By now you have probably heard about so-called junk DNA. In recent decades the genomes of a growing number of species have been mapped out. Not surprisingly, scientists did not understand how many of these DNA sequences worked. For instance, repetitive sequences are common, but what do they do? As these data accumulated evolutionists increasingly viewed such sequences as useless junk. Then, years later, various functions began to emerge as our knowledge grew. This junk DNA story is the latest version of what seems like a repeating bad dream that goes like this. Scientists discover something new in biology but don't understand it. Evolutionists, unaware that they are staring at a design whose complexity dwarfs their puny understanding, decide it is a useless evolutionary leftover. Such a useless design is pressed into service as an evolution apologetic. Later, when the function is eventually uncovered, evolutionists automatically claim the design as an evolutionary achievement. The structure goes from junk to treasure without a second thought.A recent finding of "junk" DNA function involves repetitive elements which have been found to be active in certain tissues. The researchers concluded that this activity "has a key influence" on the overall activity of the mammalian genome. As one evolutionist admitted, "As a class [repetitive elements] are not just a junk DNA. They're not just parasites, but they can shape the architecture of the genome."
So what is the story here? That biological designs are complex? That evolutionary thinking does not anticipate nature very well? That evolutionists should think twice and speak once, rather than the other way around? Yes, these are all good lessons for us, but these are not the real story behind junk DNA (and the other rags-to-riches stories in the history of evolutionary thought).
The real story behind junk DNA is not that it is a show stopper for evolutionary theory. In fact, evolution never predicted junk DNA. And it can get by just fine, thank you, if there is no such thing as junk DNA. But if evolution is so ambivalent toward junk DNA, then why is it such a powerful apologetic? If the science doesn't hinge on the efficacy of DNA, then why is that very efficacy so important? And why is the finding of function so important to evolution's opposition?
Here we find the real story behind junk DNA. Junk DNA (and all examples of evil and dysteleology in nature), proclaim evolutionists, contradicts creation. The message seems so obvious and instinctive that it is not even thought through clearly. Is not junk DNA clear evidence for the scientific theory of evolution? No. The junk DNA apologetic is a religious statement about God. It is that simple.
Junk DNA mandates evolution because it denies creation on the basis of religious beliefs. God would never create DNA with no function. Such beliefs are not open to scientific rebuttal. Science has nothing to do with it. I cannot even begin to recount the number of scientists, professors and pundits I have heard proclaim, in the name of science, such religious conclusions as proof of evolution. They should be wearing a tiara and holding a scepter. This is the real story behind junk DNA.
The interesting thing about genetic code is how easily it can be damaged. A little radiation here a little retrovirus there, and you have a degree of change. Further more, our copy mechanisms themselves aren't perfect, on a cellular scale as well as macro. Mutations happen.
ReplyDeleteI suppose a deity could account for these changes, as well as everything, but I'm guessing that research remains elusive.
What has been found is that viruses account for a large portion of DNA changes.* I'm sure that as more research is done on junk sequences, we will find that it doesn't take supernatural power for them to come about.
It is funny that us "evolutionists" are guilty of not having stale minds, more so when the notion of not changing ones mind based on new findings seems so absurd to us. To some the world we always be flat.
*Endogenous non-retroviral RNA virus elements in mammalian genomes
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/nature08695.html
xyzzy:
ReplyDelete====
I suppose a deity could account for these changes, as well as everything, but I'm guessing that research remains elusive.
====
Perfect example.
CH, xyzzy posted so perfectly to prove your point that I'm wondering if it was a plant
ReplyDeleteAs someone who accepts both evolution and design (though I'm very divided on calling such design 'scientific' knowledge, etc), I just wanted to say - thank you.
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the single most important points in the entire debate about ID v no-ID, God v atheism, religion and science, etc. And yet I'm shocked to see it pointed out here.
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/03/primer-on-transposable-elements.html
ReplyDelete"With regard to the origin of the human species, when the chimp genome was sequenced, it was found to contain nearly all of the transposable elements that the human genome had. The transposable elements were arranged in the same places on chromosomes that were >95% identical in their sequences. I summarized these findings in a paper for OPBSG in 2006. The presence of many transposable elements in the human genome implied that they originated by transposition, and the presence of the same transposable elements in the chimp genome implied that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor. Why? Because of the staggering similarity.
Let me offer a few closing observations. First, it is false to say that the connection between retroviruses and retrotransposons is just speculation or irrational. There is significant sequence similarity between the elements, which rules implies an ancestral connection. I discussed this in more detail when I discussed Liu and Soper's proposed "exogenization" of retrotransposons, an attempt to account for the similarity of retroviruses and retrotransposons.
Second, it is misleading to say that transposable elements are "functional" or "essential." The vast majority of transposable elements in the human genome are nonfunctional copies that have been damaged(?) by point mutations. To my knowledge, there is no evidence of essential function for most of these transposable elements. Indeed, some eukaryotes (like baker's yeast) that have comparatively few transposable elements.
Third, the argument for the common ancestry of chimps and humans depends in no way whatsoever on the functionality of transposable elements. The argument is more compelling if the sequences are purely parasitic, but the overwhelming similarity still implies that chimps and humans could have shared a common ancestor, even if transposable elements had an essential cellular function. In my chimp genome paper, I challenged myself and my fellow creationists to account for biological similarity in a creationist context. To date, the challenge has not been met.
Fourth, McClintock herself proposed an important functional role for transposable elements. Functionality was not the exclusive prediction of creationists. It is definitely false to claim that evolutionists did not propose functions for transposable elements.
Fifth, peculiar examples like the transposable elements of Oxytricha and other ciliates do not provide a solution to the question of functionality of transposable elements. Such things only highlight the oddness of transposable elements and the idiosyncratic roles they play in certain cells. In other words, the occasional transposable elements that do some important job for their host cells emphasize the lack of a general "functional" role for transposable elements in other cells.
Sixth, transcription does not equate to cellular function. It just isn't the same thing. It's interesting, but not even close to conclusive.
Seventh, function does not equate to design. It just isn't the same thing.
How can creationists begin to tackle the challenges of transposable elements? (1) Global studies. Compiling second-hand accounts of idiosyncratic "functions" of transposons just does not address the main problem: Why are there so many and why can they transpose? (2) More imaginative work like Liu and Soper's exogenization proposal. Solving these problems will require us to think weird.
Really weird."
To say god is responsible for all DNA changes, and that they all have a purpose, suggests that the vast majority of the creators roll is to end us through cancers and birth defects.
ReplyDeleteSuch a small percent of the changes that do occur "stick" or are benificial, that God must be using a rather random technic to gain results. Almost as if he wants our enviroment to decide which of his changes last the generations.
harpy:
ReplyDelete=== Quoting Wood:
and the presence of the same transposable elements in the chimp genome implied that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor. Why? Because of the staggering similarity.
===
Common structure does not logically imply common ancestry. Certainly it is evidence for such. There is plenty of evidence for CA, and plenty against CA.
===
Second, it is misleading to say that transposable elements are "functional" or "essential." ===
More metaphysics.
===
Third, the argument for the common ancestry of chimps and humans depends in no way whatsoever on the functionality of transposable elements. The argument is more compelling if the sequences are purely parasitic, but the overwhelming similarity still implies that chimps and humans could have shared a common ancestor, even if transposable elements had an essential cellular function. In my chimp genome paper, I challenged myself and my fellow creationists to account for biological similarity in a creationist context. To date, the challenge has not been met.
===
Precisely.
===
Sixth, transcription does not equate to cellular function. It just isn't the same thing. It's interesting, but not even close to conclusive.
Seventh, function does not equate to design. It just isn't the same thing.
How can creationists begin to tackle the challenges of transposable elements? (1) Global studies. Compiling second-hand accounts of idiosyncratic "functions" of transposons just does not address the main problem: Why are there so many and why can they transpose? (2) More imaginative work like Liu and Soper's exogenization proposal. Solving these problems will require us to think weird.
===
More metaphysics. Harpy, don't you see this is all about metaphysics? This highlights the conserved history of thought in creationism and evolutionism. Whether you opt for one or the other, you're promoting metaphysics. At least creationists admit to it.
Cornelius your entire argument revolves around the idea that no evidence for evolution is acceptable because we can't know that God wouldn't have done it that way.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you not apply this logic to any of our other modern theories? Why accept our modern understanding of cells, atoms, and gravity? After all we can't know that what we see as natural, unguided mechanisms and processes are not mysterious, undetectable entities interfering with natural world. All of these theories have huge flaws in them too, and are contradicted by all sorts of data that is constantly reported in articles.
It is pointless complaining about a theory unless you have something better. If you toss evolution aside you are going to have to come up with a model that still explains the thousands of transitional species in the fossil record, as well as why vast stretches of our genome are identical to the genome of the chimpanzee. Todd Wood thinks common descent is the best explanation we have for that, he just doesn't accept it.
After all we can't know that what we see as natural, unguided mechanisms and processes...
ReplyDeleteYou've simply assumed your own metaphysics once again. Newton himself saw his physics differently, in fact he thought that his discovery of law-like structure in the universe proved the existence of a Law giver who sustains all things in being based on logic.
...are not mysterious, undetectable entities interfering with natural world.
Ironically it was the Wester/ID view of the world that did away with nature based paganism in the past and naturalism which seems to lead back to superstition.
E.g.
E.O. Wilson, an equal or higher sociobiological authority, says that 'the individual organism is only the vehicle [of genes], part of an elaborate device to preserve and spread them….The organism is only DNA's way of making more DNA.'
I will mention in a moment some other passages in which sociobiologists imply that genes are beings of more than human intelligence and power, but that implication should be clear enough already from the passages just quoted. According to the Christian religion, human beings and all other created things exist for the greater glory of God; according to sociobiology, human beings and all other living things exist for the benefit of their genes.
(Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution by David Stove: 248)
All of these theories have huge flaws in them too, and are contradicted by all sorts of data that is constantly reported in articles.
Not at all, it's not all equally "science." Much of what passes for a "theory of evolution" is unfalsifiable pseudo-science combined with creation myths.
The transposable elements were arranged in the same places on chromosomes that were >95% identical in their sequences.
ReplyDeleteOne could just as easily assert that they are "95%" identical in their gross morphology, it's just not as fun given Progress. (After all, did anyone ever recognize the similarity between chimps and humans before progress was made?) At any rate, it's always good to put a scientific sounding number on it.
E.g.
The problem is that in being told about these data without a context in which to interpret them, we are left to our own cultural devices. Here, we are generally expected to infer that genetic comparisons reflect deep biological structure, and that 98% is an overwhelming amount of similarity. Thus “the DNA of a human is 98% identical to the DNA of a chimpanzee” becomes casually interpreted as “deep down inside, humans are overwhelmingly chimpanzee. Like 98% chimpanzee.” ….
…whatever the number is, it shouldn’t be any more impressive than the anatomical similarity; all we need to do is to put that old-fashioned comparison into a zoological context.
The paradox is not that we are so genetically similar to the chimpanzee; the paradox is why we now find the genetic similarity to be so much more striking than the anatomical similarity. Scholars of the eighteenth century were overwhelmed by the similarities between humans and chimpanzees. Chimpanzees were as novel then as DNA is now; and the apparent contrast between our bodies and our genes is simply an artifact of having two centuries’ familiarity with chimpanzees and scarcely two decades’ familiarity with DNA sequences.
(What It Means to be 98% Chimpanzee by Johnathan Marks :28-31)
harpy666:
ReplyDeleteIt is pointless complaining about a theory unless you have something better.
If flaws are found in a theory that otherwise has been accepted, then that points to the need for a new theory. In fact, is that not the history of science? A theory has been accepted by broad consensus (there's that word again), but yet someone comes along and observes that something is not quite right with the theory.
Either the current theory is extended or modified. Maybe even a new theory is required. (And I think that we ought to be suspicious of a theory that repeatedly has to be modified.)
So finding a flaw in a theory does not entail proposing a new theory first.
It is funny that us "evolutionists" are guilty of not having stale minds, more so when the notion of not changing ones mind based on new findings seems so absurd to us.
ReplyDeleteExactly, so why get upset when someone argues that you're wrong? After all, whatever you're supposedly right about today will probably be proven wrong tomorrow.
To some the world we always be flat.
So you even invoked a mythology of progress at the end there. That's ironic. Did everyone in the past think that the world was flat or was it some ancient "cave man" who thought that the world was flat? If there was a catastrophe and people had to live in caves would that make them less intelligent and more "primitive"?
In fact, is that not the history of science?
ReplyDeleteNo, it's much more messy than a simple narrative of progress. Would the pseudo-science and general consensus of the scientific establishment as seen in the eugenics movement have been done away if the Holocaust hadn't happened and a continent hadn't been reduced to cinders. Perhaps but perhaps not if the Nazis had won the war.
Note that evolution, whatever it is, became the established consensus about the same time that the professionalization of science took place. And it often seems like the debate revolves around people's professional identity ("I'm a real scientist and we all agree!" Etc.) instead of facts, logic and evidence.
A theory has been accepted by broad consensus (there's that word again)....
Progress is the enemy of consensus and established knowledge, ironically that's the main reason that it is not assured. It won't necessarily happen naturally inevitably due to science, especially if people are more interested in safeguarding their professional identities than in pursuing the truth.
mynym:
ReplyDeleteSo you even invoked a mythology of progress at the end there. That's ironic. Did everyone in the past think that the world was flat or was it some ancient "cave man" who thought that the world was flat? If there was a catastrophe and people had to live in caves would that make them less intelligent and more "primitive"?
--------------
Perhaps the use of the flat earth metaphor isn't entirely similar to our modern day situation, but the Egyptians and Greek 2400 years ago were hardly cave men.
I'm absolutely not questioning anybody's intelligence. Until a theory is actually proven, it remains a theory, and should questioned.
Unfortunately the only way this will be proven one way or another is for more time to pass and new species to come forth or not. Unfortunately our destructive nature might not give life the chance.
mynym
ReplyDeleteNo, [the history of science is] much more messy than a simple narrative of progress.
Of course, you are correct. The sociology of science is a complex subject, indeed. My broad-stroke post was not intended to deny that.
And, yes progress and consensus are always in tension.
harpy666:
ReplyDelete"Cornelius your entire argument revolves around the idea that no evidence for evolution is acceptable because we can't know that God wouldn't have done it that way."
So evolutionists make religious arguments and this is the justification.
"Why do you not apply this logic to any of our other modern theories?"
Because they don't make religious arguments.
"Todd Wood thinks common descent is the best explanation we have for that, he just doesn't accept it."
I never said the religious arguments are not persuasive.
...but the Egyptians and Greek 2400 years ago were hardly cave men.
ReplyDeleteIt may be that most "cave men" were hardly cave men given that many people in history buried their dead in caves.
The existence of the pyramids may actually undermine the narrative of some sort of inevitable progress implied by the flat earth story in another way. Their existence indicates that charlatans are sometimes able to establish or enforce a general consensus with respect to knowledge and technology lasting thousands of years. I.e. progress in science is hardly inevitable.
It's interesting that evolution, whatever it is, is often seamlessly woven into a general mythology of progress. So even if it is falsified to the extent that it was specified now it inevitably verifies itself in an imaginary future, naturally. That's convenient. But given all the imaginary events in both the past and the future that seem to surround mythologies of evolutionary progress one is left wondering if empirical evidence of any sort here and now is necessary.
With respect to empirical evidence Zach asserted in another thread an organism could be observed which would falsify the whole "theory of evolution."
New organisms are discovered every day, extant and extinct. Each is a potential falsification of one aspect of the Theory of Evolution or the entire theory.
Zach
Darwin argued the same thing, so what would an organism of the sort that could supposedly falsify the entire "theory of evolution" look like? That's a lot of falsify, after all.
mynym: what would an organism of the sort that could supposedly falsify the entire "theory of evolution" look like?
ReplyDeleteA theory of evolution requires descent with modification. Centaurs (human, equine), mermaids (human, fish) and griffins (lion, eagle, winged) have no plausible evolutionary ancestors. We can predict with some confidence that they are not natural organisms, but creations of the human imagination.
New species are found all the time. Sometimes, fossil organisms are sought out based on their fit to the known phylogeny. For instance, genomic data guided successful research into cetacean ancestry. Yet we know that searching for evidence of centaurs would very likely be futile.
Zach:
ReplyDelete"A theory of evolution requires descent with modification"
Actually that is not true. Evolutionists can (and have) employed multiple OOL events as an explanatory device.
If all the species were different, for instance, evolutionists could argue God would create using patterns and design similarities, but since the species are all different they must have evolved from separate OOL events.
A theory of evolution requires descent with modification.
ReplyDeleteA specified theory of evolution might require descent with modification but the notion of progressive evolution in general does not, especially given the fact that the origin of life has generally been separated from "the theory." There generally is no theory and it certainly does not have general application. So when the tree of life is falsified it is said that evolution, whatever it may be, is still true.
Centaurs (human, equine), mermaids (human, fish) and griffins (lion, eagle, winged) have no plausible evolutionary ancestors.
Plausible evolutionary ancestors could be imagined, about as plausible as many of the things that are imagined of evolution based on nothing but blind and ignorant processes.
That's interesting though, if mermaids and griffins existed would you conclude that was evidence of a singular Creator of organisms?
We can predict with some confidence that they are not natural organisms, but creations of the human imagination.
Imagine that! But if they did exist they would be natural and therefore evolution would have to explain them due to the nature of science. In fact, I'd imagine that if they did exist those who sought to keep the notion of a Creator separate would have to argue: "Help us explain these griffins and centaurs in terms of our science." or "We have made progress in explaining other organisms in a way that seems natural to us, so it's inevitable that we'll explain griffins some day." or "We already know they're natural organisms. After all, they exist don't they?" And so on. So I'd imagine that the search for explanations that seem natural to the majority would continue even if mermaids and centaurs existed.
New species are found all the time. Sometimes, fossil organisms are sought out based on their fit to the known phylogeny.
ReplyDeleteSometimes people only find what they are looking for and miss the primary signal of the fossil record. What does not fit is not being sought, specified or recorded. It's interesting how vague the notion of "evolution" is despite the way that you sometimes play pretend about there being a rigorously specified theory with general application. Yet what "fits" into this lack of specification still supposedly has to be sought. Isn't it true that everything is going to inevitably and progressively fit into an evolutionary creation narrative of some sort?
Yet we know that searching for evidence of centaurs would very likely be futile.
Yes, it seems that the only way to falsify evolution in general, whatever it is, is by finding some unnatural organisms. Imagine that! It's little wonder that people generally do not focus on falsifying evolution.
I'm also curious about what the Cosmos is supposedly supposed to look like according to those who believe in hypotheses of evolution based purely on blind and ignorant processes. I.e. what sort of observations would falsify that view? They always seem to go on about how big the universe is and how insignificant that makes life/bios, among other claims. So apparently if it was small and arranged with the earth in the center (Not to mention with some griffins and centaurs on it.) then they would conclude that a singular Creator had created it. If what they were saying had logical integrity (falsification linked to verification) then that would be the case but it doesn't seem to be the case. They've already said that the everything must be explained in terms that seem "natural" to them. And given the imaginary existence of multiple (apparently natural) universes it seems that the only thing that is unnatural is the notion of a singular Creator. So it seems that even if the universe was small and the earth was at its center (with mermaids on it and so on) you would still have to seek to explain everything in terms of closed evolutionary system in order to be a Real Scientist in an imaginary world.
Zachriel:
ReplyDelete"Centaurs (human, equine), mermaids (human, fish) and griffins (lion, eagle, winged) have no plausible evolutionary ancestors."
How do you know that?
Cornelius Hunter: Evolutionists can (and have) employed multiple OOL events as an explanatory device.
ReplyDeleteThe Theory of Evolution only applies once life begins. Since Darwin, it has been recognized that there may be multiple origins at the root of the phylogenetic tree. Current evidence strongly supports a single ancestral population (albeit, not comprised of distinct organisms).
Cornelius Hunter: If all the species were different, for instance, evolutionists could argue God would create using patterns and design similarities, but since the species are all different they must have evolved from separate OOL events.
Separate creation of all species is not a theory of evolution. A theory of evolution requires descent with modification from one or a few primordial ancestors.
mynym: A specified theory of evolution might require descent with modification but the notion of progressive evolution in general does not, especially given the fact that the origin of life has generally been separated from "the theory."
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to know what you mean by "progressive evolution," but if you mean adaptation, then it does require descent with modification. If you mean orthogenesis, it lacks empirical support. There are tendencies, but these can be explained through orthodox mechanisms.
Zachriel: Centaurs (human, equine), mermaids (human, fish) and griffins (lion, eagle, winged) have no plausible evolutionary ancestors.
mynym: Plausible evolutionary ancestors could be imagined, about as plausible as many of the things that are imagined of evolution based on nothing but blind and ignorant processes.
Please help yourself. Propose a hypothesis, then gather the evidence. Let us know what you find.
mynym: That's interesting though, if mermaids and griffins existed would you conclude that was evidence of a singular Creator of organisms?
They would be unexplainable under evolutionary theory: despite your statement above, they have no plausible evolutionary precursors. There is a plausible alternative design hypothesis; that they are creations of human imagination.
mynym: But if they did exist they would be natural and therefore evolution would have to explain them due to the nature of science.
They could be artificial, of course, mad-scientists mixing and matching biological components. Human already make similar organisms. But there is no such evidence, of course. We can say with some confidence that they do not share the same evolutionary origin as that of other organisms, such as people and peacocks. The parsimonious explanation is that they are designed, the product of human imagination.
mynym: Sometimes people only find what they are looking for and miss the primary signal of the fossil record.
ReplyDeleteDarwin: the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form.
mynym: Yes, it seems that the only way to falsify evolution in general, whatever it is, is by finding some unnatural organisms.
ReplyDeleteBecause all known natural organisms support descent with modification.
Zachriel: Centaurs (human, equine), mermaids (human, fish) and griffins (lion, eagle, winged) have no plausible evolutionary ancestors.
ReplyDeleteJoe G: How do you know that?
We have a very good idea of the phylogeny of land vertebrates. Humans, horses, fish, birds and lions are on very divergent, reproductively isolated lines.
However, you are more than welcome to search for a plausible evolutionary ancestor. Make the prediction, find the evidence. Good luck!
Separate creation of all species is not a theory of evolution.
ReplyDeleteInteresting, because some have said:
...how can such power be granted to a force formerly viewed as so inconsequential? After all, evolution must still construct the full pageant of life's history and the entire taxonomic panorama, even if we abandon the concept of linear order. Darwin's answer records the depth of his debt to Lyell, the man more responsible than any other for shaping Darwin's basic view of nature. Time, just time! (The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen J. Gould :94) (emphasis added)
So even if separate order was observed it would seem that there would still be a theory of evolution or "Theory of Evolution" as you put it. I like the caps, it makes it seem like something as been rigorously specified in a unified theory with general application.
Perhaps if centaurs and mermaids were observed to arise spontaneously then that would apparently falsify evolution, whatever it is. Except that it would not because if that happened it would merely be evolution in action.
A theory of evolution requires descent with modification from one or a few primordial ancestors.
That's interesting because when proponents of ID or creationism argue that an orchard of life fits the evidence better than a tree of life evolutionists act as if such a model is invalid and unscientific in some way. Yet if their "theory" does not deal with the origin of life then they have no basis for such claims. At any rate, apparently it doesn't really matter anyway because even when a tree of life is not observed the theory of evolution is still verified. As it always must be.
Zachriel: Separate creation of all species is not a theory of evolution.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, evolution must still construct the full pageant of life's history and the entire taxonomic panorama, even if we abandon the concept of linear order.
You don't seem to be making a coherent point. Pre-Darwinian evolutionary theories posited descent with modification, albeit progressive from simple forms to advanced form.
mynym: So even if separate order was observed it would seem that there would still be a theory of evolution or "Theory of Evolution" as you put it.
Not sure what you mean? A theory of evolution is any theory which entails descent with modification, of which there are an infinitude. The Theory of Evolution is the well-supported scientific theory.
mynym: Perhaps if centaurs and mermaids were observed to arise spontaneously then that would apparently falsify evolution, whatever it is.
Anything like that would call into question a number of fundamental biological concepts.
mynym: Except that it would not because if that happened it would merely be evolution in action.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
mynym: That's interesting because when proponents of ID or creationism argue that an orchard of life fits the evidence better than a tree of life evolutionists act as if such a model is invalid and unscientific in some way.
That's because there is no evidence to support "orchard evolution," the furious evolutionary diversification since Noah's Flood.
They would be unexplainable under evolutionary theory: despite your statement above...
ReplyDeleteNot at all, if the arguments of evolutionists are to be believed then they would have to be explained by evolutionary theory if they existed. After all, if they existed in nature then they would be natural. How "plausible" historical claims about their evolution is would be subjective. Besides, a mythology of progress could be invoked by asserting that they would be explained based on future imaginary discoveries even observing them apparently falsified evolution at the moment.
...they have no plausible evolutionary precursors.
Imaginary precursors might be sufficient because they would become more plausible based on imaginary events in the future due to the nature of science and progress. The structure of Darwinian reasoning, such as it is, with respect to imagining things about the past seems to be this: "If I could be shown an organism which I could not imagine coming about in a series of gradual events then my theory would absolutely break down. It seems that I can always imagine things, therefore my theory is verified." So I don't see why I shouldn't imagine things as well. I can imagine that evolutionists would explain imaginary organisms if they existed, therefore it must be so.
There is a plausible alternative design hypothesis; that they are creations of human imagination.
But that isn't plausible because the apparent design and knowledge typical to the human imagination reduces to blind and ignorant processes like natural selection operating on an ancient group of worm-like creatures according to the way Darwinists imagine things.
They could be artificial, of course, mad-scientists mixing and matching biological components.
No they couldn't because a mad-scientist must be natural and explicable in terms of evolution according to evolution. Given the arguments of evolutionists whatever happens must be the result of a blind and ignorant evolution and not unnatural or artificial things like sentience, knowledge and design.
Human already make similar organisms.
Which is merely evolution in action, as it must be. So it seems to me that the question still remains, what would falsify "evolution."
Yet apparently you've specified that if such organisms existed then they would falsify evolution and you state that they do exist so apparently evolution has been falsified. Imagine that!
But there is no such evidence, of course.
Naturally, yet given that you've said that humans have created organisms which falsify evolution apparently there is such evidence.
Zachriel: {Centaurs, minotaurs, mermaids} would be unexplainable under evolutionary theory: despite your statement above...
ReplyDeletemynym: Not at all, if the arguments of evolutionists are to be believed then they would have to be explained by evolutionary theory if they existed.
Nope. We might want an explanation, but that doesn't mean they can be explained by the Theory of Evolution. Indeed, they cannot.
mynym: How "plausible" historical claims about their evolution is would be subjective.
Nope. Hypotheses are judged by their fit to the existing data, and their ability to make testable predictions.
mynym: Besides, a mythology of progress could be invoked by asserting that they would be explained based on future imaginary discoveries even observing them apparently falsified evolution at the moment.
The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of progressive evolution.
mynym: No they couldn't because a mad-scientist must be natural and explicable in terms of evolution according to evolution.
Direct, artificial manipulation of genomes is not incorporated as part of the Theory of Evolution.
HI,
ReplyDeleteTo go back to the OP:
...As one evolutionist admitted, "As a class [repetitive elements] are not just a junk DNA. They're not just parasites, but they can shape the architecture of the genome."...
Why do you say 'evolutionist' when the guy is listed as the 'principal genomicist' and doesn't mention evolution once? That ain't right.
Could I please also ask you to reconsider your use of the phrase 'junk DNA'. It has been known for some time now that this is a misnomer. It was a phrase coined around the same time as selfish DNA many years ago which was the simplest explanation for the facts at the time. Today it is used only euphemistically by most of the scientists I know to describe non-protein coding regions, regions which they all know are not likely to be 'junk' in anyway.
If you can get it there is a paper entitled 'Mining treasures from 'junk DNA'by R NOWAK
Science 4 February 1994:Vol. 263. no. 5147, pp.608 - 610 DOI: 10.1126/science.7508142
Note that was in 1994.
People have had their eye on transposons as well:
Science. 2000 Sep 1;289(5484):1455-7. Genetics. Transposons help sculpt a dynamic genome.
The existance of ncRNA was well known by the early 2000s as well.
It doesn't seem right to talk about junk DNA anymore when the consensus is, and has been for several years now, that it isn't junk. We all need to take a stand and stop using language that immediately obfuscates the facts involved.
Thanks for your time.
Nope. We might want an explanation, but that doesn't mean they can be explained by the Theory of Evolution. Indeed, they cannot.
ReplyDeleteIf centaurs and mermaids would falsify the notion of a tree of life unified by common descent then why aren't the observations which do not fit advanced as falsifications of "evolution"?
Hypotheses are judged by their fit to the existing data...
This does not seem to apply to the hypothesis of common descent given that when observations falsify it we are assured that evolution is true.
...and their ability to make testable predictions.
I'm not sure that predicting that mermaids and centaurs do not exist is much of an ability to be proud of. You said that organisms of that sort would falsify evolution and that they exist so it would seem that evolution, whatever it may be, has been falsified. If it is already known that one organism can design another based on an "artificial" (as you put it) design and so on then why should one assume that sentience and knowledge has never had a role in the past? If the impact of knowledge and design can be observed to have an impact on biology now then why assume that biology must be reduced to blind and ignorant mechanisms in the past?
The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of progressive evolution.
Then whatever it is it would seem to have little to do with explaining the origins of progress as we know it.
mynym: If centaurs and mermaids would falsify the notion of a tree of life unified by common descent then why aren't the observations which do not fit advanced as falsifications of "evolution"?
ReplyDeleteNew discoveries may falsify one or more aspect of evolutionary theory. They may or may not falsify evolution itself. That would depend on the specifics.
Zachriel: Hypotheses are judged by their fit to the existing data...
mynym: This does not seem to apply to the hypothesis of common descent given that when observations falsify it we are assured that evolution is true.
Though Common Descent and evolution are related concepts, they are not the same.
Zachriel: ...and their ability to make testable predictions.
mynym: I'm not sure that predicting that mermaids and centaurs do not exist is much of an ability to be proud of.
You asked for a possible falsification. Perhaps Centaurs once existed, but have since died off. That is certainly conceivable. But Centaurs are not consistent with what we know about biology, that all the diverse organisms on Earth evolved through a process of divergence from common ancestors. The parsimonious explanation is that Centaurs are designed by the human imagination.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI know this is going back a bit, but I really think harpy666 had it spot on in post at March 25, 11.00AM
ReplyDeleteIf we are not to make any assumption at all about what a God/deity/designer would or wuold not design, then absolutely anything at all that we observe in nature could never rule out design as an explanation.
In other words, design is unfalsifiable.
However, under the theory of evolution, junk DNA MAKES SENSE. The theory of evolution provides a testable explanation for the presence of junk DNA.
The designer hypothesis does not.
That is why people consider junk DNA evidence for the theory of evolution, and not for the design hypothesis.
harpy666 wrote - "Why do you not apply this logic to any of our other modern theories?"
And Cornelius replied - "Because they don't make religious arguments."
I'm afraid, Mr Hunter, according to your logic, they do.
If I see an apple fall to the ground, am I to conclude that this is evidence of a force pulling the apple down, or should I conclude it is evidence for a divine will acting to move objects around?
According to YOUR OWN LOGIC, it is a religious assumption to discount the second possibility. It is a RELIGIOUS bias to prefer the first over the second. Someone who simply assumes the apple is moving according to NATURAL forces is guilty of religious bias.
Those damn religious gravitationalists!
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete===
harpy666 wrote - "Why do you not apply this logic to any of our other modern theories?"
And Cornelius replied - "Because they don't make religious arguments."
I'm afraid, Mr Hunter, according to your logic, they do.
If I see an apple fall to the ground, am I to conclude that this is evidence of a force pulling the apple down, or should I conclude it is evidence for a divine will acting to move objects around?
According to YOUR OWN LOGIC, it is a religious assumption to discount the second possibility. It is a RELIGIOUS bias to prefer the first over the second. Someone who simply assumes the apple is moving according to NATURAL forces is guilty of religious bias.
Those damn religious gravitationalists!
====
So who are some physicists who have made this argument?
Cornelius -
ReplyDeleteNone to my knowledge. It is simply an extension of the very same argument you yourself are using.
My point in extending it this far is to (hopefully) illustrate that the reasoning behind it is flawed.
The theory of gravity makes no allowances for the possibility that the force pulling the apple to the ground is supernatural rather than natural, despite the fact that it cannot PROVE the forces acting on it AREN'T supernatural. This, according to your own logic, makes the theory of gravity a theory with religious bias.
If a thoery is arguing from a RELIGIOUS perspective by discounting supernatural influences, forces and explanations, then you must surely think EVERY scientific theory is arguing from a religious perspective. Because EVERY scientific theory discounts supernatural influences, forces and explanations.
So it is bizarre that you single out one particular theory to level this charge against.
Again, why do you not apply this logic to any of our other modern theories?
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete"None to my knowledge."
But that is my point.
"It is simply an extension of the very same argument you yourself are using."
Huh?
You asked for a possible falsification. Perhaps Centaurs...
ReplyDeleteWhat you're imagining as a falsification seems to be just another illusion given that mosaics of many different sorts are advanced as evidence for both descent and evolutionary convergence. In the case of a centaur human and horse characteristics are mixed and supposedly this defies common descent. Yet if eyes or wings can evolve separately numerous times and characters can converge in general form and function among disparate organisms then why would an imaginary mosaic's mixture of characters necessarily falsify evolution? Observations of this sort would supposedly falsify evolution but they might merely be incorporated into it.
"Confusing mixtures" are already cited as verification of common ancestry:
It was a confusing mixture of structural features of birds and extinct reptiles...
The skull was somewhat birdlike but contained teeth, characteristic of reptiles but absent in all modern birds. [???] There was a long reptilianlike bony tale, in contrast with the modern birds...
In fact, the skeleton was more similar to that of the archosaurians than to modern birds. Nevertheless, Archaeopteryx had wings and the body was covered with feathers. It could be debated whether Archaeopteryx should be classed as a reptile or bird...
Of course this is exactly what would be hoped for in a "missing link"-a species so perfectly intermediate between two major groups that one could debate to which group it should be assigned.
(Science as a Way of Knowing by John Moore :156)
One can imagine that griffins would falsify evolution because they do not fit with evolutionary creation myths that have been imagined in their absence. But I would imagine that the "theory" would fit if they had been observed. I do not imagine this without reason, the reason being that people have said that they must provide evolutionary explanations which seem natural to them for everything that is observed. So if mosaics like centaurs existed there is reason to imagine that they would have explanations and creation myths for them.
Though Common Descent and evolution are related concepts, they are not the same.
What is the "concept of evolution" in your mind?
...that all the diverse organisms on Earth evolved through a process of divergence from common ancestors...
But if the origin of life is a separate issue it's not clear how common the common ancestors are. I'm curious about the knowledge that you're claiming to have. You said ...there is no evidence to support "orchard evolution"... so how few or how many original common ancestors would qualify as a tree of life vs. an orchard of life? (The tree of life is usually portrayed with a singular origin, after all.)
"But that is my point."
ReplyDeleteThat's not really here nor there. You criticise the theory of evolution for being religiously biased, and yet your logic can be applied to absolutely any other scientific theory.
It doesn't really matter whether or not anyone is MAKING this claim, the point is that your logic leads us there.
If the theory of evolution is religiously biased for excluding the possibilty of supernatural explanations then logically, every other scientific theory is religiously biased too!
So the options facing us are: either your reasoning is correct and every scientific theory is religiously biased (in which case you still need to explain why you are singling out the theory of evolution when all theories are equally guilty), or your reasoning is flawed.
According to YOUR OWN LOGIC, it is a religious assumption to discount the second possibility. It is a RELIGIOUS bias to prefer the first over the second. Someone who simply assumes the apple is moving according to NATURAL forces is guilty of religious bias.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure about Hunter's logic but Newton believed that his discoveries of laws that could be specified in the language of mathematics proved that there was a divine Logos that sustains everything in being. Is there something unreasonable about that? After all, science as we know it probably would not have arisen if scientists had not grounded their physics on an intelligible metaphysics like monotheism.
Because EVERY scientific theory discounts supernatural influences, forces and explanations.
When scientists have theories about multiple universes terms like supernatural and natural have little meaning. If there was a sentient universe that created all the other universes would it be natural or supernatural?
The history of science shows that the idea that a supernatural or singular Creator exists is not the epistemic equivalent of all other supernatural views. It also is not the equivalent of superstition as ideological propagandists sometimes assert with arguments of association. Indeed, monotheism is the very reason that much of what we now consider superstitious was done away with in the first place.
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete"You criticise the theory of evolution for being religiously biased"
No, I criticize evolution for being religiously driven. Newtonian physics is not religiously driven, it is data driven.
mynym: In the case of a centaur human and horse characteristics are mixed and supposedly this defies common descent. Yet if eyes or wings can evolve separately numerous times and characters can converge in general form and function among disparate organisms then why would an imaginary mosaic's mixture of characters necessarily falsify evolution?
ReplyDeleteThe head of a Centaur isn't just sorta like a human's, but is human. And it's body isn't sorta like a horse, but is a horse. (Not to mention a Centaur has six limbs.) In any case, there still isn't any plausible ancestor. If you disagree, then go find the evidence.
mynym -
ReplyDeleteIt sounds very much like you believe science owes a great deal to monotheism. This strikes me as particularly odd given religion (I'm thinking specifically Christianity)'s long and bloody history of oppressing scientific advancement and vilifying its practitioners. I am not denying some of our greatest scientists have been religious, but science as an institution has rarely ever encouraged scientific growth, and has far more often actively suppressed and demonised it.
Perhaps you could explain to me exactly what sets monotheism apart from other superstitions, because as far as I can see, monotheism and any other form of superstition have exactly the same scientific merit.
Cornelius -
Religiously driven, then. The distinction sees immaterial enough, but if you insist on it...
The point is this: when considering the nature of the force that pulls a dropped object down, scientists will not even consider supernatural explanations - being pushed by fairies or the telekinetic will of a deity. Does this, or does this not, make the theory of gravity 'religiously driven'?
If you answer 'no', then how can you use the same logic to argue that the theory of evolution IS?
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete====
The point is this: when considering the nature of the force that pulls a dropped object down, scientists will not even consider supernatural explanations - being pushed by fairies or the telekinetic will of a deity. Does this, or does this not, make the theory of gravity 'religiously driven'?
====
First, this is not so simple. When Newton proposed gravity (action at a distance) it was questioned as an occult idea by the evolutionary thinkers because forces were supposed to be transmitted only by contact. The "methodological naturalism" of his day questioned his theory of gravity because it didn't fit their philosophy of science. Two centuries later evolutionists were comparing their theory to gravity, and now you're using it as an example of religion-free science.
====
If you answer 'no', then how can you use the same logic to argue that the theory of evolution IS?
====
Because I'm not using the same logic. There is no comparison between gravity and evolution. Gravity is not metaphysically motivated. Newton's reasoning and arguments were not religious. Try picking up a copy of *Principia*, it makes *Origins* look like a comic book. Darwin drones on about religion and ridiculous speculation while Newton cast an entire new physics.
CH 'When Newton proposed gravity (action at a distance) it was questioned as an OCCULT idea by the EVOLUTIONARY thinkers because forces were supposed to be transmitted only by contact. The "methodological naturalism" of his day questioned his theory of gravity because it didn't fit their philosophy of science.'
ReplyDeleteWhat the..?
OK.
1) seeing as how Newton was dead almost eighty years before Darwin was born I fail to see how his work was questioned by evolutionary thinkers. We all know who it was questioned by and who called it occult.
2)Why use "methodological naturalism" when you could just say science? And so what if they questioned it because it didn't seem to fit, as far as I can make out they were convinced one way or the other... probably by the facts. And if you are suggesting the scientists of the time called it occult, rather than the church, then I find that hard to believe.
Answer Ritchies question, it was that simple..
Cornelius -
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with iantracey here. Who exactly are you referring to as 'evolutionists' who lived in the time of Newton? It seems absurd since the theory of evolution through natural selection was not to be drawn up for many years.
But to return to my point, I simply cannot put it better than harpy66: "Cornelius your entire argument revolves around the idea that no evidence for evolution is acceptable because we can't know that God wouldn't have done it that way."
It seems you are basically insisting we acknowledge the POSSIBILITY of divine intervention (despite the fact it is totally unfalsifiable, or even testable) and are criticising the theory of evolution for ruling it out.
Again, why do you not to this with other theories? The theory of gravity assumes the forces of attraction acting on objects with mass are entirely NATURAL, and not SUPERNATURAL. As the theory of evolution does, it simply will not acknowledge supernatural explanations for observed phenomena.
Does that, or does it not, mean that the theory of gravity is 'religiously driven'? Yes or no?
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete=====
I have to agree with iantracey here. Who exactly are you referring to as 'evolutionists' who lived in the time of Newton? It seems absurd since the theory of evolution through natural selection was not to be drawn up for many years.
=====
Oh, that's right, evolution starts with Darwin. A revolutionary idea that challenged people's thinking and religious beliefs but was scientifically compelling. Now back to the real world ...
====
But to return to my point, I simply cannot put it better than harpy66: "Cornelius your entire argument revolves around the idea that no evidence for evolution is acceptable because we can't know that God wouldn't have done it that way."
It seems you are basically insisting we acknowledge the POSSIBILITY of divine intervention (despite the fact it is totally unfalsifiable, or even testable) and are criticising the theory of evolution for ruling it out.
====
No Ritchie, that would you who is insisting that, not me.
====
Again, why do you not to this with other theories?
====
Because scientific theories don't make religious claims, but then again, I already explained that and you ignored it, in favor of your strawman.
====
The theory of gravity assumes the forces of attraction acting on objects with mass are entirely NATURAL, and not SUPERNATURAL.
====
So what?
====
As the theory of evolution does, it simply will not acknowledge supernatural explanations for observed phenomena.
====
Of course it acknowledges supernatural explanations, which I have explained many times and you have ignored many times. You're living in a Wonderland.
Cornelius -
ReplyDelete"Oh, that's right, evolution starts with Darwin. A revolutionary idea that challenged people's thinking and religious beliefs but was scientifically compelling. Now back to the real world ..."
Sarcasm alone is not an argument. As far as I can see iantracy and I were perfectly valid on pulling you up on using the term 'evolutionists' to describe people who lived before the theory of evolution was drawn up!
And despite your sarcasm, the theory of evolution WAS indeed fairly revolutionary, scientifically speaking, and it DID challenge people's thinking and religious beliefs. That is true. Just being sarcastic about it is not a rational refutation.
"No Ritchie, that would you who is insisting that, not me."
You have a habit of refusing to claim credit for the implications of your own arguments. If we are to allow for the possibility that there is a divine creator who created everything as it is, then it is totally impossible to ever find ANYTHING that would falsify this hypothesis, no matter how illogical, useless, frivolous or expendable it might be. People could still claim 'That doesn't prove God DIDN'T do it...'
And therein lies the root of your argument. The theory of evolution dismisses this possibile hypothesis (from a certain perspective) out of hand.
But here's the thing - SO DOES EVERY OTHER SCIENTIFIC THOERY.
It is calld methodological naturalism. Every single scientific theory is built on it.
"Of course it acknowledges supernatural explanations, which I have explained many times and you have ignored many times."
What??! What supernatural explanations does the theory of gravity ackowledge, exactly? Because I'm pretty sure that if you go up to any scientist worth his salt and claim that 'The orbits of the plants are due to the will of a supreme deity', they will laugh in your face! If you think otherwise, then it is you who is living in Wonderland!
And you STILL have not answered my question. Am I phrasing it in a way that renders you unable to understand it? Are you merely hoping that if you ignore the question for long enough everyone will forget about it and you will not need to provide an answer?
Again, does that fact that the theory of gravity mandates methodological naturalism mean that it is religously driven? Yes or no?
Ritchie:
ReplyDeleteFirst, read this:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-to-read-darwin.html
To Cornelius hunter
ReplyDeleteLife is a magical thing. To think that it has all this time uninterruptedly flowed through to the present and onwards to the future. Staggeringly beautiful and mind-blowingly complex.
Needless to say the idea that this arose because a supernatural being that hadn't even been able to grasp the basics of marketing despite being omni-whatever, and who hadn't even been heard of before a few thousand years ago, luckily put together such intricacies is way, way beyond silly.
! I'm sorry but your religion, and your god, can be denied for many reasons other than a basic understanding of the principals of evolution and common descent. !
I think this is what bugs me and has prompted me to post here lately. You assume that the theory of evolution and those people who understand what it means are using it as a reason to deny your monotheism that you insist must still be involved and that their research, investigations and conclusions/inferences are therefore prompted by religion in order to deny it. But I contend that on the whole they aren't, that their views on religion have almost certainly been resolved by other, simpler, factors and that they rationally see the facts, as we discover them, for what they are and all they may imply. It is you and your associates whom seem to have the most trouble with the facts.
It is you and yours for whom science is driven by religion, not us.
If you were really honest you would stop sidestepping the awkward questions and answer them.
Oh, and please give an example of something that has been explained by science in super-natural terms?
And please, please answer Ritchies question, yes or no. If you stall anymore, or put up pointless links, you are doing nothing more than showing you have argued yourself into a corner you cannot ‘answer’ your way out of. It’s not too late.
Regards, Ian
Cornelius -
ReplyDeleteYour link took me back to an earlier post of yours which I myself had commented on quite extensively.
In fact, I still believe my opening post stands and is as relevant here as there. Here is the lion's share of it:
-------------------------------------
"Repeatedly you insist that the theory of evolution is built on nothing but the default assumption that there can be no divine creator. This is the sticking point where you simply fall down.
The theory of evolution is NOT just built on this default assumption. It is built on the enormous amount of scientific evidence which supports it. And dismissing all this evidence with a wave of your hand and saying scientists 'interpret all the evidence assuming evolution is true from the start' simply won't wash. A hypothesis never becomes a theory until it has passed a reasonable standard of evidence. Which the theory of evolution did a long time ago.
Moreover, you also ignore the fact that ID does not provide any sort of reasonable explanation for these 'organic parts and geographic distributions that make the least sense'. Why on Earth would any sensible designer create the laryngeal nerve in the giraffe the way it is, or install our retinas backwards, or any of the many, many other examples of 'bad design'? It flies in the face of what we can see as sensible, efficient, and good design.
You are not advancing any reasons why an almighty designer WOULD design creatures with so many 'flaws'. And the fact that there are so many examples of what we would consider 'bad design' is in fact rather suggestive (though not conclusive) evidence against a designer. At least, a designer who was sensible, rational and halfway intelligent.
All you are doing is clinging to the fact that such a designer has nevertheless not been shown to be impossible. Which, for what it is worth, is true. But we have no reason to think such a designer does exist, and active reasons to think one does not!"
-----------------------------------
You also said in the OP "Darwin's reasoning, such as in the passage above, is metaphysical." Are here we return to my question. Was Newton's reasoning also metaphysical?
The theory of gravity mandates methodological naturalism. Does this, or does this not mean it is religiously driven?
If centaurs where discovered, evolutionists would merely say it was the result of a horizontal gene tranfer.
ReplyDeleteviolet: If centaurs where discovered, evolutionists would merely say it was the result of a horizontal gene tranfer.
ReplyDeleteIt's isn't enough to simply say "horizontal gene transfer." Horizontal gene transfer is a specific group of mechanisms, and we know humans and horses cannot successfully mate. On the other hand, designers can easily mix and match, so the parsimonious explanation is that Centaurs are the fruit of human imagination.
Ritchie:
ReplyDeleteThe problem we consistently have here is not that we disagree, it is that you are using a strawman. With incredible consistency, you continually misrepresent the skepticism. Now that's a convenient way to avoid or ridicule the skepticism, but don't you want to understand the skepticism for what it is, rather than rebuke a strawman? When I criticize evolution I'm careful to stick to what the evolutionists actually say--I don't contrive my own version.
You consistently misrepresent the skepticism, I explain that you're using a strawman, and you then come back with more strawmen. There seems to be a problem here.
Here's an idea. Put on your journalist hat--what does a journalist do? He reports on the story and to do that he needs to understand the story, whether he agrees or not. See if you can actually summarize what I am saying.
=====
Repeatedly you insist that the theory of evolution is built on nothing but the default assumption that there can be no divine creator. This is the sticking point where you simply fall down.
=====
But I never said that. You can read every blog, every website, every article, every book I've ever written. I simply never said that. In fact, I have stated *precisely the opposite*, and I have argued repeatedly that religious skepticism is a sideshow which has very little, if any, substantive role in the debate.
So you have completely mischaracterized the skepticism. And you do this over and over, in spite of corrections.
=====
It is built on the enormous amount of scientific evidence which supports it.
=====
The scientific evidence presents enormous problems for evolution.
=====
And dismissing all this evidence with a wave of your hand
=====
But I don't do this. I have discussed the evidence and the details. This is by no means a superficial "wave of the hand" skepticism that overlooks obvious evidences.
=====
saying scientists 'interpret all the evidence assuming evolution is true from the start'
=====
Sorry, but this is the way it works. Evolutionists do not normally make theory-neutral interpretations. They are convinced evolution is a fact, and this profoundly influences how they interpret evidences.
=====
Moreover, you also ignore the fact that ID does not provide any sort of reasonable explanation for these 'organic parts and geographic distributions that make the least sense'. Why on Earth would any sensible designer create the laryngeal nerve in the giraffe the way it is, or install our retinas backwards, or any of the many, many other examples of 'bad design'? It flies in the face of what we can see as sensible, efficient, and good design.
=====
Again, another strawman. I have not ignored this, in fact, quite the opposite, I have discussed these very arguments.
(cont.)
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete====
You are not advancing any reasons why an almighty designer WOULD design creatures with so many 'flaws'.
====
OK, that's fair. I don't have a divine hot line.
====
And the fact that there are so many examples of what we would consider 'bad design' is in fact rather suggestive (though not conclusive) evidence against a designer. At least, a designer who was sensible, rational and halfway intelligent.
====
So evolution is compelling--a metaphysical argument that is robust to scientific problems, of which there are many. This comes right out of 17th c. rationalism, transmitted through Darwin.
====
All you are doing is clinging to the fact that such a designer has nevertheless not been shown to be impossible. Which, for what it is worth, is true. But we have no reason to think such a designer does exist, and active reasons to think one does not!"
====
Clinging? Another strawman. In fact, not only am I not "clinging," I have never made any argument of the sort.
=======
You also said in the OP "Darwin's reasoning, such as in the passage above, is metaphysical." Are here we return to my question. Was Newton's reasoning also metaphysical?
=======
No, Newton was not driven by, and so did not use, religious premises. He didn't say, "God would never do X, so therefore ...".
Ian:
ReplyDelete===
I think this is what bugs me and has prompted me to post here lately. You assume that the theory of evolution and those people who understand what it means are using it as a reason to deny your monotheism that you insist must still be involved and that their research, investigations and conclusions/inferences are therefore prompted by religion in order to deny it.
===
But I never said or assumed that. Indeed, quite the opposite. You have attributed a position to me which I do not hold, and in fact is the opposite of my position, and then you criticize me for assuming that, though it is you who are assuming. Evolutionists typically cannot genuinely engage skepticism of their theory.
Cornelius -
ReplyDelete"but don't you want to understand the skepticism for what it is, rather than rebuke a strawman?"
I know it sounds like we're just butting heads and each probably assumes the other is just being incredibly stubborn, but yes I sincerely do at least want to understand you properly, because apparently I do not. If you think I am failing in this endeavour, please take my attempts as, at the very least, sincere.
"Put on your journalist hat..."
Amusing considering I am actually a journalist, btw...
Cutting right to the chase, here's where I'm at - Biologists today are fighting a desperate battle to encourage the understanding of the theory of evolution against people who, for religious reasons, choose to believe it simply cannot be true because it contradicts the literal word of their holy book.
Thus the theory of evolution is unusual among scientific theories in that it constantly has to justify itself.
Now I think you are getting far too swept up on two certain points. Firstly, that 'evoltuion is a fact'. Now, from where I stand, when people say 'evolution is a fact', they mean that it is so well-evidenced and so thoroughly well supported that denying it is true is perverse. At the end of the day, the theory of evolution has withstood a century and a half of critical analysis. It is, basically, a damn good theory. And when people say 'Evolution is a fact', what they more literally mean is that 'To the best of our knowledge, evolution really does happen'.
But you seem to take such statements to proclaim that biology is driven by the fanatical belief that evolution IS TRUE and MUST NOT BE QUESTIONED with a fanatical, religious zeal. And in doing so, you are mistaken. If anyone could come up with a testable, scientific alternative to the theory of evoltuion, the scientific community would, I am sure, be more than willing to at least listen. But no-one yet has. ID, for example, fails miserably to pass as a scientific theory by even the lowest of standards.
The second point you seem to be hooked on is that many prominent biologists have said certain biological features could not, or would not have been made by a designer. You insist this is a statement based on religious assumptions - assumptions on what a designer would or would not design.
And you are right - such statements are. But here's the thing - the theory of evolution is not based on, or driven by, such assumptions. It is driven by the correlations we find in the fossil record, genetic record, anatomy and geographic distribution of living things on Earth, etc.
"The scientific evidence presents enormous problems for evolution."
Here is another sticking point you have. Forgive me, but I have an image of you as someone who immerses himself in all the problems, potential problems, possible problems and percieved problems for evolution you can find, while ignoring the truly enormous mountain of counter-evidence. If you were to lift up your eyes you would see that the 'problems' you obsess over (which often turn out to be simple misunderstandings of the facts, judging by the replies your posts seem to generate) are VASTLY outweighed by the positive evidence FOR the theory of evolution.
The balance of evidence really IS on the side of evolution being true.
Finally, though it seems to be increasingly tangental to the content of my posts, I really, really would like you to answer my question regarding methodological naturalism. The theory of gravity mandates it. Does this make the theory of gravity a religiously driven theory?
Ritchie:
ReplyDeleteThere's something about the origins debate that makes everyone feel they are an expert. I have seen many a pundit (on all sides of the issue) bluster into the debate with close to no actual knowledge. They've seen *Inherit the Wind*, had a high school biology class, and they've heard all they need to know in the newspapers and TV coverage.
Imagine blustering into a health care debate, environmental debate, economic debate, foreign policy debate, military spending debate, etc., with essentially no knowledge. Imagine reporting on any of these with little knowledge of the nuances. But this happens on a regular basis in the origins debate. We all know this is all about religion versus science. This is the template into which all the facts must fit. I can't tell you all the examples of misreporting on this.
Example: For a major TV story done awhile back about a particular incident, a scientist friend of mine (who was local to the incident) was interviewed. The interviewers were interested in his religious angle, but he didn't have a religious angle. He explained the scientific problems with evolution. It was a lengthy interview, but he appeared nowhere in the final piece, and was not even mentioned. Guess what the viewers learned in that piece? It was all about those religious fanatics in opposition to good science at work.
The rule of thumb is that you are either misquoted / misrepresented, or you are omitted from the story.
Ritchie, your comments unfortunately reflect this sort of superficial understanding, and stereotyping that characterizes the origins debate. Of course, as in any contentious debate, there are outlier views and uninformed participants. But you wouldn't report on a political story by using only the extremists to represent one side. Are there people with a religious belief against evolution, sure, of course. Just as there are atheists who must have evolution. But neither represent the totality, or even the underlying important elements, of the debate.
(cont.)
Ritchie:
ReplyDeleteThe problem is you are imputing views and motives to me which I do not hold. You have the superficial template of the story in mind. You see everything through this template. So you literally are casting me into a fictional role that has been programmed into your thinking.
Now I am by no means expecting you to agree with my views. But I would hope you can at least understand my views. You might even realize there is more to this story than you think.
Also, please realize that I have studied this debate in some detail. Most people, I suspect you included, have a passing familiarity at best with the material. You've probably had the high school biology class. And you've probably read some of Darwin and Milton. Perhaps you've also read Paley and Hume. Maybe some Kant. You've probably read some Plato, and may be familiar with greek thought, from the pre socratics to say the Epicureans. This would all be a good start, but in itself only a start.
You probably have studied the scientific evidences and arguments for evolution, as presented by evolutionists. But you probably read them with a sympathetic attitude. You have probably not studied the critiques of these. You've probably not thought too hard about possible problems. And you probably did not think too much about the role of metaphysics in the reasoning, and its role in the interpretation of the empirical evidence.
You've probably not traced the history of the evolutionary arguments. You've probably not read read a great deal of the early-mid 20th c. evolutionists, and you've probably not studied the 19th c., post Darwin, evoltionists.
You're probably not too familiar with the metaphysics in Darwin's book, and even less aware of their connections to pre Darwin thought. You're probably not too familiar with the massive debate over miracles in early 18th c. England, or the various claims of natural theology at about that same time.
You've probably never read John Ray, Ralph Cudworth, or Thomas Burnet. You're probably not familiar with Malebranche or Wolfe, and you probably don't understand the underlying metaphysics of Leibniz' thought.
Your knowledge of church history is, like most people's, probably not very detailed. You probably have no idea what the theological motivations of the deists were and may not know the contributions of David Friedrich Strass. You would probably be hard pressed to name theological positions supportive or mandating evolutionary thought. You're probably unfamiliar with early church or medieval origins thought and debates.
You are also probably not up on the relevant philosophy of science issues, and you're likely unaware of its various intricacies and nuances.
These is some of the background knowledge one needs to intelligently engage the origins debate. Yet people routinely bluster into the debate with little more than the latest newspaper hit piece, reinforcing their pre existing caricatures.
There is a story here, but it is not what most people think it is. But until and unless you are ready to put your journalist hat on, and actually try to understand the skepticism, rather than type cast it, you'll never understand.
(cont.)
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete==============
Cutting right to the chase, here's where I'm at - Biologists today are fighting a desperate battle to encourage the understanding of the theory of evolution against people who, for religious reasons, choose to believe it simply cannot be true because it contradicts the literal word of their holy book.
==============
I could not have characterized the mythology any better.
=============
Now I think you are getting far too swept up on two certain points. Firstly, that 'evoltuion is a fact'. Now, from where I stand, when people say 'evolution is a fact', they mean that it is so well-evidenced and so thoroughly well supported that denying it is true is perverse. At the end of the day, the theory of evolution has withstood a century and a half of critical analysis. It is, basically, a damn good theory. And when people say 'Evolution is a fact', what they more literally mean is that 'To the best of our knowledge, evolution really does happen'.
==============
Yes, that is a good explanation of what is meant by "evolution is a fact."
==============
But you seem to take such statements to proclaim that biology is driven by the fanatical belief that evolution IS TRUE and MUST NOT BE QUESTIONED with a fanatical, religious zeal.
==============
False.
==============
And in doing so, you are mistaken. If anyone could come up with a testable, scientific alternative to the theory of evoltuion, the scientific community would, I am sure, be more than willing to at least listen.
==============
Now you have switched gears. The topic suddenly, out of nowhere, switches to the philosophy of science. This is a typical move by evolutionists. Claim evolution is a fact, and when questioned about it, quickly change the topic to creationism, or ID. Earlier you were adamant that a theory must hold up by itself. But that was when you were discussing ID.
==============
But no-one yet has. ID, for example, fails miserably to pass as a scientific theory by even the lowest of standards.
==============
And that is relevant because ... why ?
==============
The second point you seem to be hooked on is that many prominent biologists have said certain biological features could not, or would not have been made by a designer. You insist this is a statement based on religious assumptions - assumptions on what a designer would or would not design.
==============
Insist? Must one "insist" that statements about what god or a designer would do are not scientific?
==============
And you are right - such statements are.
==============
Oh, OK, good. We're making progress ...
(cont.)
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete==============
But here's the thing - the theory of evolution is not based on, or driven by, such assumptions.
==============
OK, so here we can disagree, but at least understand that someone with far more knowledge than you on this particular topic holds that it is driven by such assumptions.
==============
It is driven by the correlations we find in the fossil record, genetic record, anatomy and geographic distribution of living things on Earth, etc.
==============
But these evidences are interpreted metaphysically, and you don't even see it.
==============
"The scientific evidence presents enormous problems for evolution."
Here is another sticking point you have. Forgive me, but I have an image of you as someone who immerses himself in all the problems, potential problems, possible problems and percieved problems for evolution you can find, while ignoring the truly enormous mountain of counter-evidence.
==============
OK, again, we can disagree, but at least please understand that my position: the problems are not mere minor points in the face of enormous positive evidence. It is exactly the opposite.
==============
If you were to lift up your eyes you would see that the 'problems' you obsess over (which often turn out to be simple misunderstandings of the facts, judging by the replies your posts seem to generate) are VASTLY outweighed by the positive evidence FOR the theory of evolution.
==============
This is the template. Nothing could be farther from the objective, scientific, truth (sans metaphysics, of course).
==============
The balance of evidence really IS on the side of evolution being true.
==============
That would be very difficult to explain.
==============
Finally, though it seems to be increasingly tangental to the content of my posts, I really, really would like you to answer my question regarding methodological naturalism. The theory of gravity mandates it. Does this make the theory of gravity a religiously driven theory?
==============
I did answer this: No, gravity is not religiously driven. The question reveals a profound lack of understanding of the evolution genre.
Speaking of religious argument, consider that Isaac Newton could not explain to himself why a body in inertial motion remains in motion. He eventually attributed the cause to God. He wrote that God could cause things to move in the same way that human beings can cause their limbs to move. Newton believed in causality as much as Aristotle but, since he could not identify the cause of motion, he attributed it to God. Bad physics, in my opinion. I find this to be a purely religious argument and I disagree with Newton in this regard.
ReplyDeleteThe result is that, even to this day, physicists (most of them are atheists who reject both Newton's religious argument and Aristotelian logic) believe that a body in inertial motion remains in motion for no reason at all, as if by magic. It's embarrassing, to say the least.
Google "Physics: The Problem with Motion" if you're interested in this subject.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteOK, I shall try to not get involved on the topic as I cannot fathom exactly your point. I thought I'd got there and obviously hadn't, lol.
I would, however, like to take you to task on one issue that I have noticed. You are very keen on finding research and then using that to attack the probablity of evolution. My problem here is that you appear to 'cherry pick' articles, quote something out of them and then leave it there. You do not research that avenue past the point where it gives you a quote to use. I refer to the point you make about insect wings in the 'billion to one' post.You quote an article (Whiting et al, 2003) and give the impression that science had come to the astounding final conclusion that stick insects must have evolved, lost and re-evolved wings several times. However, and this is what gets me, you completely fail to acknowledge the existence of a paper (Stone and French, 2003)that responded to Whiting et al and showed conclusively that the same molecular and phylogenetic relationship could come about without there being any need for 're-evolution' at any point. I didn't need to go hunting for this paper either, it was cited on the same page and linked through citation managers so I don't see that it should be unknown to you. Did you never see the paper? Or did you? Please do have a look and see what you think.
Evolution: Have Wings Come, Gone and Come Again?
Current Biology. Volume 13, Issue 11, 27 May 2003, Pages R436-R438
Also, I believe you have an understanding of DNA methylation and some of its affects?
The genome of the stick insect Medauroidea extradentata is strongly methylated within genes and repetitive DNA. PLoS One. 2009 Sep 29;4(9)
This paper concerns one of the wingless stick insects. It would be very interesting, would it not, if the same analysis could be done on some winged varieties of stick insect.
It took me little time to find the Whiting paper, the Stone and French paper and further contemporary research that could lead to a basic but workable hypothesis and therefore be tested under experimental conditions and add to the sum of mankinds knowledge. This is researching and research. You found one paper, and stopped...
I apologise. It would 'appear' that you found the one paper then stopped.
ReplyDeleteLouis and folks:
ReplyDelete=========
Speaking of religious argument, consider that Isaac Newton could not explain to himself why a body in inertial motion remains in motion. He eventually attributed the cause to God. He wrote that God could cause things to move in the same way that human beings can cause their limbs to move. Newton believed in causality as much as Aristotle but, since he could not identify the cause of motion, he attributed it to God. Bad physics, in my opinion. I find this to be a purely religious argument and I disagree with Newton in this regard.
The result is that, even to this day, physicists (most of them are atheists who reject both Newton's religious argument and Aristotelian logic) believe that a body in inertial motion remains in motion for no reason at all, as if by magic. It's embarrassing, to say the least.
==========
Would you agree that Newton laws of motion were empirically compelling and no metaphsical premises were required to think those laws were a good model? Most would agree with this. What you are pointing out here is the interpretation of the law. Given the law, how do we understand it? Why is it there? Sure, such musings are bound to be metaphysical. But this is completely different from Darwin's Principle, and evolutionary thinking in general, which interprets the evidence according to metaphysical assumptions.
TP argued that gravity is more metaphysical than common descent. Perhaps so, but that is not relevant. The metaphysics in evolutionary thought are in the interpretations of the evidences, and arguments, *for* the theory, not in the proposed action of nature. The metaphysics you are pointing out here deal not with why we should accept the law of motion, but in trying to go further and to understand why the law exists. Simply put, evolution's metaphysics are epistemological, whereas physic's metaphysics are ontological.
Example: Evolutionists such as Francis Collins argues that similar junk in cousin species, such as pseudogenes, is powerful evidence for evolution. This is what Sober calls "Darwin's Principle." And indeed it is a compelling argument, but not because it supports evolution directly, but rather because it rebukes creation and design. God wouldn't create such shared errors. This is how the powerful arguments for evolution go. They are deeply metaphysical at the epistemological stage. We should believe evolution is true because of premises which do not come from science, and cannot be argued from on an empirical basis. But once you buy the fact of evolution, then the metaphysics is water under the bridge. The action of this supposed process of evolution is purely mechanistic, with no undue metaphysics in sight. At the ontological stage it is just normal-looking science.
The claim that evolution is a fact is where the metaphysics lies, not the explanation of how evolution is supposed to work. It is the reverse in physics.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteyou wrote:
"Evolutionists such as Francis Collins argues that similar junk in cousin species, such as pseudogenes, is powerful evidence for evolution. This is what Sober calls "Darwin's Principle." And indeed it is a compelling argument, but not because it supports evolution directly, but rather because it rebukes creation and design. God wouldn't create such shared errors."
That may be how you or Francis Collins interprets it, but that is gratuitous. what the presence of shared pseudogenes really argues against is convergence. functional genes shared by different species may have arisen through convergence, but this is less likely to be true of non-functional genes sharing the same mistakes. after all, as Behe points out, there are a million ways to break a gene but less to create a functional one. so it is more parsimonious that organisms share the same pseudogenes created by the same mistakes due to common descent. no god needed, or implied.
Cornelius -
ReplyDelete"There's something about the origins debate that makes everyone feel they are an expert..."
I won't quibble much here. It certainly is a very popularized debate which the media love to characature (more so in USA than in Britain, I believe, but even so...) and I will not even attempt to defend the lazy, sensationalist way the media often reports science.
Then again, that's just the nature of journalism. Just because they manipulate you doesn't mean they have a vendetta against you or your position in particular - they do that to everyone!
I like to think I may also be slightly better informed than you might imagine. Though I have no formal qualifications in these fields, I flatter myself that I'm more well-versed in theology and biology than your average person. Not an expert by any means, but I understand the scientific method. I understand how theories work. And I am well versed in religious apologetics.
It sounds as though you consider yourself to be something of an authority in these fields. Who am I to argue here? But even I can spot flaws in your knowledge/reasoning. For example, your apparent belief that the work of Gregor Mendel in any way contradicted that of Darwin (http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_5.1_Mechanisms_of). However knowledgable and well read you are on these matters, you are not infallible. In fact, an unkind person might suspect your self-confidence in your expertise in these fields might be unfounded.
Nevertheless, you accuse me of holding up strawmen so regularly on here that it is abundantly clear I have a way to go to properly understand you, despite my efforts.
"Earlier you were adamant that a theory must hold up by itself. But that was when you were discussing ID... And that is relevant because ... why ?"
And I absolutely stand by my insistance that theories explain the evidence on their own without merely playing last-theory-standing. My point here was to illustrate that the theory of evolution is by far the best explanation of the evidence we have - because there is no other theory which even comes close in terms of explanatory power. Science does tend to cling to theories (eg, geocentrism) until they are replaced by better ones (eg, heliocentrism). No matter what you think of the theory of evolution, we are likely stuck with it until a better one comes along. And there is absolutely no sign of one yet.
And this point is more relevant than it might at first appear. For example, if there is so much anomalous data which the theory of evolution is at a loss to explain, WHY isn't there another hypothesis/theory in the pipeline which can do a better job? The more flawed the theory of evolution is, the easier it would be to come up with a better one. That's just logical. The fact that the theory of evolution is so well established that it is practically the basis of modern biology and there is absolutely no other theory within light years of matching it's explantory power is, if not definitive, at least rather suggestive of the fact that it is probably right.
In short, without wanting to sound petulant, if you honestly think the theory of evolution is so flawed, come up with something better! Meanwhile, the total failure of anyone to do so is telling.
(cont)
ReplyDelete"But these evidences are interpreted metaphysically, and you don't even see it."
I'll definitely need you to explain this one to me. I would have assumed the metaphysics you are referring to would be methodological naturalism. But as you yourself state in finally answering my question, it is perfectly scientific and not at all theologically-driven to mandate methodological naturalism - as evidenced by the theory of gravity.
So, bearing this in mind, how exactly are these evidences interpreted metaphysically? And how does it differ in how, for example, the theory of gravity interprets its evidence. Be really specific if you can - the more so the better.
"OK, again, we can disagree, but at least please understand that my position: the problems are not mere minor points in the face of enormous positive evidence. It is exactly the opposite."
I understand you think so. I do not agree, but I guess that was obvious...
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete"Not an expert by any means, but I understand the scientific method."
Since there is no such thing, in any sort of clean or tidy sense, such statements are usually signs of ignorance of the history and philosophy of science.
"And I am well versed in religious apologetics."
That is equally worrisome since much of what passes for religious apologetics fuels rather than enlightens the origins debate mythology.
"It sounds as though you consider yourself to be something of an authority in these fields."
I said that I have studied this debate in some detail. But there is a great deal more I'd like to learn.
======
But even I can spot flaws in your knowledge/reasoning. For example, your apparent belief that the work of Gregor Mendel in any way contradicted that of Darwin (http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_5.1_Mechanisms_of). However knowledgable and well read you are on these matters, you are not infallible. In fact, an unkind person might suspect your self-confidence in your expertise in these fields might be unfounded.
======
What is disappointing here is that rather understanding the issue at hand, you merely parrot the evolutionary claim. IOW, when a skeptic is pointing out a failure in evolutionary theory, it is not sufficient to parrot back the evolutionary theory. That is circular reasoning.
Of course, we all are well familiar with the evolutionary narrative. We need not be reminded that the evolutionary synthesis found a way to integrate Mendelian genetics with Darwinism. We all know that story. But there is a glaring problem with that story. The fact that evolutionists have, amidst their great triumph, ignored the problem, doesn't mean it is not there.
Again, I don't expect you to agree, but I do expect you to be able to delineate the arguments. You don't need to be a scientist to understand the basic issues at hand. The fact that you avoid doing so makes it appear you are rigidly holding to the template, rather than objectively allowing all the viewpoints in, for a fair evaluation, or at least fair representation.
====
And I absolutely stand by my insistance that theories explain the evidence on their own without merely playing last-theory-standing.
====
Good, except that we next have ...
====
My point here was to illustrate that the theory of evolution is by far the best explanation of the evidence we have - because there is no other theory which even comes close in terms of explanatory power.
====
So what?
====
Science does tend to cling to theories (eg, geocentrism) until they are replaced by better ones (eg, heliocentrism). No matter what you think of the theory of evolution, we are likely stuck with it until a better one comes along. And there is absolutely no sign of one yet.
====
So what? How is that relevant?
====
And this point is more relevant than it might at first appear. For example, if there is so much anomalous data which the theory of evolution is at a loss to explain, WHY isn't there another hypothesis/theory in the pipeline which can do a better job? The more flawed the theory of evolution is, the easier it would be to come up with a better one. That's just logical. The fact that the theory of evolution is so well established that it is practically the basis of modern biology and there is absolutely no other theory within light years of matching it's explantory power is, if not definitive, at least rather suggestive of the fact that it is probably right.
In short, without wanting to sound petulant, if you honestly think the theory of evolution is so flawed, come up with something better! Meanwhile, the total failure of anyone to do so is telling.
====
So now the fellow who said a theory must stand on its own has now turned it around.
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete(cont)
So what if someone asked you about the Mendel-Darwin question. "Hey Ritchie, I heard evolution skeptics think that Mendel's work doesn't support evolution. What idiots! Can't they see through their religious biases? Do you know why they are so confused?" Would you laugh along with them, or could you represent the skeptic's view (even though you don't agree with it)?
===========
"But these evidences are interpreted metaphysically, and you don't even see it."
I'll definitely need you to explain this one to me. I would have assumed the metaphysics you are referring to would be methodological naturalism. ... how exactly are these evidences interpreted metaphysically? And how does it differ in how, for example, the theory of gravity interprets its evidence. Be really specific if you can - the more so the better.
===========
How are the evidences interpreted metaphysically? Be really specific? OK, how about this quote from you:
=========
Moreover, you also ignore the fact that ID does not provide any sort of reasonable explanation for these 'organic parts and geographic distributions that make the least sense'. Why on Earth would any sensible designer create the laryngeal nerve in the giraffe the way it is, or install our retinas backwards, or any of the many, many other examples of 'bad design'? It flies in the face of what we can see as sensible, efficient, and good design.
=========
This is a typical example of how evolutionists interpret the evidence metaphysically. This doesn't come from science.
Ian:
ReplyDelete===========
I would, however, like to take you to task on one issue that I have noticed. You are very keen on finding research and then using that to attack the probablity of evolution. My problem here is that you appear to 'cherry pick' articles, quote something out of them and then leave it there. You do not research that avenue past the point where it gives you a quote to use. I refer to the point you make about insect wings in the 'billion to one' post.You quote an article (Whiting et al, 2003) and give the impression that science had come to the astounding final conclusion that stick insects must have evolved, lost and re-evolved wings several times. However, and this is what gets me, you completely fail to acknowledge the existence of a paper (Stone and French, 2003)that responded to Whiting et al and showed conclusively that the same molecular and phylogenetic relationship could come about without there being any need for 're-evolution' at any point.
===========
You seem to think that Stone and French showing this "conclusively" carries some weight. All they showed is that one unlikely scenario can be replaced by another. What they "conclusively" showed is that rather than the solution which evolutionists would normally opt for, which has the appearance, disappearance, and reappearance of wings, one can contrive other, even less likely, solutions where you have massive disappearances all over the tree. They have no reason to prefer one over the other, except for arbitrary weightings. In evolutionary theory, one is free to contrive all kinds of unlikely and silly solutions because they never are required to demonstrate plausibility. Nice work if you can get it.
Cornelius -
ReplyDelete"Since there is no such thing [as the scientific method - me], in any sort of clean or tidy sense, such statements are usually signs of ignorance of the history and philosophy of science."
Mightn't you be needlessly complicating things here? The scientific method is simply the technique of acquiring knowledge about the world by systematically recording data, formulating hypotheses to account for the data, and then performing experiments to test the hypotheses. Yes, there are details to fill in here, but it is hardly beyond the grasp of the average person. Exactly how much do you need to understand about the history and philosophy of science to grasp how this works?
"What is disappointing here is that rather understanding the issue at hand, you merely parrot the evolutionary claim. IOW, when a skeptic is pointing out a failure in evolutionary theory, it is not sufficient to parrot back the evolutionary theory. That is circular reasoning."
I am not just parroting the evolutionary claim back. I am pointing out that Mendel's work in no way falsifies Darwin's. A point which you seem to disagree with for no reason that I can understand.
"But there is a glaring problem with that story. The fact that evolutionists have, amidst their great triumph, ignored the problem, doesn't mean it is not there."
What IS the problem?
Again, I genuinely am trying to understand, but you seem to be tying yourself up in knots. Your logic is, at the very least, not easy to follow.
Also, I thought my point about competing theories was a valid and relevant one. Theories explain observations and facts. A bad one won't explain many. A better one explains more. If the theory of evolution is so bad and fails to account for so many facts and observations, then it should be easy to come up with a better one. The fact that no-one has even come close to doing so rather suggests that you are simply wrong in your assessment of the theory of evolution as highly flawed.
"So now the fellow who said a theory must stand on its own has now turned it around."
I am not undermining my point that every theory must stand on its own. I am calling for you or anyone to simply come up with a better theory. And by that, I don't mean one which attacks the theory of evolution - I mean one which accounts for more data and has a greater explanatory power. This is not the same as playing last-theroy-standing - THAT game works by trying to discredit other theories in the hope of 'winning' by default.
(cont)
ReplyDelete"...Would you laugh along with them, or could you represent the skeptic's view (even though you don't agree with it)?"
It sounds like a trick question, but obviously I would like to think of myself as someone mature enough to respect an opinion even though I don't agree with it. I am not laughing at you. I just think you are wrong. There is no shame in that.
"How are the evidences interpreted metaphysically? Be really specific? OK, how about this quote from you ... This is a typical example of how evolutionists interpret the evidence metaphysically."
Is that what I'm doing in the post? I am not saying 'God WOULDN'T design the laryngeal nerve in giraffes like this'. THAT would be interpreting the evidence metaphysically.
The laryngeal nerve in giraffes is an objective fact. The fact that it is far longer than it needs to be is also an objective fact. What are we to make of this? The theory of evolution provides an explanation.
And ID? Well, you have to admit that it does SEEM to go against the premise of ID - that life is so amazing complex and well put together that it just HAS to be the product of deliberate design.
Am I really interpreting the evidence metaphysically by saying the laryngeal nerve in giraffes SEEMS badly designed?
Perhaps you think so. And perhaps I am. I eagerly await your response. But if you do think so, where does that leave ID which so often tries to insist certain biological features or mechanisms SEEM designed? If it is metaphysical to say something seems badly designed, surely it is equally metaphysical to say something else seems well designed?
Cornelius
ReplyDelete'What they "conclusively" showed is that rather than the solution which evolutionists would normally opt for, which has the appearance, disappearance, and reappearance of wings, one can contrive other, even less likely, solutions where you have massive disappearances all over the tree.'
Ok that's tosh. Firstly, the whiting paper did not suggest what would be the 'evolutionary perspetive' as this involved evolving, losing and re-evolving. This is hard to reconcile for the obvious reason that you stated in the article. The second paper, the one you chose to ignore, showed that rather than having multiple events requiring loss and re-evolution it was possible to have only loss events and reach the same molecular and phylogenetic relationship.
'They have no reason to prefer one over the other, except for arbitrary weightings.'
Tosh
Parsimony maybe? Although the second does require more incidents of 'loss', this is easier to reconcile as it was the re-evolution idea that caused problems and was what you trumped up for the purposes of your article. I'm not saying either one is right, there will be more research to determine this Im sure, but I would suggest that you try to have a balanced approach to your researching and article writing as you currently appear to be a bit too selective and this makes you come across as less than honest.
Also, you approached the subject, as you do on many things, giving the impression that this was the final answer, without any critical evaluation and without genuinely considering other work or explanations. Misinforming your students and any public who read this stuff would be a tragedy, I hope it is not deliberate.
If you genuinely believe that the Whiting paper was more in line with evolutionary thinking than the Stone and French paper then I put it to you that your understanding is flawed.
Please explain why you think Whiting is the evolutionary choice over Stone and French?
No non answers please or links to previous articles. This is a simple question.
Ian:
ReplyDeleteOf course the Whiting paper is more in line with evolutionary thinking because its reconstruction is according to established methods and practices. The Stone and French reconstruction is a less parsimonious reconstructino, made up to avoid the silliness.
This is just another in a long line of modifications to the theory to accommodate the actual data. The theory doesn't work very well, and has to be patched, leading to an increasingly complex theory (see www.DarwinsPredictions.com).
I agree with your point that evolutionists can change their methods, and come up with different results. What I wrote is simply a reflection of the results evolutionists obtain when they apply their theory. The results were according to established practice, peer-reviewed, and highly reported on.
The Stone and French reconstruction is far less parsimonious according to established practice. But of course it is a possible reconstruction, and can make sense if regaining the wings is less likely than losing them.
But what's the point. Either way you end up with a result that appears much more tautological than explanatory. Evolution isn't elucidating anything here, it is simply a tautology. Whatever patterns are found in the species, evolution creates them, no matter how crazy the reconstruction becomes. That's the point.
But I do agree with your point the multiple reconstructions are possible (and have been suggested), so I did modify the text accordingly. Thanks for that helpful suggestion.
Thank you...
ReplyDeleteBut to risk opening a large can of worms I have to disagree (with Stone and French) as to which interpretation of the facts was more parsimonious. Although parsimony obviously isn't the be all and end all.
I believe you and they find Whiting more parsimonious because there are in total less events throughout the natural history of all of the extant stick insects than in the other explanation. However, this ignores the fact that, using Stone and Frenchs model, there are less events involved in the natural history of any one of the extant species. Each extant species in S&Fs model has only had, at most, one event. Whereas Ws model means that some of the extant species have had up to three events, much less parsimonious I would say. Thoughts?
By the way, there is nothing wrong with Whitings data and his cladogram(?)It is his interpretation of the data that is wide open. Interesting topic.
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete===========
I am not just parroting the evolutionary claim back. I am pointing out that Mendel's work in no way falsifies Darwin's. A point which you seem to disagree with for no reason that I can understand.
"But there is a glaring problem with that story. The fact that evolutionists have, amidst their great triumph, ignored the problem, doesn't mean it is not there."
What IS the problem?
Again, I genuinely am trying to understand, but you seem to be tying yourself up in knots. Your logic is, at the very least, not easy to follow.
===========
Not easy to follow? The argument for why Mendel presents a problem for neo Darwinism is extremely straightforward. You don't need to understand organism chemistry, physics, paleontology. molecular biology, or even genetics. Nor is the logic complicated. I explain it here:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/01/evolution-of-serendipity.html
a post to which you responded. Again, the goal here is not concurrence but understanding. What is it about this argument that you don't understand? I'm perplexed that you find this circuitous.
=======
Is that what I'm doing in the post?
=======
Yes.
===========
I am not saying 'God WOULDN'T design the laryngeal nerve in giraffes like this'. THAT would be interpreting the evidence metaphysically.
===========
OK, good.
===========
The laryngeal nerve in giraffes is an objective fact. The fact that it is far longer than it needs to be is also an objective fact.
===========
False, that is an evolutionary interpretation. We don't know all the functions it serves, nor how long it should be.
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete(cont.)
===========
What are we to make of this? The theory of evolution provides an explanation.
===========
OK, so ...?
===========
And ID? Well, you have to admit that it does SEEM to go against the premise of ID - that life is so amazing complex and well put together that it just HAS to be the product of deliberate design.
===========
Well I think you are conflating the quality of the design with the design inference:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/10/richard-dawkins-and-recurrent-laryngeal.html
===========
Am I really interpreting the evidence metaphysically by saying the laryngeal nerve in giraffes SEEMS badly designed?
===========
I think we certainly can evaluate the goodness of a design without delving into metaphysics. It is in the next step where the metaphysics comes in. That is, when we say that a designer never would have designed such inefficiency. We're making assumptions about the designer which do not come from science.
Also, we always need to keep in mind the limitations of our knowledge. Please know that there is a long history of evolutionary assumptions that something is junk followed years later by findings that it works rather well after all. Evolution is influencing the interpretation of the evidence, which is then used as an apologetic for evolution. Your underlying belief that evolution is true makes you much more amenable to viewing the laryngeal nerve as inefficient. This is why philosophers point out the problem of theory-laden observations.
===========
Perhaps you think so. And perhaps I am. I eagerly await your response. But if you do think so, where does that leave ID which so often tries to insist certain biological features or mechanisms SEEM designed? If it is metaphysical to say something seems badly designed, surely it is equally metaphysical to say something else seems well designed?
===========
I agree with you that these are not simple issues. ID, for its part, is an attempt to isolate out the metaphysics, and take a theory-neutral analysis of the evidence. Dembski, Behe and others have developed methods by which one can look at data and decide objectively whether there is good evidence for design. Have they succeeded? That's another question, but we should at least understand the science they are attempting.
Now historically and currently evolutionists have lacked such a tool. And why should they care, they are convinced strict evolution is a fact. But this mindset (and this lack of a design inference tool), means that every phenomena and every origins question is restricted to naturalistic explanations. That's great if every such question is indeed purely naturalistic. But what if that is not always the case? Just imagine that possibility. If there were such a case, evolutionists would never know it. They have a blind spot. They will always restrict themselves to naturalistic explanations, assuming they must be true. And they will tend to overstate the plausibility of their explanations, because they are from the start biased as to what the truth is.
Has anyone written a decent book on "Junk" DNA?
ReplyDeleteI would definitely like to see that.
M.