In his article on human evolution Graeme Finlay states that duplicated DNA segments prove evolution. Finlay's proof is straightforward. These duplications of DNA segments arise randomly and yet identical duplications are found in cousin species, such as humans and chimpanzees. Finlay uses as his example opsin genes which produce proteins that are light sensitive. Different opsin genes produce proteins that are sensitive to different colors of light. The proteins are found in the hundreds of millions of photocells in our retina and they allow us to sense the different colors of light that we see. By combining the signals from these different photocells, our brain can assemble a full color image.Two of our opsin genes are close to each other in our DNA, and they are very similar (except that they are tuned to different colors of light). The evolutionary hypothesis is that the one opsin was formed when the other was duplicated and was inserted into the DNA. At first glance it seems like a perfectly reasonable hypothesis.
But Finlay and the evolutionists go much further--they say it is yet another compelling proof of evolution. Finlay concludes that these genetic similarities demonstrate "that the duplication arose in a unique event, and that it has been inherited by all the species that now possess it."
Can we really be so sure? In fact there are three major problems with this evolutionary logic.
1. Is the genome really so random?
Recall that Finlay's assumption is that these duplications of DNA segments arise randomly. This of course is standard evolutionary reasoning. Everything occurs randomly until proven otherwise. But the empirical evidence does not bear this out and the argument is circular. Indeed, even if evolution is true there are similar DNA duplications in cousin species that violate the evolutionary expected pattern. Evolutionists must explain these convergent duplications with non evolutionary mechanisms. So by their own admission, evolution is not required to explain such duplications.
2. It is at most only a successful prediction.
Ignoring problem #1 above, even if we grant the observed DNA duplications as perfectly fitting evolutionary expectations, they are at most only a successful prediction. They certainly cannot be said to require evolution as an explanation (that would be the fallacy of affirming the consequent). They cannot prove evolution to be true. They would have to be compared with all the false predictions and the totality of the evidence would have to be accounted for before making pronouncements about evolution.
3. A plethora of problems ignored.
Finally, as I have discussed before, Finlay's evidence raises profound problems for evolution. Most obviously, the evolutionist takes for granted the pre existence of the color-coding gene, the photocells, the retina, and the remainder of the vision system and brain. From where did this incredible system come? Are we to believe that it too is simply the result of evolution because evolutionists think a DNA duplication event added more color resolution?
Another problem is that evolutionists vastly underestimate the complexity of the supposed evolutionary change required. A DNA duplication event followed by a few mutations to tweak the color sensitivity does not instantly provide enhanced color resolution. That is only the beginning of what would be required. The product of the new color-coding gene would need to be used in certain photocells. The quantity and locations of these photocells are important.
And on the receiving end, downstream cells would need to be reprogrammed, to interpret properly the new color information. This is because the photocells do not signal their color. The output of the photocell is merely a nerve impulse (action potential), and its interpretation is an extremely complex process. Modifying a color-coding gene without concomitant downstream reprogramming just confuses things.
And yet Finlay is sure these genetic similarities prove evolution. Religion drives science and it matters.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteI am looking forward to the creation of your companion website "Newton's predictions." The failure of Newton's theory of gravity is one of the great stories of 20th century science, yet it is still taught in textbooks as if it was true. This is an outrage, brought about by physicists' slavish devotion to their prophet. Religion drives physics and it matters.
Khan, you contribute nothing to this blog. Pack it up Moiz.
ReplyDeleteso, anonymous, tell me why you're all up in arms about the theory of evolution but not the theory of gravity, which has been even more extensively modified and has even more unexplained anomalies.
ReplyDeleteThis is a blog on evolution, not gravity.
ReplyDeleteok, but are you as incensed about the theory of gravity as you are about the theory of evolution?
ReplyDeleteAgain, if you want to talk gravity, i would suggest trying to find a gravity blog. This is a blog titled "Darwin's God". Nothing to do with Newton or gravity.
ReplyDeleteKhan: Although C.H. has reiterated this ad infinitum, you apparently still don't get it - Darwinism, like all scientific theories, has consequences.
ReplyDeleteBut Darwinism has consequences that directly weigh on the value and nature of human life. Darwinism is also based on metaphysical materialism - not science.
Darwin was a materialist and he deliberately intended for his theory to rid science of God (The Darwin Myth:the life and lies of Charles Darwin).
Newton was a creationist.
Gravitational theory has zero impact on the significance of human life or life's value and nature.
Darwinism necessarily reduces human life value to the level of any bacteria or worm, or as a Ph.D'd Darwinist from my own area said - speaking of himself, "I have no more value than a mosquito".
Now to direct your own question against you: Why indeed can we question gravitational theory - in class and in the field - without any repercussions or complaints?
Yet if one questions, i.e. doubts Darwin, one is immediately subjected to ridicule, discrimination and even persecution? That alone should give you a clue as to the dogmatic and religious nature of Darwinism.
Secondly, I can demonstrate gravity while sitting in my seat - as can anyone.
No one has ever demonstrated Darwinian evolution (macro evol.) anywhere - not anything beyond mere variation and adaptation within the taxonomic family.
How is it then that one is entitled to question gravitational theory which, in its most basic form, is easy to demonstrate empirically, yet not Darwinism, which is not demonstrateble at all?
Hmmm, looks like your reasoning process is twisted.
Hello Khan
ReplyDeleteThose who study gravity - a theory which is as unquestioned as evolution (apparently) - do not make up silly stories about how their theory affects our understanding of the nature of humanity.
Hitch,
ReplyDeletefirst, your response indicates you don't even understand the difference between a theory and a fact. you should work on that. start by asking yourself what the "fact" of gravity is and what the "theory" of gravity is. are you really "proving" the theory of gravity by sitting in your seat? if you think so, einstein would like a few words with you.
second, the consequences of a theory have nothing to do with its truth or falsehood. you prove the point that attacks on evolution are driven by political and relgious, not scientific, concerns with this comment.
third, exactly how often is the theory of gravity questioned? i have yet to find a blog that attacks and ridicules it, or an attempt to have the "evidence for and against it" taught in science classes.
fourth, if you want an example of macroevolution, read up on the endosymbiotic origin of organelles.I'm sure the evidence will not be good enough for you, but you might as well learn a bit.
fifth, the same methodological naturalism that is used in physics is also used in biology.whether you take that to the next level of philosophical naturalism is a personal choice. and despite what Cornselius writes about endlessly, the science of evolution, outside of press releases and popular books, does not make any claims about the nature of god. this is a pedagogical tool (using creationism as a foil) that in my opinion does more harm than good. if cornelius bothered to read the primary literature he would know this.
Dave,
ReplyDeletereally? stephen hawkings never waxes philosophical? or Einstein? or Feynman?
"The failure of Newton's theory of gravity is one of the great stories of 20th century science, yet it is still taught in textbooks as if it was true."
ReplyDeleteHum..
I think that whoever tried to compare theory of gravity from Newton and TOE has never bother to find out about any of them.
Newton used thousand of data point to infer his theory.
How many experiments Darwin did to infer his theory? None. Actually, he asked Galton (you know the guy who get Eugenism a brand new respectability) to do the experiments for him (Darwin was rubbish at math). Galton did the experiments but they all failled: actually, he almost discovered the law of heredity (discovered by Mendel and ignored by the darwinistia for 50 years). Darwin wasn't very pleased and he got upset with Galton (notice, he didnt get upset because Galton was an eugenist...seems ok to him).
When you actually needed quite some science and mathematical knowledge to understand Principia, you could read Darwin's Origin, in a quiet afternoon, a glass of gin in the hand: guaranty scientific content free.
Mannix99
mannix99,
ReplyDeletefunny, despite all those data points, Newton still got it wrong. yet we never hear about that and numerous other failures, including those in his main interest: alchemy.
Khan:
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that Darwinism is as adequately refuted as Newtonian Gravity?
I'm saying the theory of evolution is in as good a shape as the theory of gravity, and we have made more progress over the past decade in the former than the latter.
ReplyDeleteIf by the theory of gravity you mean that when you throw a rock up it comes down, your right.
ReplyDeleteBut if you mean Aristotle's explanation, or Newton's description, then that's a different story. So I guess the equivalent would be that different species exist. But how they got here is the question.
Cornelius seems to think that evolution has a metaphysical basis because it claims that a God (or intelligent designer) is not required to explain the development of life. In this sense he claims the the theory of evolution is religious in nature. How is this different from the theory of gravitation, which also claims that a God is not required to explain the motions of the planets or galaxies? Why doesn't he claim that the theory of gravitation has religious underpinnings? Just as the theory of evolution rejects the idea of a God directing the development of new life forms, the theory of gravitation rejects the idea of a God directing the motion of the planets and galaxies. I fail to grasp the distinction that he makes between the "religious underpinnings" of two theories.
ReplyDeleteMichael,
ReplyDeletegood point. Einstein's ideas, by Cornelius' reckoning, are religiously based as well, e.g. his famous "God does not play dice with the universe" quotation.
Khan,
ReplyDeleteMy point exactly!
Khan, Its easy to see that you have resorted to taking to yourself to get your point across. This is not a blog on gravity.
ReplyDeleteHi Dr. Hunter,
ReplyDeleteAny progress on finding a non-blog website to put duplicates of your articles up? As I said before, I like posting your stuff on the News/Message boards, but some of the biggest ones do not allow blog addresses in the News section (which gets the most views by far).
All the best to you and yours--GGG
PS I saw you in "The Voyage that Shook the World"...you did an excellent job, in a truly excellent docudrama! Keep up the good work!!!
It has been possible to "refute" Newtonian physics, because Newtonian physics is a serious scientific theory that makes accurate numerical predictions, that can be compared with the evidence.
ReplyDeleteDarwinism, on the otherhand, attempts to rationalise the evidence AFTER it appears. Conflicting data is shamelessly batted aside with an armoury of ad-hock rationalisations.
Many are starting to consider the search for transitional forms as equivalent to alchemy. In their Day, both Darwinism and Alchemy were considered to be serious scientific efforts, both were seen as being doomed to failure as we learned more.
Dr. Hunter
ReplyDeleteAssuming that you are right - that is, there are so many serious flaws with the evidence for evolution, where does that leave us? Do you think that ID simply wins on default, despite the fact that there is so little positive evidence for ID? I understand that you have issues with evolution, and that we shouldn't just resort to accepting evolution because there is nothing else.
For myself, to contemplate ID brings up almost as many issues as ID would purport to solve. I do appreciate that ID is supposed to be confined to the science of design inference. But what I can't get my head around is the idea that, regardless of who the designer is or isn't, it seems very clear that this "designer" hasn't exactly gone out of their way to reveal the methods and means of design, let alone any purpose. That's why ultimately I'm suspicious that the designer could be the Christian God; the designer suggested by ID seems to be one of subterfuge, secrecy, obfuscation, and perhaps even capriciousness. Are these traits really those of a loving God who wants to reconcile with His lost children?
Michael and folks:
ReplyDelete"Cornelius seems to think that evolution has a metaphysical basis because it claims that a God (or intelligent designer) is not required to explain the development of life."
This strawman is unfortunately not unusual. Why is it that evolutionists use these arguments?
I was just passing by. I am a Ph.D physicist. Khan, please stop posting. Either you don't know a thing about science, or else you are acting deliberately dumb. It is irritating to have the learned people on this site have to waste time on your drivel.
ReplyDeleteDear Anoymous at 5:18 PM
ReplyDeleteYou seem to ask legitimate questions. But all you end up doing is proving Dr. Hunter's main point. You start with an assumption about the state of the earth based on the surprising limited amount of information you have.
"the designer suggested by ID seems to be one of subterfuge, secrecy, obfuscation, and perhaps even capriciousness."
You conclude this how??? Have you done a thorough study of why things are the way they are. Do you purport to know the creator's limitations?
Point 1. Let me analogize. My son is currently studying algebra. He was having a hard time with exponents. I asked him why? He said because the definitions of exponents are so arbitrary. Why do you add exponents when you multiply like bases? why is a negative exponent in the numerator mean the same as a positive exponent in the numerator? why does a fractional exponent mean the same as a root of a number? I then proceeded to show him that given only the principle that a^n = a*a*a*a ... ntimes that I could derive all those rules. They were not only not arbitrary but given the definition they were completely necessary and could only be the way that they are.
What you see as being capricious probably is completely necessary. The fact that you do not have enough knowledge to derive the reason it is so, is more a comment about your ignorance, than a comment on your assumed capriciousness of the creator.
Point 2. We are currently not in heaven. Indeed the Christian God says that even the creation in anthropomorphic terms, is groaning and agonizing awaiting its deliverance from sin. The world we are living in now is supposed to show ravages of sin. As a matter of fact, this description of the universe, as a imperfect creation distorted by sin, fits the state of the world very nicely. It is the mercy of God that the creation shows imperfection. It allows one to correctly conclude that we are not yet in heaven. There is no need for children who are already in paradise to reconcile with their Father.
Point 3. You don't really describe much of your knowledge of God, and just by the nature of you being a finite human being, you don't know all that much about nature. Yet you purport to say that the state of nature - does not match your vision of the Christian God. But you are vastly ignorant of both. You can not make this case from science. So where does the knowledge come from to make these big assertions. You are making a faith argument. A religious argument. And at the end of the day, a lot of the objections scientists have to ID is just a religious argument. Its just that it usually takes someone who really studies religion to see that. You will just conclude you are being logical until you actually have your eyes opened.
Anon @ 9:56pm "You don't really describe much of your knowledge of God, and just by the nature of you being a finite human being, you don't know all that much about nature. Yet you purport to say that the state of nature - does not match your vision of the Christian God."
ReplyDeleteQuite a tirade! I think anon @ 5:18pm has a reasonable point. If Christians think the designer is the Christian God (and many ID proponents do), it is a fair question to ask - do the characteristics we can glean about the designer match those of what we can determine about God from the Bible? I would agree with 5:18pm that given that ID is seemingly quite hard to detect (and since much of the hypothesis is around IC, only possible in modern times), we could quite easily conclude that the designer wished his/her design to be "hidden" and not easily detected. Looking to the Bible, firstly we are of course struck by the fact that there is not a word explicitly spoken about ID - indeed it would seem the Bible makes a strong case for young-age creationism. We also know from the NT that God apparently is on a mission - to reach out to his lost. Is the fact that ID is so "hidden" in synch with a deity who seemingly wants to reach out to the lost and openly communicate with His lost people.
These are indeed legitimate questions - and ones in my experience the ID community doesn't really want to tackle. Perhaps the reason for that may be that if there is a designer, perhaps it is not who many here and on UD think it is (and I think perhaps this includes anon @ 9:56pm)...
Or are these things only really understandable and accessible to those who have spent several years studying the Bible or attending seminary?
@khan:"funny, despite all those data points, Newton still got it wrong. yet we never hear about that and numerous other failures, including those in his main interest: alchemy".
ReplyDeleteYes, well, the cultivated do. But regarding Newton theory of gravity, it is still valid, on earth, for most purpose.
Darwin theory on the other hand, doesn't have any "data points", doesn't have any formula, or anything. It's a qualitative attempt to explain, without the need of God, our existence.
Mannix99
anonymous at 9:25,
ReplyDeleteyou have made my point. now you know how i feel reading this site.
mannix,
ReplyDeleteread "the genetical theory of natural selection", or for that matter pick up any issue of the journal Evolution and then tell me how qualitative evolutionary biology is.
Cornelius,
you say it's a strawman bu make no effort to explain why. need i remind you of the many times Einstein argued "GOd wouldn't do this or God wouldn't do that" Is this not religious by your definition?
Khan:
ReplyDelete"you say it's a strawman bu make no effort to explain why. need i remind you of the many times Einstein argued "GOd wouldn't do this or God wouldn't do that" Is this not religious by your definition?"
Unbelievable--it is all through this blog and yet I "make no effort." I have explained this every conceivable way, but the evolutionists always manage to come up with a strawman. Michael can start here, for example:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/sober-rebukes-evolutions-religion.html
As for Einstein's religious claims, sure, like everyone else he had his religious beliefs. And they probably influenced his thinking on QM. It is another example of religious influences in science. So what's your point?
The bottom line is this: Religion has had profound influence in science. We can acknowledge this and reckon with it, or we can remain in denial about it.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteunbelievable? you say i'm making a strawman but then in the next paragraph you agree with me? make up your mind. so quantum mechanics is now a religious theory? so how are we going "reckon" with that?
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteI've now read the link that you provided
(http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/sober-rebukes-evolutions-religion.html)
and I still see the argument that Sober provides as tangential and irrelevant to the theory of evolution. It is ridiculous to think that because an "intelligent designer" would not have done things a certain way that this is an argument for evolution. This is a specious argument, and should be discarded, as you very rightly suggest. However, the whole argument based on what an intelligent designer would have done is a red herring and is not the main evidence in favor of the theory of evolution.
I think the real evidence in favor of the theory of evolution is that the biochemical evidence shows similarities in genome that diverge in a manner that is consistent with the theory of evolution; that the divergence in genomes corresponds to the divergence of life forms in the fossil record (to the extent that the fossil record and the genomes are known); that the evidence from biogeography is consistent with the theory of evolution; that evolution has been observed in many "micro-evolution" sense many times; and that there is no legitimate reason for drawing a boundary between the observed fact of "micro-evolution" and the much longer timescale process of "macro-evolution". Of course, none of these observations rule out the possibility of an "intelligent designer", but they don't require one either. Thus, in the spirit of Occam's razor, I am in favor of the simpler theory -- the one that does not invoke an entity (the "intelligent designer") for whom we have no direct evidence.
I also think that the arguments for a designer that stem from the idea of irreducible complexity are based on a failure of imagination. They are really saying "I can't imagine how this complicated cellular apparatus could have evolved, so it must have been designed." This is the same argument that was applied to the planetary motions prior to Newton -- basically "I can't understand why the planets move in the peculiar ways they do, so their motions must be directed by a god." Again, this attitude reflects nothing more than a failure of imagination or a failure to understand. That in itself is not evidence of anything.
Khan:
ReplyDelete"make up your mind. so quantum mechanics is now a religious theory? so how are we going "reckon" with that?"
We're quickly going nowhere. No, QM is not a religious theory, and I never suggested that.
Michael:
ReplyDeleteI've now read the link that you provided
(http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/sober-rebukes-evolutions-religion.html)
and I still see the argument that Sober provides as tangential and irrelevant to the theory of evolution.
>Then you don't understand evolution.
It is ridiculous to think that because an "intelligent designer" would not have done things a certain way that this is an argument for evolution.
>So evolutionary thought is ridiculous?
This is a specious argument, and should be discarded, as you very rightly suggest. However, the whole argument based on what an intelligent designer would have done is a red herring and is not the main evidence in favor of the theory of evolution.
>Of course it is.
I think the real evidence in favor of the theory of evolution is that the biochemical evidence shows similarities in genome that diverge in a manner that is consistent with the theory of evolution;
False.
that the divergence in genomes corresponds to the divergence of life forms in the fossil record (to the extent that the fossil record and the genomes are known);
False.
that the evidence from biogeography is consistent with the theory of evolution;
False
that evolution has been observed in many "micro-evolution" sense many times;
False.
and that there is no legitimate reason for drawing a boundary between the observed fact of "micro-evolution" and the much longer timescale process of "macro-evolution".
False
Even evolutionists don't hold to these claims.
I also think that the arguments for a designer that stem from the idea of irreducible complexity are based on a failure of imagination. They are really saying "I can't imagine how this complicated cellular apparatus could have evolved, so it must have been designed." This is the same argument that was applied to the planetary motions prior to Newton -- basically "I can't understand why the planets move in the peculiar ways they do, so their motions must be directed by a god." Again, this attitude reflects nothing more than a failure of imagination or a failure to understand. That in itself is not evidence of anything.
I didn't know that. Who prior to Newton said that?
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteOne-word answers (False) to legitimate statements don't make very good arguments. If that is all you are willing to provide in response to my arguments, it doesn't seem like there's much to discuss here.
As far as planetary motion is concerned, I was referring to the Greek mythological explanation of the motion of the sun across the sky, pulled by the chariot of Helios. In Egyptian mythology, it was Ra traveling across the sky and entering the underworld at sunset.
I don't see why some people can't understand this simple concept. They must be blinded by something. When you make the statement "God would not have done X". You are making a religious argument. And you probably are wrong.
ReplyDeleteLittle children often don't understand why their parents punish them. They might say "A loving parent would never punish me." Its a good thing most children do not stay as children. They grow up and understand that because their parents loved them they punished them for making bad choices.
Anon @ 11:45 " don't see why some people can't understand this simple concept. They must be blinded by something. When you make the statement "God would not have done X". You are making a religious argument. And you probably are wrong."
ReplyDeleteNo. Strictly speaking you are making a counter-argument to a religious argument. BIg difference.
To follow anon's logic, if I make a statement such as "I think the terrorists next move will be such-and-such...", does that also make me a terrorist or am I guilty of a terrorist argument? Of course not.
Dr. Hunter,
ReplyDeleteAn excellent post as usual. I enjoy reading your thorough and insightful posts. They are a fine example of good science which attempts to get at the truth.
Your post are excellent criticisms of evolution. However, some scientists might suggests that while your analysis of evolution is strong, you offer no alternative. To many scientists their status is dependent on their ability to claim knowledge, rightly or wrongly? What would you offer as an alternative to evolution to those scientists that would be willing to accept a viable alternative?
Peter:
ReplyDelete"What would you offer as an alternative to evolution to those scientists that would be willing to accept a viable alternative?"
Most people, evolutionists included, do not easily part with their religious convictions. Mere empirical science doesn't get you very far with evolutionists.