President, BioLogos Foundation
Dear Dr. Giberson:
As a professor, author and President of the BioLogos Foundation, you have powerful communication tools at your disposal. You have access to major media outlets and you speak with scientific authority. In short, you are a teacher with a very large audience. This is an enormous teaching responsibility which I am sure you take seriously. For this reason I want to alert you to a fundamental mistake which you and the BioLogos Foundation have made. Given the magnitude of your teaching responsibility I hope that you will carefully consider this situation and take the appropriate corrective measures.
Your mistake is that you present evolution as a well-established scientific fact. For instance, in a recent USA Today opinion piece you (with Darrel Falk) wrote that evolution "is as well-established within biology as heliocentricity is established within astronomy." You continued:
In the years since Darwin argued natural selection was the agent of creation, the evidence for evolution has become overwhelming. The fossil record has provided evidence of compelling transitional species such as whales with feet. The discovery of DNA now provides an irrefutable digital record of the relatedness of all living things. And even the physicists have cooperated by proving that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, providing plenty of time for evolution.
In the follow-up chat a USA Today reader asked about the evidence for macro evolution, to which you responded:
By far the strongest evidence for this--evidence that I think is essentially proof--comes from genetics. The site www.biologos.org has an entire FAQ on this question. I think, if you look at how species share genes, even ones that don't do anything, you will be convinced that they must have evolved from common ancestors.
Your statements here, which are similar to those made the previous BioLogos President Francis Collins, are a dramatic misrepresentation of science. Let me explain why.
Affirming the consequent
The evidences that you cite (and of course more evidences could be cited) match evolutionary expectations. Therefore certain predictions of the theory have been confirmed. It is a logical fallacy, however, to conclude that confirmed predictions prove the theory to be true. This fallacy is known as affirming the consequent. Therefore, the age of the earth, transitional fossils such as whales with feet, similar genes and other such evidences do not prove evolution.
Ignoring contradictory evidence
In addition to this logical error, you also mistakenly ignore falsifying evidence. For while there are evidences that are consistent with evolution as you cite above, there is a wide range of staggering evidences against evolution. These include fossils and genetic data, among others. For instance, dramatic similarities are found in otherwise distant species and significant differences are found in otherwise similar species. These findings were great surprises to evolutionists. While it is true that after-the-fact circuitous explanations can always be contrived, certainly the substantial body of contradictory evidence should have some bearing on the status of evolutionary theory.
Relying on metaphysics
Unfortunately the claim that evolution is a fact, as much as is gravity or heliocentrism, has always been motivated by metaphysical assumptions. These assumptions trace back to the Enlightenment, and Darwin and Wallace built upon them. The conclusion ever since was that evolution had to be true, not because of the empirical science but because of the metaphysical mandate. The BioLogos Foundation falls into this tradition. Francis Collins has consistently promoted evolution’s religious premises, such as when he wrote:
A claim that the human genome was created by God independently rather than being part of descent from a common ancestor would mean God intentionally inserted a nonfunctioning piece of DNA into our genomes to test our faith. Unless you are willing to contemplate the idea of God as a deceiver, this is not a comfortable explanation.
Likewise, your suggestion that shared genes, including non functional ones, prove common ancestry is equally metaphysical. From a scientific perspective these are merely confirmed expectations, but given the evolutionary metaphysics such similarities prove common ancestry.
In summary, you have ignored standard principles of scientific reasoning and have presented to the public metaphysical reasoning as science. I hope this letter helps you to see the seriousness of your mistake. You have a tremendous teaching responsibility—I hope you meet the challenge.
Sincerely, Cornelius Hunter
Evolution is easily "is as well-established within biology as heliocentricity is established within astronomy." By the way, just as people reject evolution because it conflicts with various readings of ancient religious texts, some PhD holding 'scientists' reject heliocentrism for the same reasons;
ReplyDeletehttp://www.geocentricperspective.com/Geocentrism.htm
http://www.geocentricity.com/
The only main difference between evolution and other theories; such as cells, atoms, gravity etc, is that people are not (generally) offering ad hoc supernatural alternatives in an attempt to fill in the gaps in our current knowledge, and are not constantly pointing out that our current understandings of cells, atoms, and gravity are obviously incomplete and contradicted by various bits of empirical data.
When using scientific standards created by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), all tenets of evolution fall short of being considered 'scientific':
ReplyDelete“In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others.”
“Science, Evolution, and Creationism” 2008, National Academy of Sciences (NAS), The National Academies Press, third edition, page 10.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=10
Origin of the Universe:
Using the standards above:
* Are any of the evolutionary explanations for the origin of the universe a “naturally occurring phenomena” within know scientific information, laws, and principles?
* Can any be “reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others”?
Results:
Since the answer is NO, all existing evolutionary explanations for the origin of the universe MUST be given the correct status of being supernatural, i.e. something attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/origin_of_the_universe.html
Origin of Life:
Using the standards above:
* Are there any evolutionary explanations for the evolution of life from non-life a “naturally occurring phenomena” within know scientific information, laws, and principles?
* Can any be “reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others”?
Results:
Since the answer is “no,” all existing evolutionary explanations for the evolution of life from non-life MUST be given the correct status of being supernatural, i.e. something attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/evolution_of_life.html
For Common Descent, go to:
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/common_descent.html
Evolutionists openly admit that they don’t know how evolution supposedly occurs
(see http://www.whoisyourcreator. com/how_does_evolution_occur.html).
Because of this, the two sets of criteria above dictate that citing ‘evolution’ as a source of action (i.e. mechanism) is nothing but a supernatural reference. The truly fascinating thing is that evolutionists also use the supernatural words 'nature' and 'mother nature' when attributing a source of action to something they can’t explain. Ignoring the irony, they continually violate their own standards:
* “Nature is very good at building structures but instead of bricks and mortar it uses molecules like proteins and lipids for its building blocks.” http://mrsec.wisc.edu/Edetc/nanoquest/self_assembly/index.html
* “Nature and evolution have actually created a basic way for a cell to divide with a backup system that can work if the other approach fails.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080902221728.htm
* “In other words, as Mother Nature sorts things out, some adaptations go by the wayside, with the latest generation of an organism sometimes showing no traces of them …”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090116142117.htm
So much for the sad state of 'science' ...
Like a tonic, Dr. Hunter, for a mind that has been clouded by too many scientific evidences that really weren't.
ReplyDeleteThx,
Dan
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteGood post! It seems like the logic of evolution goes this way:
1. We have junk, non-functioning DNA.
2. There is no design purpose for non-functioning DNA.
3. It’s just like the junk DNA from the other primates.
4. Therefore, we got our junk DNA from the primates.
I have several questions about this:
1. How can we be sure that it’s truly junk and therefore has no purpose?
2. Is it compellingly similar to that of the primates?
3. If it is, would this compel the conclusion that we came from the primates?
first anonymous,
ReplyDeletegood point. the theory of gravity, for example is contradicted by stars moving faster than expected and the Pioneer spacecraft slowing down more than expected. yet we don't constantly hear about how many failed predictions the theory of gravity has given us. whis that, Cornelius? Perhaps you should make a companion website "Einstein's predictions?"
Dr Hunter: "Francis Collins has consistently promoted evolution’s religious premises, such as when he wrote..."
ReplyDeleteCollins then goes on to speculate on why creationism is flawed (based on reasonable assumptions about the nature and character of God). According to Hunter this is a religious premise on the part of evolution.
So then, if I make a comment about another person's religious convictions, does that in turn imply I also have religious convictions? But that is what Dr. Hunter is implying here.
Dr. Hunter's argument (which unfortunately he repeats ad nauseum) is really nonsensical and makes him appear as credible as a conspiratist theorist. Sure, I think people can buy that evolutionists may have some presuppositions (who doesn't), but to say they these persuppositions are somehow religious really has no basis.
Of course then we are supposed to believe that Dr. Hunter's own religious convictions do not impact his "pure" scientific understanding. Right. And I have a bridge to sell you too.
Cornelius: "Therefore, the age of the earth, transitional fossils such as whales with feet, similar genes and other such evidences do not prove evolution."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that evolution, like any scientific theory can be "proved", but these evidences do provide considerable credence to evolution.
As others have tried to point out, in the absence of an alternative theory, your negative campaigning against evolution really isn't all that compelling.
Now, if you want to take the list of evidences and provide an alternative hypothesis that in your opinion better explains them, then that would indeed be very noteworthy and worth paying attention to. But so far you seem rather reluctant to do that aren't you?
Ultimately it is a presentation of a viable alternative theory/hypothesis that is really going to have the persuasion power - not this endless pulling apart of evolution (which could actually be done to any scientific theory - it's only because of the religous implications of evolution that evolution is singled-out in this fashion). I personally would love to see Dr. Hunter sketch out an alternative to evolution (and no ID on its own is insufficient). I'd be all ears.
The Darrel Falk article you quoted said, "By far the strongest evidence for this--evidence that I think is essentially proof--comes from genetics. The site www.biologos.org has an entire FAQ on this question."
ReplyDeleteInterested to see the "strongest evidence", I searched the FAQ's on biologos.org and couldn't find an FAQ that focused on evidence from genetics. Can someone point it out? The closest I found was http://biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-fall/ which discusses evidence of shared DNA between chimps and humans. This of course supports common design as well as common descent (unless you bring in theological arguments); and even showing CD would not be evidence that diversification took place only through natural means, or even *could* occur via Darwinian mechanisms. Strong scientific evidence shows that it can't: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/nature_publishes_paper_on_the.html
Once again the claimed "strongest evidence" / "proof" of evolution falls flat. Where's the beef?
@Anonymous: If evolution is disconfirmed by the scientific evidence, then it is disconfirmed, and should not be described as "fact". This is true regardless of the existence of a viable alternative, and especially regardless of the existence of an alternative that you find acceptable.
ReplyDeleteEvading evolution's problems on this basis shows an unwillingness to seriously consider whether evolution is really supported by the evidence. Such an attitude undermines a person's claim that evolution *is* well-supported.
Erratum: above I referred to "the Darrel Falk article" but it was in fact the chat with Giberson.
Lars: "This is true regardless of the existence of a viable alternative, and especially regardless of the existence of an alternative that you find acceptable."
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree if evolution is flawed then yes those flaws should be pointed out. But that only gets you so far - in fact all it is going to do is create a void in knowledge. And of course Cornelius and others obviously DO think that there are alternatives. But what I find telling and disingenous is that they point-blank refuse to interpret or apply their ideas to any of the evidences. I never hear people say "evolution says that having whales had feet, but I here's how ID would explain it differently...". The only time ID ventures into this area is usually at the micro-level (e.g., the flagellum) - and then all they can say is that a design inference can be made, but can provide no additional information about the actual mechanisms or the timeline used.
So ID has become a rather negative science with no forward momentum and lives on the hope that evolution will die off, but without any plan or strategy of how we would move forward beyond evolution.
An: "But that only gets you so far - in fact all it is going to do is create a void in knowledge."
ReplyDeleteAn invaluable service if our current "knowledge" is a house of cards.
An: "...but can provide no additional information about the actual mechanisms or the timeline used.
So ID has become a rather negative science with no forward momentum and lives on the hope that evolution will die off, but without any plan or strategy of how we would move forward beyond evolution."
What is wrong with a particular movement, ID, limiting itself to one important goal, i.e. showing that the diversity of life was directed (or equivalently, showing that undirected mechanisms are insufficient)? If it has been or will be shown that we need to move forward beyond evolution, why must ID take on that additional, larger goal? Copernicus advocated heliocentrism over Aristotelian physics, because the observational evidence better supported the former, but he did not come up with Kepler's equations describing a physical basis for the motion of the planets. Did that make Copernicus "disingenuous"?
I think all of these statements about the "religious premises" of evolution are red herrings. Some who accept the theory of evolution choose to make arguments in which they note that certain observations are not consistent with what "God would do". This is really irrelevant to the whole thing. The real question, is are the observations consistent with descent from a common ancestor. And the answer is an unequivocal "yes".
ReplyDeleteOne could make the same sorts of criticisms of the theory of gravitation. Sure, the data are consistent with Newton's equations (or, in more problematic cases, with Einstein's general relativity), but how does this "prove" those theories? Why couldn't it just be that God is pushing the planets around in a manner that matches the expectations of these theories?
My point is, that if you look to explain everything in the world as the result of God's actions, you can certainly do so. It isn't very productive from the point of view of predictive understanding, however, since God could always choose to do things differently at some time (like stopping the rotation of the earth to insure Joshua's success at Jericho).
All of our progress in understanding the world has come when we have searched for a materialistic explanation of phenomena. In evolution, we have a perfectly satisfactory explanation. Why do we need to invoke a God?
Lars: "What is wrong with a particular movement, ID, limiting itself to one important goal, i.e. showing that the diversity of life was directed (or equivalently, showing that undirected mechanisms are insufficient)? "
ReplyDeleteIn a word, everything. So, OK, you show that the diversity of life was directed? What next? How is that useful to science? Of course the elephant-in-the-room here is that Intelligent Design by definition implies an Intelligent Designer - but of course ID is so carefully and narrowly prescribed, that nobody is "allowed" to ask the obvious questions - or even to try and figure out how to get these questions answered. I know evolutionary psychology is often criticized (and often rightly so I do agree) - but, on the other hand at least it is trying to ask good questions (mostly "why do we do the things we do"). Even if those questions don't yield good answers, the very process of asking could open doors to other more useful research. The problem with ID is, that it's scared to even ask the questions and slaps peoples wrists if you even try. I have no issues calling ID science - but I would seriously question whether it is good science that is of any use.
And if ID doesn't take on the larger goals, and if ID proponents think they have the "truth" - then who exactly IS going to take on the larger goals?
It's this lack of transparency, the lack of questioning and willingness on occassions to make a mistake or even to just postulate a hypothesis that make me truly suspicious of ID.
"...but he did not come up with Kepler's equations describing a physical basis for the motion of the planets. Did that make Copernicus "disingenuous"?
No, but it is reasonable to conject that had Copernicus had availability to observational equivalent (that had yet to be invented) he may have got there before Kepler. And he had ideas that others could build upon. What about ID - until it is willing to expand beyond such a narrowly delineated scope, I don't know if ID is going to look any different in 20 years from what it does today (and it's telling that from all accounts that despite the voluminous output from the likes of Dembski and others there haven't really been any new ideas for a very, very long time).
Hi Dr. Hunter,
ReplyDeleteListen, I love posting your stuff on other forums, but many of the biggest News/Message forums I post to won't let me post your articles because they only accept non-blogging sites. Is there any way you could find a way to post these entries on a secondary site (such as your "Darwin's Predictions" website), or someplace like that?
All the best to you and yourse--GGG
Likewise, your suggestion that shared genes, including non functional ones, prove common ancestry is equally metaphysical. From a scientific perspective these are merely confirmed expectations, but given the evolutionary metaphysics such similarities prove common ancestry.
ReplyDeleteMetaphyiscs? I think it rests on the theory of sexual reproduction. A population of interbreeding animals with a gene broken in a particular manner that has subsequently become fixed, if this population diverges into two separate non-interbreeding species, they will share this typographical error. If one of these populations has another identifying marker of some kind (ERV, Chromosome renumbering, etc) become fixed and then there is another speciation event, eventually we will develop a nested hierarchy to which we could track the history of these species.
Every time I hear someone explain the evidence as "similar genes" I feel they are misrepresenting the evidence (either intentionally or they just don't get it). It is the pattern, specifically the nested hierarchy pattern as evidenced by many different independent markers that is the evidence common descent.
Any one of these would be convincing to most reasonable people, the fact that there are many such differing markers would put common descent on an extreme high probability. Sure, its not "proven", but I can't really prove that the earth isn't flat or that my brain is not in a jar hooked up to wires, but I'm not stressing to much over either.
I'm sure everyone has seen this link referenced a million times and the particular image just as many, but here it is again. If no common descent, how do you explain the figure on this page.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses
Good post! It seems like the logic of evolution goes this way:
ReplyDeleteNo, that is not the logic of evolution, but I'll humor you for a moment.
1. How can we be sure that it’s truly junk and therefore has no purpose?
It certain cases, such as in the multi step chemical process mammals use to make vitamin C, we know it HAS a purpose because we view it doing this very thing in other mammals. We can identify that we also have this very set of genes to do the same process, but it is non functional. We can even identify where part of the chain breaks down and even the exact error on the exact gene that renders it non-functional.
2. Is it compellingly similar to that of the primates?
In the vitamin C case, yes, the error in the gene is the same for each of the primates.
3. If it is, would this compel the conclusion that we came from the primates?
We ARE primates. But to ask your question correctly, yes, it is extremely compelling evidence that other primates and us where once one interbreeding species. That particular dna error was a singular event among one individual that spread through the population via random drift. It did not harm the individual or his future descendants because they were intaking a great deal of vitamin C from other sources. All subsequent species that we label independently that have diverged from this one interbreeding species share this particular typographical error. If we do not share a common ancestor, how do we explain why each primate species contains not just a broken Vitamin C process, but broken in the exact same way.
GGG: I will look in to that.
ReplyDelete@Anon:
ReplyDelete"In a word, everything. So, OK, you show that the diversity of life was directed? What next? How is that useful to science?"
Demonstrating that a huge edifice is built a rotting foundation will hasten its evacuation before the thing collapses. That's very useful even as a separate service from planning a new structure.
"Of course the elephant-in-the-room here is that Intelligent Design by definition implies an Intelligent Designer - but of course ID is so carefully and narrowly prescribed, that nobody is "allowed" to ask the obvious questions - or even to try and figure out how to get these questions answered."
Not so. Anyone is allowed to ask those questions, but they are not considered part of the scope of ID.
Volumes have been written on math theory specific to primes. This is useful theory, and it does not prevent anyone from investigating composite numbers, but such investigation is not considered part of the scope of research into primes. Furthermore, useful technological applications have been developed based on theoretical results involving prime numbers, such as in cryptography; but those applications are considered separate from prime number theory. Do you fault prime number theory for having a boundary?
"The problem with ID is, that it's scared to even ask the questions and slaps peoples wrists if you even try."
Again, anyone's free to ask the questions they want to, but if you study sharks and call it ornithology, I would expect ornithologists to object.
@Anon:
ReplyDelete"And if ID doesn't take on the larger goals, and if ID proponents think they have the "truth" - then who exactly IS going to take on the larger goals?"
Good question... but why do you fault the ID movement for not being the one to offer an answer?
You also see the catch-22 here... The scientific establishment currently, for the most part, enforces a naturalistic boundary on science. Any movement that attempts to address the questions you are asking with reference to a designer would be ruled unscientific, a priori. The precise reason for the limited scope of the ID movement is to be able to point out, within the limits of methodological naturalism, that the undirected methods are not sufficient to account for the diversity of life: the evidence points clearly to intelligent intervention. If that case can be made successfully within the naturalistic framework, ID will have accomplished its goal. And yes, there are further goals to be pursued but goals can be separated.
"It's this lack of transparency,"
Huh, where? ID does what it claims to do, as far as I can see. That does not mean that ID encompasses all the beliefs and goals of its proponents, any more than Darwinism does.
"No, but it is reasonable to conject that had Copernicus had availability to observational equivalent (that had yet to be invented) he may have got there before Kepler."
That's not the point... Every scientist lacks observational data that future scientists will have access to. The point is that Copernicus exposed conflicts between the observational data available at his time, and the reigning theory (Aristotelian geocentrism), without developing a system that fully and physically accounted for the observational data he had.
"And he had ideas that others could build upon. What about ID - until it is willing to expand beyond such a narrowly delineated scope, I don't know if ID is going to look any different in 20 years from what it does today"
If ID has a limited goal and accomplishes that goal, why must ID itself expand into realms beyond? "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants", wrote Newton. If ID is content to be a ladder to something else, as opposed to being an infinite ladder, why is that a fault?
"(and it's telling that from all accounts that despite the voluminous output from the likes of Dembski and others there haven't really been any new ideas for a very, very long time)."
Have you read any ID books yourself lately? I've been reading discussions about ID and NDE for years, and I thought I'd heard most of the arguments. Then I picked up "A Meaningful World" (Witt and Wiker), "Edge of Evolution" (Behe) and "Signature in the Cell" (Meyer), and was really impressed by how many good points just weren't being commonly heard.
Metaphyiscs?
ReplyDeleteYes Pete, metaphysics. You're soaking in it.
I think it rests on the theory of sexual reproduction. A population of interbreeding animals with a gene broken in a particular manner that has subsequently become fixed, if this population diverges into two separate non-interbreeding species, they will share this typographical error. If one of these populations has another identifying marker of some kind (ERV, Chromosome renumbering, etc) become fixed and then there is another speciation event, eventually we will develop a nested hierarchy to which we could track the history of these species.
But we don't observe a nested hierarchy, so then is evolution false? No, of course not, it must be true because the alternatives must be false. This is not science.
Every time I hear someone explain the evidence as "similar genes" I feel they are misrepresenting the evidence (either intentionally or they just don't get it).
No, I'm not the one misrepresenting the evidence.
It is the pattern, specifically the nested hierarchy pattern as evidenced by many different independent markers that is the evidence common descent.
No, it is not evidenced. This is the evolutionary misrepresentation of science.
Any one of these would be convincing to most reasonable people, the fact that there are many such differing markers would put common descent on an extreme high probability. Sure, its not "proven", but I can't really prove that the earth isn't flat ...
This is classic. In one debate I addressed the evolutionary claim that evolution is a fact (as much as is gravity). The evolutionist's response was "you don't understand what is meant by 'fact' ". Unbelievable. They claim it is a fact as much as is gravity, and when they're called on it they equivocate. What is there to understand? You said it is as certain and gravity, and it isn't. So, if we appeal to metaphysics then we are "reasonable." If you stick to scientific reasoning and actually consider the evidence then you are unreasonable.
I'm sure everyone has seen this link referenced a million times and the particular image just as many, but here it is again. If no common descent, how do you explain the figure on this page. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses
Think folks. Evolutionists are so deep in the metaphysics they don't know it.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeletewhat is the "fact" of gravity? now what is the "theory" of gravity? do you, as a non-practicing scientist, not understand the difference? if not, that might explain your sad publication record.
Many ERV's as, well as much of the other junk DNA are known to perform critical functions. If some ERV's perform functions, then maybe all ERV's perform functions.
ReplyDeleteor maybe some junk DNA perform functions and some ERVs (I've read one or two examples of each) perform functions. that intepretation is more in line with the evidence, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteAt one point it was thought that all junk DNA and ERV's were junk. Then functions were discovered. More functions are being discovered all the time. So maybe all the functions will be known in the future. "We hope to have an answer for you someday" is a perfectly valid response for evolutionists. It should work for evolution skeptics as well.
ReplyDeleteno, not until you get off your armchairs, put down your highlighter and your ctrl-F for words like "design" and "complex" in biology press releases and do your own research.
ReplyDeleteI learn a lot of science by reading the research published in peer reviewed journals on the
ReplyDeleteDiscovery institute website. The Id people use the very same research doen by evolutionists. They don't have to do the research. it is already done for them.
just like a tapeworm doesn't have to find its own food.
ReplyDeleteLars: "If ID has a limited goal and accomplishes that goal, why must ID itself expand into realms beyond?"
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly is ID's goal and how will it measure whether the goal is successful. I still don't really understand why ID must be such a limited discipline. To me its analogous to an archeologist finding a pot on a dig, is interested in the composition and material used in making the pot, but has absolutely no interest in who made it, or how, or for what purpose. That would be very unlikely wouldn't it?
But that's where ID stands - a tight narrowly delineated discipline. After all, isn't it human nature to what to ask questions, to understand, to probe, to inquire. Yes, design inference is all very dandy - but if ID is real I absolutely want to know who the Designer is (and why he/she/it is so secretive), what methods he/she/it used, and when. You bet! These are no unreasonable questions by any measure.
Of course the reality is we already know the vast majority of ID proponents already know the answers to these questions...that's what I meant by "transparency" - most just won't admit this (although Dembski to his credit did once).
But we don't observe a nested hierarchy, so then is evolution false?
ReplyDeleteIf we were not to observe a nested hierarchy, if we were to find morphological parts and corresponding underlying genetic structures to be completely mixed and matched across any species we might examine or sequence, then common descent would be such an unlikely scenario as to have never been proposed.
We do find a nested hierarchy, that is my assertion. The figure I linked labeling the groupings of ERVs falls into a nested hierarchy. It doesn't matter if they are 100% functional, that doesn't change that they are viral insertions grouped in a nested hierarchy pattern in primates. Instead of dismissing the figure since I am soaking in metaphysics, could you explain how it is not in a nested hierarchy.
Pete:
ReplyDeleteEarlier you wrote: "eventually we will develop a nested hierarchy to which we could track the history of these species."
Now you write: "if we were to find morphological parts and corresponding underlying genetic structures to be *completely mixed and matched* across any species we might examine or sequence, then common descent would be such an unlikely scenario as to have never been proposed."
Earlier it looked like your hypothesis predicted a nested hierarchy. Now your hypothesis predicts anything but complete randomness. And even then, your hypothesis is not falsified, but merely "unlikely."
This is the way evolution works. The goal posts keep on changing.
Dr. Hunter - What do you think of Ardipithecus ramidus? How would ID interpret this finding? Does it confirm or disconfirm ID, or does ID have nothing to say on this topic?
ReplyDeleteCornelius,
ReplyDeleteYou're right, the word *completely* would be asking to much. If there were no common descent, I wouldn't expect to find any nested hierarchy pattern, but perhaps by chance or coincidence there a certain subset of genes might randomly resemble the pattern. How about we agree on, say, ninety percent of the time. If the genes didn't fall into a nested hierarchy at a minimum of 90% of the time, we could consider common descent falsified.
*unlikely* ... just recognizing confidence limits. It is possible, though I find unlikely, that I was created last Tuesday. But if it would make you feel better about my own personal convictions, if the genetic data of high order animals limited to reproducing through sexual reproduction did not conform to a nested hierarchy pattern 95% of the time, I would be throughly convinced that common descent was not true. I hope that is strong enough for you.
Now, back to the diagram which you have yet to address. Do you agree the virus's fall into a nested hierarchy pattern?
Typo: that would be thoroughly not throughly
ReplyDeletePete:
ReplyDelete"If there were no common descent, I wouldn't expect to find any nested hierarchy pattern"
Is that a scientific or metaphysical claim? (hint: it is not the former)
"How would ID interpret this finding? Does it confirm or disconfirm ID, or does ID have nothing to say on this topic?"
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how ID would interpret this particular re-write.
Cornelius: "'I'm not sure how ID would interpret this particular re-write.
ReplyDeleteOK, but do you want to make a hypothesis for how it fits into the ID paradigm?
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteAh, I think I see what your getting at. Yes, it is true that common descent could be false and yet the entirety of the animal kingdom genome were to be in a nested hierarchy pattern. An intelligent designer could create in such a manner, conveniently ignoring all the patterns that would clearly falsify common descent, and instead picking the one pattern among nearly infinite other possibilities that would also evidence common descent . . . even though it isn't true.
Okay, I'll grant that. One more thing before I leave, you still haven't typed the three (or two) keystrokes necessary to answer my question. I really am interested in your response. In the diagram linked to documenting ERVs among primates, do they fall into a nested hierarchy. You could just type "yes" or "no" and I promise I'll totally leave it at that. I won't press you for any explanation and we can part ways and enjoy our perspective weekends.
An intelligent designer could create in such a manner, conveniently ignoring all the patterns that would clearly falsify common descent...
ReplyDeleteOr they could create a nested hierarchy while falsifying common descent while including a convergence of design in disparate forms within it.
...and instead picking the one pattern among nearly infinite other possibilities that would also evidence common descent . . . even though it isn't true.
What are all these other patterns that would evidence common design while also refuting the ideas of people who hate the idea of the singular Creator God of the Jews? Perhaps it's much harder to pry some little fellows out of the womb of their Mommy Nature to see the true nature of form and information than you seem to think, especially those with a Darwinian urge to merge all form, all specification and species together. An overwhelming amount of empirical evidence could exist which falsified the notion that all species emerge based solely on physical mechanisms which could easily be discarded if people were led to think that imagining things about the past was the equivalent of empirical evidence.
" Ah, I think I see what your getting at. "
ReplyDeletePete, you must be an evolutionist.
" Yes, it is true that common descent could be false and yet the entirety of the animal kingdom genome were to be in a nested hierarchy pattern. An intelligent designer could create in such a manner, conveniently ignoring all the patterns that would clearly falsify common descent, and instead picking the one pattern among nearly infinite other possibilities that would also evidence common descent . . . even though it isn't true. "
No, the designs of the species do not fall into a nested hierarchy. If you believe common descent requires this, then you would falsify common descent. To obviate this problem, you arbitrarily lowered the bar for common descent so that the massive contradictions in biology can be swept under the rug. Then you made this metaphysical claim:
"If there were no common descent, I wouldn't expect to find any nested hierarchy pattern"
This is classic, non scientific, evolutionary thought, claiming all knowledge of all possibilities. Science creates hypotheses and tests their predictions. Evolution makes ultimate truth claims and tells everyone else that it is "just science" and a fact.
When I challenged you on your metaphysics you predictably fell back on an irrelevant discussion of what a designer would do, safeguarding yourself against any scientific explanations of ERVs.
" One more thing before I leave, you still haven't typed the three (or two) keystrokes necessary to answer my question. I really am interested in your response. In the diagram linked to documenting ERVs among primates, do they fall into a nested hierarchy. You could just type "yes" or "no" and I promise I'll totally leave it at that. I won't press you for any explanation and we can part ways and enjoy our perspective weekends. "
You still don't get it. If ERVs fall into a common descent pattern then that would be a confirmed prediction. You would compare it to the long list of false predictions. Science does not bode well for evolution. As it stands ERVs do not fall into the expected pattern. But the contradictions are tossed out as "anomalies" and then figures like the one you cite are created. It's an example of confimation bias. The link you cite is a non scientific argument, using selected confirmations (and ignoring contradictions) coupled with evolutionary metaphysics.
Are you interested in science or metaphysics? If you just want to confirm your own religious beliefs then OK, but don't fool yourself by thinking you are doing science.
mynym,
ReplyDeleteOr they could create a nested hierarchy while falsifying common descent
Please explain how you would falsify it?
Cornelius,
No, the designs of the species do not fall into a nested hierarchy.
Could you give some examples?
As it stands ERVs do not fall into the expected pattern.
Could you give some examples?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePete:
ReplyDeleteThere are many striking similarities in otherwise distant species. If you want an example you could start with the UCEs.
Then there are the striking differences in otherwise similar species (even variants within the same species). You can read about these at www.DarwinsPredictions.com
In general, when evolutionists construct phylogenies there inevitably are inconsistencies between the different characters--often times dramatic. Morphological versus molecular inconsistencies are well known, but there are plenty more.
For ERVs (and other examples) you can see my book *Science's Blind Spot*.
There is no link to ERV's and common descent:
ReplyDeleteGo to:
www.whoisyourcreator.com/endogenous_retroviruses.html
Thank you Cornelius, I will take a look at the sites you have suggested.
ReplyDeleteCornelius,
ReplyDeleteI have read the section on UCEs on your DarwinsPredictions website. I have a question concerning this quote Thousands of these DNA segments, hundreds of base pairs in length, have been found across a range of species including human, mouse, rat, dog, chicken and fish.
If I were to take a specific UCE of several hundred base pairs, and locate it in a human, mouse, rat, dog, chicken and fish, are you saying the same segment is not in a chimpanzee, gorilla, new world monkey, and everything in a tighter clade with humans then the last common ancestor with all those other species? I would indeed consider this evidence against common descent if that were true.
You probably won't believe me when I say this, but I am an evangelical Christian. I don't have a problem asserting "God did it" even though I don't consider that testable or scientific though it certainly might be historical and true. So I don't much care how a certain UCE might have been conserved, that is look for a natural reason, it could have been supernatural. I want to know if it in itself falsifies a genetic tree of life, for instance if it is in humans and mice but not in anything or even most things or half the things or some undefined number of things in between. So that's the question I'll pose now.
I'll continue to look through your page.
I read you section about similar species with divergent genetics, but I don't see how it falsifies common descent. Where is the broken nested hierarchy?
ReplyDeleteYou wrote In general, when evolutionists construct phylogenies there inevitably are inconsistencies between the different characters--often times dramatic. Morphological versus molecular inconsistencies are well known, but there are plenty more.
What is passed from generation to generation is the genetic material, so common descent predicts this would create a nested hierarchy of the molecular data. Are there any inconsistencies in the molecular data, ie does it not fit a nested hierarchy pattern? Are there identical segments of DNA in distance species not found in close species? You seem to imply there are, but I need you to point on your site where you list them specifically because I don't have time to read the entire thing (I hope that is not too lazy).
You also said As it stands ERVs do not fall into the expected pattern., could you please point me out to an explicit example of this?