Monday, February 15, 2010

ESEB: Liitle Shop of Fallacies

Ever tire of chasing down all those evolutionary fallacies? Dustin Penn and co workers have solved the problem by collecting them in one place: at the European Society for Evolutionary Biology (ESEB) website. Their goal is to improve public education and understanding of evolution. If that means revealing the various strawmen, mischaracterizations, twisting of science, and other logical fallacies, then they have greatly succeeded.

Of course Penn and helpers are quite enthusiastic about evolution, because after all:

Darwin presented a massive amount of evidence from a wide variety of disciplines to show that evolution is a fact. Species change over time.

There you have it. Species change over time, so evolution must be true. An excellent demonstration of evolutionary logic.

The fact of evolution is no longer debated among scientists, as the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

And that overwhelming evidence would be? Oh, I forgot already, species change over time. Right.

Penn’s next penetrating revelation is that Darwin’s theory of natural selection “not only explains how the diversity of species has arisen, but also the complex, design-like properties of organisms.” No citation given for that one, but no matter, after all species change over time right? In fact, as Penn summarizes:

For many scientists and scholars, Darwin's theory is “the single best idea that anyone has ever had.”

That one did have a citation. It came from that objective sage Daniel Dennett.

Although you would never know it, Penn and co-workers point out that evolution is the key to just about everything in the life sciences, and even more:

Today, evolution provides the conceptual foundation that integrates all of the biological sciences, including genetics, molecular and cell biology, developmental biology, physiology, behavioral biology, ecology, and paleontology. Evolutionary biology is increasing being integrated into the social sciences, as it is central for efforts to understand human origins and behavior. Evolution has many practical implications and it has contributed to important advances in applied sciences. In the biomedical sciences, evolution plays an increasing role in research on HIV, influenza, and other infectious diseases, and in the discovery of genes that cause disease and treatments. Evolution has been critical for understanding the emergence of bacteria resistant to antibiotics and other drugs. Evolution has contributed to advances in agriculture, such as development of crops and livestock and pest management (the evolution of pesticide resistance). Evolution even influences research in biotechnology, and fields outside of the life sciences, including the development of computer technologies and information sciences (evolutionary algorithms).

Strange that biotechnology developers don’t actually use evolution in their work. But surely the influence must be there.

The discussion also includes the usual evolutionary confusion about theories, laws, facts, and evidence. The reader learns that “evolution is not a theory in the colloquial sense of the word, which implies a mere hypothesis, conjecture, or speculation.” No, Darwin’s theory is “a comprehensive explanation strongly supported by evidence, and useful for making predictions.” No mention that those predictions were false, but that’s an aside.

The reader next learns that “Scientific theories are not less than scientific laws, contrary to what is often assumed.” That’s helpful, particularly in light of the next flash of insight: “Scientific laws describe facts whereas theories explain them.” If this seems confusing, just consider that “Darwin’s Theory, for example, explains the fact of evolution.” That should clarify things, and if it doesn’t, the reader is left with this hilarious attempt at objectivity: “It is crucial to understand that evolution — like all facts in science — remains open to question.”

Right, evolution is open to question, just like those veering atoms were open to question to the Epicureans. Evolution has made so many false predictions we’ve stopped counting, but rest assured, it is always open to question. Its truth is never actually questioned, but it is always open to question.

But what is really amazing is that evolution created science itself:

The most important lesson from this controversy is that science is a precious gift, and the greatest accomplishment of human intellect for solving nature's mysteries.

It’s truly amazing that evolution created the brain by which those evolutionists learn truths like evolution. How precious.

35 comments:

  1. "Strange that biotechnology developers don’t actually use evolution in their work."

    Seriously?

    Directed + Evolution + Biotechnology:

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=biotechnology%20directed%20evolution&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws

    Evolution + Biotechnology:

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=biotechnology+evolution&btnG=Search&as_sdt=8000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes seriously. Evaluating different designs in a lab does not equal evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry. I mistook denial for ignorance. I won't further debate a point where you've placed your opinion (without any real analysis, other than to scoff at the paragraphs you quote) above the consensus of the biotechnology community-which in 1000's of references clearly identifies the techniques as based on evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Materialists like to claim evolution is indispensable to experimental biology and led the way to many breakthroughs in medicine, Yet in a article entitled "Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology", this expert author begs to differ.

    "Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
    Philip S. Skell - Professor at Pennsylvania State University.
    http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2816

    Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution - Jonathan Wells - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028096/science_owes_nothing_to_darwinian_evolution_jonathan_wells/

    ReplyDelete
  5. What about all the discoveries that were made on model organisms? RNAi discovery in plants and characterization in C. elegans comes to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Charles-

    Good point. How would we know, absent common descent, that we are related enough to model organisms to conduct fruitful research on them? What ID advocate proposed studying C. elegans based on a design inference?

    Luckily, evolutionary biologists pursued it, and now we have RNAi based therapeutics becoming available.
    http://rnaitherapeutics.blogspot.com/

    BTW, Skell is an organic chemist, and not a biologist. Perhaps he should have considered the co-evolution of antibiotic resistances in the design of therapeutics. Maybe he was blind to this possibility.

    The development of the antimalarial fosmidomycin was based on an prediction founded in evolution:
    http://pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/4131.1438912597

    ReplyDelete
  7. Not to concede any point of what you cite is rigourously true, but how many blatant blind alleys has the fallacy of evolution led us down?

    Tonsils and Tailbone removals,, genocide, infantacide, euthenasia???,,, etc..etc.. A 30 year major detour of scientific investigation with the Junk DNA conjecture???,,, But to what foundation will you attribute this glarring defencencies that arose from the materialistic worldview? will you ignore them? TO CUT TO THE CHASE<< TO CONDUCT SCIENCE ONE MUST PRESUPPOSE AN UNDERLYING ORDER THAT IS THERE TO BE DISCOVERED , YET MATERIALISM DEMANDS CHAOS AS A MAJOR PILLAR OF ITS FOUNDATION, HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY ANY CLAIM TO SCIENCE WITH NO PRESUPPOSED ORDER TO DRAW FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE?

    ReplyDelete
  8. bornagain77: TO CONDUCT SCIENCE ONE MUST PRESUPPOSE AN UNDERLYING ORDER THAT IS THERE TO BE DISCOVERED

    Actually, we observe order, including phylogenetic patterns.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Please answer the question honestly zach. Why should you, as a materialist, presuppose order in the first place, since chaos/randomness is a primary pillar of your metaphysical view? What claim do you have to do science at all? Quantum mechanics has laid waste to any ancient notions of a solid particle as the basis of reality. Why should you build your house on a worldview with no foundational basis? Do you not understand the importance of consistency and integrity within science, or must your prejudice to any Theistic point of view drive you to greater heights of inanity?

    ReplyDelete
  10. bornagain77:

    Wow-we've gone from the contribution of evolution to biotechnology all the way to a critique of promissory naturalism, with some odd detours along the way.

    Suppose I believe in a natural universe that naturally has underlying order. (btw Random mutation isn't chaotic-it actually happens at a quantifiable pace). I can make predictions, and test them. I reject Aquinas's Teleological Argument.

    Conversely, belief in the supernatural carries with it the issue that things may not remain constant. Suppose the underlying order is not just a natural constant, but is changed by that which created it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Far be it from me to try to divorce one who is so happily wedded to such a clear deception as evolution as to willingly promulgate its lies, with such apparent passion.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anyone that has to quote from PT to make a point here has nothing useful to state and without doubt has near zero understanding of the glaring fantasies and illusions so abundant in neo-Darwinian theory.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Other citations are from the well-known and well-respected scientific institution: Wikipedia

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hitch:

    Do you have a specific criticism of the summary and references contained therein?

    In a related note, I would like to thank Dr. Hunter for keeping this blog free from odious moderation. I think the free discussions we have here are enlightening. Usually at this point, before people resort to ad-hominems against me, my comments conveniently vanish.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Here are the references:

    Sabine Köhler et al., A Plastid of Probable Green Algal Origin in Apicomplexan Parasites. 1997. Science 275, 1485-1489. DOI: 10.1126/science.275.5305.1485

    Hassan Jomaa, et al., 1999. Inhibitors of the Nonmevalonate Pathway of Isoprenoid Biosynthesis as Antimalarial Drugs. Science 285, 1573-1576. DOI: 10.1126/science.285.5433.1573

    ReplyDelete
  16. "I reject Aquinas's Teleological Argument."

    Anyone who rejects a design argument, anywhere such an argument is valid (like in biological systems), is suffering from acute cognitive dissonance -no matter how highly such a one may regard his own intellectual prowess.

    To propose a universe without design, purpose and direction is the threshold of nihilism. It requires that one exercise intense intellectual acrobatics in denial.

    It can only lead to moral relativism - which of course is intrinsically self-destructive.
    Never works in the real world.

    But then atheists don't live in the real world being in perpetual denial of reality.

    "Only in Atheism does the spring rise higher than the source, the effect exist without the cause, life come from a stone, blood from a turnip, a silk purse from a sow's ear, a Beethoven Symphony or a Bach Fugue from a kitten walking across the keys....."
    James M. Gillis

    ReplyDelete
  17. ===========================
    Sorry. I mistook denial for ignorance. I won't further debate a point where you've placed your opinion (without any real analysis, other than to scoff at the paragraphs you quote) above the consensus of the biotechnology community-which in 1000's of references clearly identifies the techniques as based on evolution. [...]

    How would we know, absent common descent, that we are related enough to model organisms to conduct fruitful research on them?
    ============================

    1000's of references? The brain-washing is astonishing. We believe a fish turned into a giraffe so biotech is possible--Linnaeus is spinning in his grave. The anti intellectualism bequeathed by evolution never ceases to amaze. Evolutionists literally cannot imagine a world without Darwin. Did evolution also create the Internet?

    ReplyDelete
  18. bornagain77: Please answer the question honestly zach. Why should you, as a materialist, ...

    Sorry, we're not a materialist.

    bornagain77: ... presuppose order in the first place, ...

    We *observe* order.

    bornagain77: ... since chaos/randomness is a primary pillar of your metaphysical view?

    Most materialists are quite willing to admit that there are aspects of order in the universe. It's an empirical question, not a metaphysical one.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This reminds me of Wolfgang Smith's quote:

    "We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;' but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."

    Smith, Wolfgang (1988)
    Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
    Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc., p.2

    ReplyDelete
  20. Music:

    =====
    "We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;' but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."

    Smith, Wolfgang (1988)
    Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
    Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc., p.2
    =====

    Hilarious!

    ReplyDelete
  21. "We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means."

    Cornelius Hunter: Hilarious!


    Considering the evidence has been accumulating for 150 years, and there are entire scientific fields and journals dedicated to the latest findings in evolutionary biology, yes, it is hilarious. (Start with the evidence for Common Descent.)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Zach:

    =========
    Considering the evidence has been accumulating for 150 years, and there are entire scientific fields and journals dedicated to the latest findings in evolutionary biology, yes, it is hilarious. (Start with the evidence for Common Descent.)
    =========

    Yes, when Darwin proposed the theory it was problematic, but the evidence has been increasingly obvious ever since. That is what makes this particularly hilarious. Those who are dogmatic are those defending absurdity.

    ReplyDelete
  23. A quick google search using "evolution" and "journal" produce a list of journals dedicated exclusively to evolution. There are also other journals, like Science and Nature (just to name those 2), that publish regularly articles with direct or indirect evidences for evolution. Pubmed searches for "evolution", "speciation" will give you a huge amount of research articles on the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "We believe a fish turned into a giraffe so biotech is possible--"

    If I ever saw a fish turning into a giraffe, I'd become a IDer in the second...

    ReplyDelete
  25. Robert: "Conversely, belief in the supernatural carries with it the issue that things may not remain constant."

    Au contraire, Robert, the opposite is the case. Regularity to date is not an infallible prediction of the future. The future could be entirely different from the past (a principle well known in statistics and other sciences).

    Whether a universe with a supernatural God will continue to be regular depends on the nature of the God. The Judeo-Christian God is believed to be a God of order and regularity, not chaos, and therefore believers in him have the confidence that the universe will continue as it has in the past (a degree of confidence that atheists cannot match, because the confidence is differently grounded).

    Since materialist aheists don't believe in God, they cannot argue that a universe with a supernatural God would be unpredictable. They can't rationally make any theological statements at all. Their only response to the Christian or Jewish claim for a God of order, is to claim that their god does not exist. That is, they can't claim that their god is unpredictable unless they assume the truth value of the theist viewpoint for the sake of argument and then show that something within that viewpoint actually points to an unpredictable future.

    regards,
    #John

    ReplyDelete
  26. Clarification to previous point: In a materialist universe, historical regularity is not a certain predictor of future regularity and order. Therefore, the materialist universe is inherently unpredictable vis a vis regularity, unlike the theistic one.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I need to go back and answer some other queries, namely that biotechnology relies on evolution.

    However, I first have a question:

    Why is the Judeo-Islamo-Christian deity inherently one of stability? Theism guarantees stability because you fiat it. A deity could change things at any time. EXCEPT that you feel you know the qualities of yours well enough to predict its future actions. I don't know why that would be.

    I can't think of a single Biblical reference promising that physics will remain constant throughout time and space. Quite the contrast-God appears to disrupt things on a number of occasions....

    The Sun can stand still for Joshua. Moses can bring about alchemical transformations, disease from naught. Jesus can convert water to wine and raise the dead.

    Genesis 11:1-9
    "6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do; and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth."

    Not to mention the flood:
    The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them."

    And we are promised future instability:

    (Luke17:26) “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so too it will be in the days of the coming of the Son of Man.”

    Where is the promise that the speed of light in a vacuum is fixed?

    ReplyDelete
  28. The second comment I have is re: Teleological Arguments

    It feels a bit old-going back to Plato.

    Unless someone can solve:

    The question of infinite regress-who designed the designer, or if the designer exists outside design then why?

    Voltaire's query in Traité de métaphysique, asking
    why design proves there is an infinite being (that grants the foundation and stability you seek).

    George Smith's argument regarding distinguishing design from nature (that is supposedly designed).

    ...then I have no real interest. Frankly, the reproducibility of observations leads to my working hypothesis that the universe is the way it is (at least locally). This has functioned just fine for me thus far.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Lastly, Biotechnology:

    1) The use of model organisms, recombinant expression, constructing phylogenetic trees, resurrecting extinct ancestral proteins all require common descent. Does a design hypothesis allow the same?

    2) Directed evolution directly avoids design-often difficult and tedious process. By random mutation (though error-prone PCR or recombination) coupled with selection, evolution is recapitulated and accelerated. This is a direct contrast to design. References above.

    3) The malaria example cited above. The recognition malaria derived a plastid through endosymbiotic evolution led to the realization ceratin biochemical pathways could be targeted for drugs.

    4) Evolution of bacterial and viral drug resistances. Recapitulating pathways by which drug resistance evolves could allow development of drugs for which resistance is un-evolveable. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692893/

    5) Evolution of viruses, bacteria, etc lead to public health programs. E.g. finish your antibiotics, don't over-prescribe. Separate ducks and pigs to avoid new super-flu.
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/evolving-flu.html

    ReplyDelete
  30. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Robert:

    ====
    1) The use of model organisms, recombinant expression, constructing phylogenetic trees, resurrecting extinct ancestral proteins all require common descent.
    ====

    This is where evolutionary thought leads.


    ====
    Does a design hypothesis allow the same?
    ====

    So what is your point? What would you conclude if the answer was "yes" and if it was "no" ?



    ====
    2) Directed evolution directly avoids design-often difficult and tedious process. By random mutation (though error-prone PCR or recombination) coupled with selection, evolution is recapitulated and accelerated. This is a direct contrast to design. References above.
    ====

    Oh I get it. Highly trained scientists can use sophisticated machines created by highly trained engineers to design laboratory methods to rapidly test a large number of designs, therefore evolutionary theory is the guiding light here. Unbelievable!!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Cornelius Hunter: Highly trained scientists can use sophisticated machines created by highly trained engineers to design laboratory methods to rapidly test a large number of designs, therefore evolutionary theory is the guiding light here.

    It shows that evolutionary processes can generate complex structures.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I'll second what Zachriel said, and add that the variants formed in directed evolution experiments are often NOT designed, at least in any way you would intend it. They are produced by random processes. Unless every product of random mutation is a design?

    Gets back to the separating design from nature which is designed conundrum....

    ReplyDelete
  34. Here is the link to a very interesting article published last sunday in nature:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature08817.html

    ReplyDelete
  35. Zachriel:

    =========
    Cornelius Hunter: "Highly trained scientists can use sophisticated machines created by highly trained engineers to design laboratory methods to rapidly test a large number of designs, therefore evolutionary theory is the guiding light here."

    It shows that evolutionary processes can generate complex structures.
    =========

    Now you've made a good point. I'll give you that one.

    ReplyDelete