that to be taught in the school. It violates common sense and violates observation. We see dogs produce dogs; no exceptions that I�m aware of.