Thursday, August 19, 2010

Back to School, Part 4

We continue to examine the work of authors George Johnson and Jonathan Losos in their biology textbook, The Living World ((Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008). In their chapter on evolution and natural selection, these accomplished evolutionists begin by (1) misrepresenting the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution and biological variation here, (2) making a non scientific, metaphysical, truth claim that mandates the truth of evolution here, (3) making the false statement that the fossils themselves are a factual observation that macroevolution has occurred here and here, and (4) making a series of misrepresentations by carefully selecting the evidence to provide to the student and protecting it with circular reasoning here.

Johnson and Losos’ next move is to distort the molecular evidence. They write:

A series of evolutionary changes thus implies a continual accumulation of genetic changes in the DNA. From this you can see that evolutionary theory makes a clear prediction: organisms that are more distantly related should have accumulated a greater number of evolutionary differences than two species that are more closely related.

But how are species judged to be “distantly related”? By what measure are species compared? The answer, of course, is by the similarities and differences in their visible anatomy. So what exactly is this powerful evolutionary prediction? It is that genetic differences between species are proportional to the differences in their visible anatomy. If two species look alike, then their genomes should be similar. If they look very different, then their genomes should be very different. This is by no means a heroic prediction.

There is, however, another problem with this prediction. Aside from not being heroic, it is false. By now the authors have established a trend of misrepresentation and distortion, and predictably the trend continues:

This prediction is now subject to direct test. Recent DNA research, referred to in section 15.3, allows us to directly compare the genomes of different organisms. The result is clear: for a broad array of vertebrates, the more distantly related two organisms are, the greater their genomic difference.

Here the distortion is mainly one of omission. Like saying that geocentrism’s prediction that the planets should travel across the sky is true without mentioning retrograde motion, Johnson and Losos fail to mention important deviations from this pattern that have even evolutionists acknowledging the evolutionary expectation has failed.

Yes, there is a broad pattern of correlation between visible anatomy and molecular sequences, but there are inescapable and significant deviations which are far outside evolution’s “noise” level. If evolution predicts that “organisms that are more distantly related should have accumulated a greater number of evolutionary differences than two species that are more closely related” then evolution is false, end of story.

The authors next discuss the protein evidence, and in like manner continue their distortion:

This same pattern of divergence can be clearly seen at the protein level. Comparing the hemoglobin amino acid sequence of different species with the human sequence in figure 17.7, you can see that species more closely related to humans have fewer differences in the amino acid structure of their hemoglobin. … Again, the prediction of evolutionary theory is strongly confirmed.

Again, this prediction is not only not “strongly confirmed,” it is in fact false. Yes, hemoglobin and many other proteins fall into the non heroic pattern, but other proteins do not. These are well known to scientists, but evolution has unfortunately compromised science.

Johnson and Losos end this misleading section on the molecular evidence for evolution with yet another fallacious icon of evolution, the molecular clock.

In science theory evaluation is a critical skill. It is crucial to take a neutral, unbiased perspective and be willing to acknowledge both pros and cons of even one’s cherished theories. Unfortunately evolutionists don’t follow this scientific dictum. Yes there is plenty of evidence for evolution, but there are problems as well. But one would never know it from reading the evolution genre. Don’t count on evolutionists to give a scientifically accurate evaluation of their theory. Religion drives science, and it matters.

16 comments:

  1. Dr Hunter wrote:

    Yes, there is a broad pattern of correlation between visible anatomy and molecular sequences, but there are inescapable and significant deviations which are far outside evolution’s “noise” level. If evolution predicts that “organisms that are more distantly related should have accumulated a greater number of evolutionary differences than two species that are more closely related” then evolution is false, end of story.

    What a relief. Evolution is falsifiable. That means it’s not metaphysico-religious, because metaphysico-religious theories are unfalsifiable.

    Falsifiability drives science, and it matters.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cornelius:

    "Yes, there is a broad pattern of correlation between visible anatomy and molecular sequences, but there are inescapable and significant deviations which are far outside evolution’s “noise” level."

    Oh really? How did you determine evolution's "noise" level? There could be an important paper in this!

    Evolutionary theory predicts a positive correlation between genetic differences and time since divergence from common ancestor, but not a perfect correlation, of course. Some species go through population bottlenecks and experience strong genetic drift, while others don't. Clearly the amount of genetic difference between species is influenced by stochastic factors.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Troy had a vision:

    "Oh really? How did you determine evolution's "noise" level?"

    "Clearly the amount of genetic difference between species is influenced by stochastic factors."
    =======================

    STOCHASTIC FACTORS ???

    definition:

    1. Of, relating to, or characterized by conjecture; conjectural.
    2. Statistics
    a. Involving or containing a random variable or variables
    b. Involving chance or probability

    [Greek stokhastikos, from stokhasts, diviner, from stokhazesthai, to guess at, from stokhos, aim, goal; see stegh- in Indo-European roots.]

    1. (Mathematics & Measurements / Statistics) Statistics
    a. (of a random variable) having a probability distribution, usually with finite variance
    b. (of a process) involving a random variable the successive values of which are not independent
    c. (of a matrix) square with non-negative elements that add to unity in each row
    2. Rare involving conjecture
    [from Greek stokhastikos capable of guessing, from stokhazesthai to aim at, conjecture, from stokhos a target]

    _____________________________

    Let's see now, Diviner (use of divination) - to guess at - conjecture - random variables - involving chance or probability - RARE involving conjecture - capable of guessing.

    Evolution sounds way too noisey for me. I think most of the noise originates with evolutionists themselves.

    Once again, Troy said:
    "Clearly the amount of genetic difference between species is influenced by stochastic factors."

    Translation:
    "Clearly the amount of genetic difference between species is influenced by Evolutionary Scientist's own lucky random guessing, conjecturing, speculating, and assumption factors originating from his/her own deep time mind. I know Divination is also in there somewhere.

    *thumbs up*

    ReplyDelete
  4. So what is false with the claim:

    1) Vertebrate genome sequences relate to evolutionary distance (in agreement with physiology, biogeography). Sure, there often horizontal gene transfer and hybridization in plants and microbes, but vertebrates? I'm having a hard time thinking of an example of a vertebrate breaking falsifying the claim-and even so, it is an extreme exception, and not a rule. Perhaps Hunter has one to back his claim.

    2) Hemoglobin indeed fits the pattern of divergence. Yeah. Some highly constrained proteins might have changed little in amino acid sequence during evolution, but we could do the same analysis on the nucleotide level, or on paralogues, and get consistent results.

    3) Which brings us to the molecular clock. Hunter calls it falsified, because A) Different lineages have different apparent rates B) Some restricted proteins haven't evolved much. Falsification or calibration of an important tool?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Eocene, thanks for sharing you had to look up the word stochastic, but it's really not necessary anymore to demonstrate your ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cornelius said :"Yes, hemoglobin and many other proteins fall into the non heroic pattern, but other proteins do not. These are well known to scientists..." (emphasis mine)

    Cornelius, it's like your teasing me! I've lost count of the number of times I've asked you to simply name all these various proteins and structures you claim refute evolution.

    I'm not saying they don't exist! Just name a few. That's all I'm asking.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Derick Childress said...

    Cornelius said :"Yes, hemoglobin and many other proteins fall into the non heroic pattern, but other proteins do not. These are well known to scientists..." (emphasis mine)

    Cornelius, it's like your teasing me! I've lost count of the number of times I've asked you to simply name all these various proteins and structures you claim refute evolution.

    I'm not saying they don't exist! Just name a few. That's all I'm asking.


    You missed the clue. CH said this

    "These are well known to scientists..."

    There's no reason to expect CH to know them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't comment here much anymore, mostly because CH says the same old thing over and over. Until CH starts offering an alternative hypothesis I really don't think he has anything serious to offer, and his blog has become like listening to a record stuck in a groove for 90 years. Let's face it in 30 years time, CH is hardly going to be remembered for his contribution to science.

    But what still puzzles me is why isn't he promoting ID and instead just criticizing evolution ad nauseum? After all he is no less than a fellow of the Discovery Institute, the main Intelligent Design think tank in the world?

    Is ID theory so lacking in substance and content that even a Fellow of this revered institute won't even mention it on his blog? Is he ashamed of ID as theory/hypothesis? Or is ID in his mind just "Anti-evolution" and nothing more? When was the last time CH talked about IC or CSI or all those other favorite ID topics? I can't even recall him even talking about them. Does he disagree with Dembski on these matters?

    Of course I don't expect CH to answer but put it out there for others to ponder.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Janfeld

    "But what still puzzles me is why isn't he promoting ID and instead just criticizing evolution ad nauseum? After all he is no less than a fellow of the Discovery Institute, the main Intelligent Design think tank in the world?"
    ====================

    If you actually follow what he's pointing out, it's not necessarily against evolution as it's against Evolutionary Scientists claiming to hold to the holy creed of the scientific community of it's not proof unless the "Scientific Method" is employed and strictly followed.

    Unfortunately with the individuals he's pointing out here, they in no way follow that creed. They simply make boldened storytelling statements and lable them as FACTS. He's pointing out where they diliberately and knowingly fudge the truth to prop up something they have never been able to impirically show proof for while making these statements on their very favourite Public Soap Box. The other outrageous thing is that none of them really care, nor are even remotely embarassed by their conduct.

    Point out their flaws and mistakes, then Evo supporting shill coming out in force defending these fraudulant schemes using pre-approved comebacks salvaged from garbage they've picked up on religious websites of talkorigins.org, infidels.org, atheistforums.com, etc, all of which deal strictly with idealogy and philosophy, none of which deal with real life science.

    There is always a double standard as to how and who are held accountable for not using the "Scientific Method". There's a double standard in every and all word/term definitions. There is always a double standard when it comes to the term "common ground", since common ground to an atheist means that you agree with him/her. It's tough to attempt common ground when the person you're discussing with views you as intellectually inferior and uneducated. Yet nothing could be further from the truth, since integrity is considered an important part of "Scientific Method". Yet when it comes to science doing things in a morally responsible way and showing large amounts of integrity, we are boldly informed by Ritchie that science has nothing to do with morality, that's a religious thing.

    So I believe you are correct at least in saying there is the same old tired thing being spewed out over and over here in the comments section. To prove my point, just read the rants that follow my response to you. Hey let's play the luck game. Wanna guess which desparate, irrated Darwinian shill responds first to this post ??? It's usually a barrel of laughs.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ..."all of which deal strictly with idealogy and philosophy, none of which deal with real life science."

    Umm, Eocene. It's the evolutionary types here who are consistently asking:

    1) What vertebrate genome fails to relate to evolutionary distance?
    2) What proteins that are not known to be functionally constrained fail to diverge in sequence consistent with evolutionary distance?
    3) How is the molecular clock falsified by needing to be calibrated?

    All life science man. (Note that providing these would only provide potentially interesting exception to a rule we could discuss). But neither Hunter, nor you can seem to back your claims that these authors are wrong with EVEN A SINGLE EXAMPLE. I'd love to debate what you think falsifies the authors' statements. As it is, you merely have expressed your BELIEF they are wrong.

    By the way, for accusing US of resorting to philosophy in lieu of fact, you lead off with a defense of Hunter's philosophy:

    ...."not necessarily against evolution as it's against Evolutionary Scientists claiming to hold to the holy creed of the scientific community of it's not proof unless the "Scientific Method" is employed and strictly followed."

    ...and follow with a fact-less, unreferenced diatribe.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Eocene,
    Stochastic, random etc., mean something, but to scholars.

    Calyampudi Radhakrishna Rao, one time student and collaborator of R.A. Fisher, former Director Indian Statistical Institute, author of the Rao-Cramer Bound, Rao-Blackwell Theorem, recipient of the National Science Medal, whom the American Statistical Association describes "a living legend whose work has influenced not just statistics, but has had far reaching implications for fields as varied as economics, genetics, anthropology, geology, national planning, demography, biometry, and medicine," would be, I am sure amused.

    Mathematicians and statisticians don't waste their time on such ignorant opinion.

    Cornelius, we are waiting for you to show that a wolf and a dog or a hyena and a cat, or the pigeon pea and the black pea do not show the molecular or protein similarities they are predicted to have. Scientists have been adding to the mountains of evidence for decades now. It will take more than arguing to refute facts. But keep trying

    ReplyDelete
  12. Econe: "So I believe you are correct at least in saying there is the same old tired thing being spewed out over and over here in the comments section. To prove my point, just read the rants that follow my response to you. Hey let's play the luck game. Wanna guess which desparate, irrated Darwinian shill responds first to this post ??? It's usually a barrel of laughs. "

    It's interesting to note that you did not address my point that CH never mentions ID or promotes it, despite being a Fellow of the Dicovery Institute. I think that's genuinely puzzling.

    The other point is that science progresses by replacing one idea with another. E.g., the steady-state theory was thrown out and replace by what most is considered a better theory and better interpretation of the data. CH seems not to understand this, and chooses neither to hypothesize or speculate what a scientific alternative to evolution might be. At least the likes of Stephen C. Meyer have made some initial attempt to do this; but CH prefers simply to pull down rather than build up.

    As such his ideas and general approach, although occassionally mildly interesting, do not actually get us anywhere at all. CH is basically utterly stuck in his thinking, which is why he will likely never even be a footnote in the history of science. This probably explains why nowadays his only avenue of doing "science" is to blog rather than write papers.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Janfeld,

    You must be in a cranky mood today. It's not necessary nor charitable to disparage Dr Hunter.

    Evidently, you are a competitive scientist. But not everyone who is attracted to science and enjoys it has the fire in his/her belly to duke it out toe-to-toe with those at the cutting edge.

    In my view, Dr Hunter performs a useful service in providing an unmoderated forum for the ventilation of viewpoints on biological science. I don't agree with his viewpoint, but I enjoy his hospitality, and thank him for it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. David:

    "In my view, Dr Hunter performs a useful service in providing an unmoderated forum for the ventilation of viewpoints on biological science. I don't agree with his viewpoint, but I enjoy his hospitality, and thank him for it."

    Hear hear. It seems though that over on UD, Cornelius' fair moderation is not universally appreciated. In fact, AussiID favors censorship on this blog:

    "As Propentionist notes (I love your title!) the amount of simplistic athiestic drivel on your website is amazing. Some, of course, lends to a detailed response, but many are there sprouting off the same old answered canards. Dr Hunter, why don’t you host your commentary here or turn off ‘Comments’ at your own site: I’m sure the troll wall is effective at eliminating or keeping out the asinine @ UD."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Cornelius, I love it how you list the molecular clock as being one of "Darwin's predictions". That Darwin had an awful lot of foresight!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Janfeld

    "It's interesting to note that you did not address my point that CH never mentions ID or promotes it, despite being a Fellow of the Dicovery Institute. I think that's genuinely puzzling."
    ==============

    Thanks Janfeld for reminding me. I often times don't have alot of time and I was going to make mention of that, but ran out of time and forgot.

    Someone before mentioned something about that and I believe he said something about not having a religious ax to grind ??? I'm not altogether sure what he means by that, except I've never read any of his posts on anything of his personal religious beliefs, other than his admitting to be Christian. (He may be a YEC , I don't know) But using scientific tools properly flies both ways. I'm sure such intstitutions as Discovery have their own bias and agendas. Certainly they are political and have tried to use politics to push their views as you are well aware into the School systems.

    The interesting thing about their political meddling (and you should really educate yourself on this since it's far more powerful than many of these Creos vrs Evos debates about scientific interpretations), is that their own Holy book the Bible condemns them for involvement in the politics of any nation, but that's the exact opposite of what we observe. Some of these YECs state that they evangelizing a "Creation Theology", but there's no such thing in the bible any more than a Joel Osteen's "Prosperity Gospel" or Catholic/Protestant collaboration with rebels to overthrow so-called Commie governments and justifying it by lables of "Liberation Theology". These things are of their own making and have nothing to do with anything Biblical.

    Now while I may believe in the creation account, I have no political views one way or the other about (YEC) or (ID = whatever form that may be) being pushed by law into school systems, it's simply none of my business what the government does or doesn't doin this regard. I wouldn't support Prayer in schools, but IF (and that's a big IF) the government did reinstate prayer in school, neither I nor my child would participate, but again the Law even on that is none of my affair.

    But to sum up again, their side is more powerfully condemned by their own holy book (who condemns Religious leaders from going to bed with politicians, since they are suppose to be in a figuative[illustrative only] marriage relationship with the God of the Bible whom they are supposed to view as their King) and far more than any condemnation the Evo side could ever hope to equal or accomplish. Seriously, research it. I guarantee you they haven't.

    ReplyDelete