The conventional picture of Darwinian evolution was summarized by Gould as based on two undeniable facts and an inescapable conclusion (Gould, 1977: 11):
(1) Organisms vary, and these [random] variations are inherited (at least in part) by their offspring.
(2) Organisms produce more offspring than can possibly survive.
(3) On average, offspring that vary most strongly in directions favored by the environment will survive and propagate. Favorable variation will therefore accumulate in populations by natural selection.
It is yet another evolutionary proof that has failed badly for, as is intuitively obvious to anyone not committed to evolution, random biological variations do not necessarily add up to the astonishingly complex designs we find in the biological world. Indeed, that would be quite a remarkable finding. As Gould would later explain, the large-scale change evolution requires did not arise from the sorts of small-scale biological variation that can help species to adapt:
Whatever genetic and developmental setting permitted this cardinal event [the Cambrian explosion], it was not business as usual, to be simply extrapolated from Darwinian changes in modern populations. We cannot begin to answer “what is (multicellular) life”? without understanding such events.
Another peer-reviewed paper put it this way:
It is relatively well known how organisms adapt to their environment and, arguably, even how new species originate. However, whether this knowledge suffices to explain macroevolution, narrowly defined here to describe evolutionary processes that bring about fundamental novelties or changes in body plans, has remained highly controversial.
Such sentiment is common and it represents the failure not of a minor tenet of evolutionary theory, but of a fundamental prediction. Indeed, this highlights one of the common reasons people have always been skeptical of evolution.
It’s not exactly shocking (except for evolutionists, see for example here, here and here) that species might be able to adapt to changing environments. We hardly need to invoke the heroic idea that all of biology arose from random events to make sense of adaptation.
But the idea that, beginning in a warm little pond somewhere, random events would inexorably build one upon the next in a biological construction job of ever increasing sophistication is, yes, quite heroic. Yet amazingly evolutionists have insisted this very thing is true. They know not how, but they are sure that somehow the incredibly high-dimension biological design hyperspace is filled with gradual, ever-increasing fitness pathways that lead to the millions upon millions of species and all their intricate and creative designs. And so therefore, they have believed that the mere existence of biological variation that is inherited, limited resources and natural selection, together make evolution a truism.
But now even evolutionists are coming around to what was obvious from the beginning. Biology is not a “just add water” kind of project. It is yet another miserable failure of evolutionary theory. But evolutionists will, of course, remain undeterred. For evolution must be a fact. Religion drives science, and it matters.
Two solid facts and an unescapable conclusion.
ReplyDeleteThe Houdini of this is that its an admittance evolutionary biology is just a line of reasoning. Reasonable or not.
its just a line of reasoning for its macro conclusions.
its not from investigation of nature by a methodology that is to carefully avoid error (They call it the scientific method)
In fact one could put a creationist line of reasoning on all this.
There was a creator who made suddenly many kinds of creatures with many types within those kinds.
then there was a problem and it became a dog eat dog world.
variations in these types (within kinds) were selected on powerfully and the origin of more or less types of great diversity relative to the original types. Yet within kind and no divergence from kinds and not much time anyways.
Then God/Genesis denying folks saw the variation within kinds and imagined all kinds were from the same process and the evidence was the line of reasoning and a unrelated field called geology with its lines of reasoning.
The only way to settle these issues of biological origins is a vigorous methodology upon facts, data, etc of biology and no allowance for mere lines of reasoning.
Evolution needs some scientific disipline .
This blog and organized creationism(s) are doing just that.
The error of someone is going to come from these modern contentions and in our time.
Cornelius Hunter said...
ReplyDeleteIt is yet another evolutionary proof that has failed badly for, as is intuitively obvious to anyone not committed to evolution, random biological variations do not necessarily add up to the astonishingly complex designs we find in the biological world.
"It is yet another astronomy proof that has failed badly for, as is intuitively obvious to anyone not committed to heliocentrism, a sun centered solar system does not necessarily add up to the fixed earth-moving sun observations we find in the real world."
Science isn't based on personal intuition CH. Another stupid CH strawman chummed to feed the IDiot masses.
CH:It’s not exactly shocking (except for evolutionists, see for example here, here and here) that species might be able to adapt to changing environments. We hardly need to invoke the heroic idea that all of biology arose from random events to make sense of adaptation.
ReplyDeleteIt would be helpful if you were more clear about what you meant. Presumably, you would place limits on how much adaptation you would accept happens through naturalistic evolutionary processes. Did a lineage of terrestrial artiodactyls adapt to the marine environment? Or is whale evolution implausible? Or is whale evolution plausible, but some other transition implausible? Or is it speciation itself?
...they are sure that somehow the incredibly high-dimension biological design hyperspace is filled with gradual, ever-increasing fitness pathways that lead to the millions upon millions of species and all their intricate and creative designs.
I expect you will find that this one-way, hill-climbing approach to organismal fitness is not widely accepted. Endless hill-climbing would imply evolution was progressive, an unpopular idea indeed! Remember that along with your intricate and creative "designs" comes the endogenous disease and dysfunction that is the exclusive domain of multicellular life. Complex is not better, it is different.
Finally, you draw a quote about the Cambrian explosion not being business as usual. Although the fossil record implies an 'explosion' of sorts, the molecular evidence is far less convincing. Larry Moran, conveniently, has written about this recently, following publication of a new paper that provides molecular evidence of gradualism.
Here, Cornelius assumes that we've learned nothing new since the 1950's.
ReplyDeleteNeo-Darwinism isn't limited to biology - It's based on the idea of a replicator, which is defined as anything that contributes casually to it's own copying. Biological evolution is just one of many examples.
An individual gene that gives an organism the ability to digest food in an environment it could not before, results in the organism remaining heathy in situations it normally would not. As such, it increases the chance the organism will have future offspring, which would inherit and spread copies of this gene.
In other words, genes represent is the knowledge of how to replicate themselves in a particular environment. Those that are replicated do so because they are better than rival genes. While this knowledge is often functionally beneficial to the organism itself, it's not always the case.
So, no. It's not merely "survival of the fittest", as Cornelius would have you believe. Rather, genes represent concrete biological examples of replicators.
NCSE: What did Karl Popper Really Say About Evolution
The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. . . . I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological," and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. . . . [Popper, 1978, p. 344]
I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. . . . [p. 345]
The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. [p. 346]
His [Darwin's] theory of adaptation was the first nontheistic one that was convincing; and theism was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached. [Popper 1976, p. 172]
Continued from the article….
ReplyDeleteThere are scientists who are unfamiliar with or misinterpret Popper. For example, Colin Patterson holds that, if we accept Popper's distinction between science and nonscience, evolution is not science because it deals with unique historical events. Popper, however, doesn't agree with this.
"It does appear that some people think that I denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested. [Popper, 1981, p. 611]"
In an earlier work, Popper discussed the historical sciences in which the scientific method of theoretical sciences is used:
This view is perfectly compatible with the analysis of scientific method, and especially of causal explanation given in the preceding section. The situation is simply this: while the theoretical sciences are mainly interested in finding and testing universal laws, the historical sciences take all kinds of universal laws for granted and are mainly interested in finding and testing singular statements. [Popper, 1957, p. 143ff]
What Popper calls the historical sciences do not make predictions about long past unique events (postdictions), which obviously would not be testable. (Several recent authors—including Stephen Jay Gould in Discover, July 1982—make this mistake.) These sciences make hypotheses involving past events which must predict (that is, have logical consequences) for the present state of the system in question. Here the testing procedure takes for granted the general laws and theories and is testing the specific conditions (or initial conditions, as Popper usually calls them) that held for the system.
A scientist, on the basis of much comparative anatomy and physiology, might hypothesize that, in the distant past, mammals evolved from reptiles. This would have testable consequences for the present state of the system (earth's surface with the geological strata in it and the animal and plant species living on it) in the form of reptile-mammal transition fossils that should exist, in addition to other necessary features of the DNA, developmental systems, and so forth, of the present-day reptiles and mammals.
Paul:
ReplyDeleteCH: It’s not exactly shocking (except for evolutionists, see for example here, here and here) that species might be able to adapt to changing environments. We hardly need to invoke the heroic idea that all of biology arose from random events to make sense of adaptation.
Paul: It would be helpful if you were more clear about what you meant.
I trust that you’ll understand that after several books, websites, blogs, etc, I don’t always put all the details in every OP. The short version is that from a scientific perspective evolution is ridiculous and anyone promoting it is simply making a public fool of themselves.
I realize that may sound harsh. I could sugar-coat this and talk about the good work many evolutionists have done (yes, many have done good work). Or I could talk about how evolution has some things right, but just has made a few mistakes here or there.
But these would substantially misrepresent evolution and evolutionists. There is such an incredible chasm between the claims of evolutionists and the reality of science that it is difficult to describe without sounding like hyperbole. Hans Christian Anderson would love it.
Evolutionary thinking goes back to antiquity, but in the modern science era it traces back to 17th and 18th c. Christians (mostly Anglicans and Lutherans, with some Roman Catholics as well). Evolution a religious theory that has gotten into science like a trojan horse and gone viral. Theology is still queen of the sciences.
Presumably, you would place limits on how much adaptation you would accept happens through naturalistic evolutionary processes.
No, I’m not the one making things up here and dictating the “right” answer to science. That would be evolutionists.
I see ridicule and invective, but not answers to Paul's questions.
ReplyDeletePedant said...
ReplyDelete"I see ridicule and invective, but not answers to Paul's questions."
+1
Cornelius is back to his old game of conflating the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution.
ReplyDeleteAccording to The Society for the Study of Evolution (here):
"Evolution" refers both to a set of scientific facts and to a theory explaining such facts. "Evolution" refers to the scientific fact that biological organisms have changed through time, and that all life, including humanity, has descended with modification from common ancestors. Evolution is as well documented as are other currently accepted scientific facts. The theory of evolution is a comprehensive and well-established scientific explanation, based on natural processes, of the fact of biological evolution.
troy said...
ReplyDeleteCornelius is back to his old game of conflating the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution.
Yeah, it's pretty sad. CH only has a few rhetorical tricks in his bag, and he uses them over and over and over.
Fortunately for him, his intended IDC audience doesn't care that he's repeating the same refuted nonsense. They're looking for reassurance and confirmation of their religious beliefs, not honest scientific inquiry.
It's long past due to throw out the simplistic definition of evolution meaning change through time because it muddles and confounds many different biological processes together. Under this definition bird beaks and peppered moths become evidence for universal common descent, when they are no such thing.
ReplyDeleteEvolution ought to be defined something like a hypothesis that unbounded, directional genetic change via random mutation, replication and non-random death is responsible for all of life on earth originating from one common ancestor.
Given that definition, Darwinists do not have a single example of empirical evidence and are simply left with their sad rationalism and speculation.
Tedford the idiot said...
ReplyDeleteIt's long past due to throw out the simplistic definition of evolution meaning change through time because it muddles and confounds many different biological processes together.
Here's a better idea. We'll go to the dictionary and change the definition of 'idiot' to be a picture of Neal Tedford.
I am not a scientist, but, after reading many articles and posts regarding the evolutionary debate (including those here), I have noticed two consistent threads. The first is that evolutionists fail to provide an adequate basis for why evolution can defy the first and second Laws of Thermodynamics and still be considered to be incontrovertible fact. The second is that, when at a loss for a reply, they almost invariably degrade their opponents by name-calling, or by outright dismissing as stupid, any claims they cannot refute. They seem incapable of having a polite and intelligent debate on specific facts or findings.
ReplyDeleteMy biology instructor taught us about the fossils that some scientists believe are the evolutionary forms leading to the present-day whale (a belief that was presented to me as fact, although scientifically unprovable). But when I asked how an animal that weighed so much, and which possessed such short (and dwindling) legs, could find enough food on land to support its mass, she could not answer me - instead, I was told I was "thinking too much." If evolutionists want to be believed on the basis of anything besides blind faith and the fear of being ridiculed, they need to:
1) be honest and make sure their theories are called theories instead of facts
2) make sure that their theories fit into the presently provable laws of the universe
3) openly admit any scientific problems that come with their theory
4) have honest and respectful debates with those who find fault with their theories and show a willingness to change when there is better evidence than their own for a belief
5) stop debasing themselves (and therefore losing the respect of their hearers) by lashing out at those who don't blindly accept their faith in evolution.
We have truly come full circle - it used to be the church leaders who made ridiculous scientific claims with little to no basis in fact and, instead of having intelligent discussions while leaving behind all preconceived notions or beliefs and looking only at provable facts, they would browbeat(and worse) their opponents.
Now, it is the evolutionary leaders who have taken the church leaders' place in browbeating anyone who does not believe as they do - once again, name-calling and denigrating their opponent is practiced. They refuse to intelligently, and without preconceived assumptions or beliefs, discuss the scientific weaknesses and strengths (or their beliefs) with those who question them.
Troy is wrong, as proof in point, in his assumption that all those who question the validity of evolutionary theory are "looking for reassurance and confirmation of their religious beliefs, not honest scientific inquiry." As I make "honest, scientific inquiry" as to the processes of evolution, hoping that, once again, I will not be disappointed, the theory consistently fails to follow what is known of scientific fact - and, as this proves true, the "fact" again changes and a new (unproven) "fact" becomes "truth."
Until evolutionists can respectfully, and honestly, lay out solid, conclusive evidence for their theory that fits with current, provable laws of physics (and do so in a respectful manner), I will remain unconvinced of the validity of their postulations on evolutionary theory.
CH: I trust that you’ll understand that after several books, websites, blogs, etc, I don’t always put all the details in every OP. The short version is that from a scientific perspective evolution is ridiculous and anyone promoting it is simply making a public fool of themselves.
ReplyDeleteMore ridicule.
Again, I'll ask, what sort of knowledge creation-based explanations would you *not* consider ridiculous, if any? Please be specific.
To reiterate, i'm suggesting that Cornelius' objection to evolutionary theory is based on a theistic presupposition that all knowledge (or some key, specific subset which includes the biosphere) was not created, but has always existed. Therefore, it's ridiculous to think that anything, let alone the natural processes of evolution, could have created it.
Changes in organisms to environmental conditions are not new knowledge, but the application of existing knowledge to new situations. No new knowledge is created in the process.
Cornelius may claim he doesn't "know" what the answer is, and that he's "neutral", but he's simply not open to explanation where knowledge is created that hasn't aways existed. Any theory that suggested otherwise is ridiculous.
Of course, Cornelius could refute this by indicating which knowledge creation-based theories he wouldn't consider ridiculous. Even one would be sufficient.
I won't be holding my breath.
ceresbear said...
ReplyDeleteI am not a scientist, but, after reading many articles and posts regarding the evolutionary debate (including those here), I have noticed two consistent threads. The first is that evolutionists fail to provide an adequate basis for why evolution can defy the first and second Laws of Thermodynamics and still be considered to be incontrovertible fact.
ToE doesn't violate any of the laws of thermodynamics. There is nothing that prohibits natural processes from affecting a local decrease in entropy (i.e. life) as long as the overall entropy of the system increases. In our case we have this huge thing called the sun increasing its entropy and supplying energy to drive the local processes which locally decrease entropy. No physical laws are violated.
The second is that, when at a loss for a reply, they almost invariably degrade their opponents by name-calling, or by outright dismissing as stupid, any claims they cannot refute. They seem incapable of having a polite and intelligent debate on specific facts or findings.
It's true that many of us have thin skins due to the repeated and nonstop lying from the Creationists we meet. It's just human nature to be hostile to unfounded attacks and dishonesty. What goes around comes around. I personally have lots of time and patience to explain for anyone who is polite and expresses an honest desire to understand the science. But sadly on these boards we almost never get Creationists who want to learn.
My biology instructor taught us about the fossils that some scientists believe are the evolutionary forms leading to the present-day whale (a belief that was presented to me as fact, although scientifically unprovable). But when I asked how an animal that weighed so much, and which possessed such short (and dwindling) legs, could find enough food on land to support its mass, she could not answer me - instead, I was told I was "thinking too much."
The ancestors of whales that lived on the land were much smaller, not much bigger than modern wolves. They didn't achieve large size until in the water where the water could support such large bulk.
If evolutionists want to be believed on the basis of anything besides blind faith and the fear of being ridiculed, they need to:
1) be honest and make sure their theories are called theories instead of facts
We do.
2) make sure that their theories fit into the presently provable laws of the universe
They do.
3) openly admit any scientific problems that come with their theory
We do.
4) have honest and respectful debates with those who find fault with their theories and show a willingness to change when there is better evidence than their own for a belief
Creationists get the respect they earn. Science is always open to new, better ideas IF they are supported by the evidence.
5) stop debasing themselves (and therefore losing the respect of their hearers) by lashing out at those who don't blindly accept their faith in evolution.
We don't. We lash out at those who choose to willfully lie and misrepresent actual scientific findings to support their religious beliefs.
ceresbear:
ReplyDelete"I am not a scientist, but, after reading many articles and posts regarding the evolutionary debate (including those here), I have noticed two consistent threads. The first is that evolutionists fail to provide an adequate basis for why evolution can defy the first and second Laws of Thermodynamics and still be considered to be incontrovertible fact."
I've seen the claims that evolution defies 2LOT (it doesn't), but this is the first time I see the claim that evolution also violates 1LOT, i.e. conservation of energy. Fascinating, but can you be more specific? Does evolution destroy or create energy?
"Troy is wrong, as proof in point, in his assumption that all those who question the validity of evolutionary theory are "looking for reassurance and confirmation of their religious beliefs, not honest scientific inquiry.""
I think you have me confused with someone else since I haven't said that. I have no problem with questioning the validity of evolutionary theory, as long as it's done in a well-informed way - not by parroting creationist con artists that sell lies to the gullible church-goers. But I do think it's safe to assume that a large majority of evolution-deniers feel that way because they see evolution as contradicting the creation fables of their religious beliefs.
Doesn't adding energy tend to increase entropy, unless the control of the energy is controlled by something like a machine or an organism? Machines where designed by clever people to control the flow of energy through the system. Hwo did organism acquire the ability to control the energy so it doesn't increase energy?
ReplyDeleteScott said, "Again, I'll ask, what sort of knowledge creation-based explanations would you *not* consider ridiculous, if any?"
ReplyDelete--
How about one that is compatible with our present knowledge of biology and doesn't contradict it? Evolution is certainly a ridiculous assumption based on what we know about biology. It is superstitious to claim that nature can do what it most certainly has been shown it doesn't do. Evolution is a modern superstition.
If it wasn't for blind faith in Darwinism it is easy to see that systems biology is screaming design at the top of its lungs.
Evolutionists have a tough challenge in trying to embrace science and deny it at the same time... but that is the stuff of what rationalizing is all about.
CH: The short version is that from a scientific perspective evolution is ridiculous and anyone promoting it is simply making a public fool of themselves.
ReplyDeleteOf course, by "scientific perspective" Cornelius really means the study of what some being specifically and intentionally wanted. Apparently, he didn't get the memo that science is no longer based on natural theology.
We keep pointing out how these assumptions are not part of science, yet he keeps making the same misrepresentation, over and over again.
Neal: It is superstitious to claim that nature can do what it most certainly has been shown it doesn't do.
ReplyDeleteIt's "most certainly has been shown"? Really? How might you have justified this conclusion? Please be specific.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteDoesn't adding energy tend to increase entropy, unless the control of the energy is controlled by something like a machine or an organism? Machines where designed by clever people to control the flow of energy through the system.
How does ice form on ponds in the wintertime nat? Do the Intelligent Design fairies get out their little entropy-reversing machines?
Scott said, "It's "most certainly has been shown"? Really? How might you have justified this conclusion? Please be specific. "
ReplyDelete--
Genetic change has never been observed to be both directional and unbounded. Everything that has ever been observed is either not directional or bounded or both. You do not have a single empirical example that would contradict this.
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteIce forms when the water loses energy. Add energy, and the ice melts.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteIce forms when the water loses energy. Add energy, and the ice melts.
Ice has lower entropy that liquid water nat.
Neal:
ReplyDelete"Genetic change has never been observed to be both directional and unbounded. Everything that has ever been observed is either not directional or bounded or both. You do not have a single empirical example that would contradict this."
Who has claimed that genetic change is "unbounded", and what do you mean by that term anyway? Be careful not to create strawmen.
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteThat's what I said. Ice has less energy, and lower entropy than water. When you add energy, you increase the entropy. So how does saying just add energy get around the problem of second thermodynamics in regard to life?
CH: The short version is that from a scientific perspective evolution is ridiculous and anyone promoting it is simply making a public fool of themselves. I realize that may sound harsh.
ReplyDeleteHarsh? It sounds like a petty, misguided insult. Why not stick to discussing the science and leave out such idle noise? 'Fools' might be your opinion, but fact it is not. Indeed, I don't see intellectual consistency between making the broad statement "evolution is ridiculous" while casually accept adaptation to environment. You don't specifically object to examples such as the transition from terrestrial to marine environments within Cetartiodactyla. You have some vague opposition to the concept of a UCA, and perhaps the transition to multicellularity. But what is your concrete objection? Perhaps you don't have one because you don't understand modern evolutionary theory well enough to know what you accept and what you don't, or perhaps you do have one and you're not willing to give it on account of intellectual cowardice to avoid a meaningful discussion.
That 'lack of understanding' hypothesis is certainly strongly suggested by your claim that "[evolutionists] are sure that somehow the incredibly high-dimension biological design hyperspace is filled with gradual, ever-increasing fitness pathways that lead to the millions upon millions of species and all their intricate and creative designs." However, I already corrected you on this mischaracterisation, only to have you ignore it and repond with comments about Hans Christian Anderson and public fools. This seems to support the 'intellectual cowardice' hypothesis.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteThat's what I said. Ice has less energy, and lower entropy than water. When you add energy, you increase the entropy. So how does saying just add energy get around the problem of second thermodynamics in regard to life?
Try to think for once nat! I know it hurts, but THINK!
Creationists claim that evolution violates the 2LoT which says the overall entropy of a closed system always increases to maximum.
The 2LoT says nothing about local conditions causing local decreases in entropy as long as the overall entropy of the system continues to increase.
When ice forms on a pond, we have a local weather condition causing a local decrease in entropy. Why aren't the Creationists screaming that ice forming on a pond is impossible? The reason is that the whole time the sun is burning its fuel and increasing the overall entropy of the whole solar system.
Biological life is a local condition that locally reduces entropy. Life uses energy from the sun (photosynthesis, thermal energy) to drive chemical reactions which produce complex biological structures, a local decrease in entropy. But the whole time the sun is still burning its fuel and increasing the overall entropy of the whole solar system.
So there's no violation of 2LoT, no problem. Except for the huge amounts of Creationist misunderstanding.
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteToE doesn't violate any of the laws of thermodynamics. There is nothing that prohibits natural processes from affecting a local decrease in entropy (i.e. life) as long as the overall entropy of the system increases. In our case we have this huge thing called the sun increasing its entropy and supplying energy to drive the local processes which locally decrease entropy. No physical laws are violated.
Now, in a refrigerator, the local entropy inside of it decreases. How does this come about? Does the sun do it? Does the wall heater do it?
Just how does it happen? What's involved? IOW, can you run a refrigerator for free?
We can get a reduction in the local entropy by removing energy locally, yes. This does not violate second thermodynamics because the energy that leaves the local system cause an increase in entropy somewhere else. But adding energy to a local system, like water to a pond, will increase the local entropy. It will make the ice in the pond melt. Machines can control the flow of energy using complex mechanisms, but they are designed by clever people. Organisms also control the flow of energy with complex mechanisms. Where did they get those mechanisms in the first place?
ReplyDeletePaV Lino the lying stalker said...
ReplyDeleteNow, in a refrigerator, the local entropy inside of it decreases. How does this come about? Does the sun do it? Does the wall heater do it?
Hey look, the moron stalker is back!
Well PaV, most refrigerators around here use a motor/compressor system that runs on 120VAC power from the local utility. That power comes from burning coal, or wind, or a nuclear reactor driving a steam turbine.
Sorry moron, still no 2LoT violation.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteWe can get a reduction in the local entropy by removing energy locally, yes. This does not violate second thermodynamics because the energy that leaves the local system cause an increase in entropy somewhere else. But adding energy to a local system, like water to a pond, will increase the local entropy. It will make the ice in the pond melt.
I guess asking you to think was too much. I'll remember your aversion to thinking for yourself next time you ask for help.
Machines can control the flow of energy using complex mechanisms, but they are designed by clever people. Organisms also control the flow of energy with complex mechanisms. Where did they get those mechanisms in the first place?
They evolved from simpler endothermic chemical reactions.
Thermodynamics/entropy for IDiots:
ReplyDeletehttp://pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/11/granville-sewel-1.html
Also see this:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/12/moving-downtime.html
Paul:
ReplyDelete'Fools' might be your opinion, but fact it is not.
I hope I did not imply otherwise. But how would you characterize people who are convinced the entire biological world spontaneously arose, insist it is a scientific fact like gravity or the roundness of the earth, and yet (not surprisingly) can never justify their claim?
Indeed, I don't see intellectual consistency between making the broad statement "evolution is ridiculous" while casually accept adaptation to environment.
Why not?
You have some vague opposition to the concept of a UCA, and perhaps the transition to multicellularity. But what is your concrete objection?
Evolutionists expected that the LUCA would a simpler organism but phylogenetic analysis showed that if evolution is true, then the LUCA would be more complex than modern cells. A super ancestor. To explain this evolutionists imagined a creative process, far more sophisticated and complex than HGT. Need I say more? This is how evolution goes. Dashed expectations followed by more just-so stories.
Perhaps you don't have one because you don't understand modern evolutionary theory well enough to know what you accept and what you don't, or perhaps you do have one and you're not willing to give it on account of intellectual cowardice to avoid a meaningful discussion.
Right, people who are skeptical that everything spontaneously arose must just be ignorant or cowards.
That 'lack of understanding' hypothesis is certainly strongly suggested by your claim that "[evolutionists] are sure that somehow the incredibly high-dimension biological design hyperspace is filled with gradual, ever-increasing fitness pathways that lead to the millions upon millions of species and all their intricate and creative designs." However, I already corrected you on this mischaracterisation, only to have you ignore it …
Sorry for not responding to your “correction” but I don’t typically response to out of context quotations. You characterized my comment as a universal statement about evolutionary thought whereas anyone who reads the OP can see I was addressing a particular, relatively uncommon, argument.
Neal: Genetic change has never been observed to be both directional and unbounded. Everything that has ever been observed is either not directional or bounded or both. You do not have a single empirical example that would contradict this.
ReplyDeleteNature has never been observed to be directional and unbounded, therefore it's superstitious and ridiculous?
And you think this is is being "specific"?
CH: But how would you characterize people who are convinced the entire biological world spontaneously arose, insist it is a scientific fact like gravity or the roundness of the earth, and yet (not surprisingly) can never justify their claim?
ReplyDeleteI'd characterize them as either an ignorant few or people you've disingenuously manufactured in an attempt to misrepresent a theory that conflicts with your religious views on knowledge creation.
Again, from the referenced link above.
What Popper calls the historical sciences do not make predictions about long past unique events (postdictions), which obviously would not be testable. (Several recent authors—including Stephen Jay Gould in Discover, July 1982—make this mistake.) These sciences make hypotheses involving past events which must predict (that is, have logical consequences) for the present state of the system in question. Here the testing procedure takes for granted the general laws and theories and is testing the specific conditions (or initial conditions, as Popper usually calls them) that held for the system.
A scientist, on the basis of much comparative anatomy and physiology, might hypothesize that, in the distant past, mammals evolved from reptiles. This would have testable consequences for the present state of the system (earth's surface with the geological strata in it and the animal and plant species living on it) in the form of reptile-mammal transition fossils that should exist, in addition to other necessary features of the DNA, developmental systems, and so forth, of the present-day reptiles and mammals.
So, exactly who are these people? What percentage of "evolutionists" do they represent?
Cornelius:
ReplyDelete"phylogenetic analysis showed that if evolution is true, then the LUCA would be more complex than modern cells."
(1) You're making that up.
(2) Phylogenetic analysis assumes evolution, which you reject.
phylogenetic analysis showed that if evolution is true, then the LUCA would be more complex than modern cells.
ReplyDelete(1) You're making that up.
With a wave of the hand the professor dismisses a body of work and associated papers.
Citations needed, Cornelius.
ReplyDeleteFolks:
ReplyDeleteCH: phylogenetic analysis showed that if evolution is true, then the LUCA would be more complex than modern cells.
Evo prof troy: You're making that up.
CH: With a wave of the hand the professor dismisses a body of work and associated papers.
Evo prof troy: Citations needed, Cornelius.
When evolutionists hear their own arguments or the scientific evidence, unadorned with the usual flowery just-so stories, they instinctively reject what you are saying. After all, their arguments are obviously false and ridiculous when plainly stated, and the real-world, empirical evidence obviously contradicts their mythological narrative.
This super-progenitor case is just another example. While it’s good to see the professor’s knee-jerk reaction against the evidence, unfortunately the facts won’t change anything. Next time he hears reference to the super-progenitor he’ll just nod his head and agree it fits right in with evolutionary theory. Good work if you can get it.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/11/eric-alm-its-plausible-idea.html
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/10/new-research-continues-to-point-to.html
CH:"how would you characterize people who are convinced the entire biological world spontaneously arose, insist it is a scientific fact like gravity or the roundness of the earth, and yet (not surprisingly) can never justify their claim?"
ReplyDeleteYour fringe opinion attacks a strawman. While it may be your view that these 'fools' can 'never justify their claim' this does not characterise workers in evolutionary biology to the vast majority of scientists. There is little point in me running through the many independent lines of evidence that support the principles of evolution from many disciplines; I'm sure you're familiar with them already and presumably you dismiss them.
I said:"Indeed, I don't see intellectual consistency between making the broad statement "evolution is ridiculous" while casually accept adaptation to environment."
CH replied:"Why not?"
Simply because 'evolution' encompasses that adaptation, but you wish to separate the small scale from the large. It is as if you want to redefine evolution and have everyone accept your new take on it.
I take you to mean that there are some aspects of evolutionary theory that you dispute, although you don't seem to have a particularly clear line of where your opposition begins.
CH:"Evolutionists expected that the LUCA would a simpler organism but phylogenetic analysis showed that if evolution is true, then the LUCA would be more complex than modern cells."
I assume you're referring to Seufferheld et al. (2011). Indeed it is *possible* that LUCA was more complex that the most simple modern cells, although less complex than others. Interesting that you put so much weight on some interesting speculative work and so little on more concrete evolutionary biology.
CH:"To explain this evolutionists imagined a creative process, far more sophisticated and complex than HGT. Need I say more?"
Did they? What about a loss of complexity contradicts modern evolutionary theory? I don't know how you envisage evolution is meant to proceed, but it is not an endless march towards complexity. If it were, relatively 'simple' organisms wouldn't exist now, but they do in immense numbers. Indeed, your body is covered and filled with ten times as many bacterial cells as your own cells. They do fine, despite being less complex that eukaryotes. Complexity is a trade off not of universal benefit, as I alluded to in my first post here. There is plenty of literature on this.
That's it?
ReplyDelete"LUCA may have been more complex even than the simplest organisms alive today" (says prof in interview)
is equivalent to your
"The LUCA would be more complex than modern cells"?
Right.
My initial characterization "you're making that up" seems quite apt.
CH said:
ReplyDelete"You characterized my comment as a universal statement about evolutionary thought whereas anyone who reads the OP can see I was addressing a particular, relatively uncommon, argument."
Would you please tell exactly which parts of evolutionary theory (or "thought") you are not against?
TWT:
ReplyDeleteI read the links you provided. I didn't see anything addressing the point I made that adding energy to n open system tends to increase entropy. One paper did say that in small systems, since entropy is really a statistical phenomenon, we can get lucky sometimes and see a temporary decrease in entropy. That means that all of biology depends on dumb luck. Well, I suppose anything is possible.
Quote Thorton:
ReplyDelete""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"Machines can control the flow of energy using complex mechanisms, but they are designed by clever people. Organisms also control the flow of energy with complex mechanisms. Where did they get those mechanisms in the first place?"
They evolved from simpler endothermic chemical
reactions.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Any idea what those reactions might have been? Or how simple chemical reactions can evolve into complex metabolic pathways? Or is this just something else we have to take on faith? Or do we say, "We hope to have answer for you someday," yet again. Or will you call me a nasty name and tell me to do the research myself?
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteAny idea what those reactions might have been? Or how simple chemical reactions can evolve into complex metabolic pathways? Or is this just something else we have to take on faith? Or do we say, "We hope to have answer for you someday," yet again. Or will you call me a nasty name and tell me to do the research myself?
The topic was Creationist misunderstanding of 2LoT. I explained it at least twice, you didn't listen.
You tell me what's the proper respond to a trolling jerk who's never shown the slightest interest in researching or learning, K?
Scott, since this blog was started, no evolutionist here has given an empirical example of genuine evolution. How's that for specifics?
ReplyDeleteTedford the idiot said...
ReplyDeleteScott, since this blog was started, no evolutionist here has given an empirical example of genuine evolution. How's that for specifics?
Sure we have Tedford. It's just that you're too big of a clueless idiot to understand what was presented.
Tell us Tedford, what to you would count as 'genuine' evolution? A fish evolving overnight into a llama?
Scott,
ReplyDeleteI don't always get the point when you post, but I recently realized what you are asking when you post about knowledge creation. Its a very interesting question.
T. Cook said...
ReplyDeleteScott,
I don't always get the point when you post, but I recently realized what you are asking when you post about knowledge creation. Its a very interesting question.
It's also quite salient when it comes to answering a common IDC 'gotcha' question:
"Where did the information in the gene come from?"
The answer is the information came from the population's interaction with its environment.
Evolution works like a feedback loop that tracks changes in the environment. It works to drive a populations' evolutionary fitness to a local optimum (i.e. 'good enough') level. This is a continuous dynamic process. The new information in new genotypes / phenotypes is a direct result of the feedback from the environment caused by variation filtered through selection.
A simple example of this is you car's cruise control. It's a feedback loop that is set to keep you car at a constant speed. When you go uphill the loop senses the loss of speed and increases the engine RPMs. On a downhill the loop reduces engine RPMs. Where does the system get the information to know how to set the engine speed? It comes from feedback provided by the environment.
Another simple example is a weather-vane. Where does the weather-vane get the information to know which way to point? It gets it from the environment, a response to the force supplied by the blowing wind.
The whole 'no new information' argument is one giant obfuscation by the IDC crowd designed to confuse and sway laymen. The science community isn't fooled by such hand waving nonsense.
Thorton,
ReplyDeleteYeah. Good points. What impresses me is that not only does it explain genetic information as you explained, but that it may be a good way of thinking of the process of thought and learning itself. Its a vague notion that I have of this now, but the concept that the mechanism of knowledge creation applied to genes (evolution) has a parallel in how I gain understanding of the world (thought) is quite provocative.
Paul:
ReplyDeleteYour fringe opinion attacks a strawman.
No, I’m referring to the claims of evolutionists.
There is little point in me running through the many independent lines of evidence that support the principles of evolution from many disciplines; I'm sure you're familiar with them already and presumably you dismiss them.
Yes, I’m familiar with the science, and how the scientific evidence bears on evolution. It fails to demonstrate that evolution is a scientific fact on par with gravity or the roundness of the earth. That is not a strawman. Nor is it merely an opinion. Here’s one popular example. Evolution predicts designs (species, protein sequences, etc) to fall into the pattern predicted by common descent. This prediction has been consistently falsified. For starters you can read this:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/evolutionary-tree-continues-to-fall.html
So how is evolution a fact?
Simply because 'evolution' encompasses that adaptation, but you wish to separate the small scale from the large. It is as if you want to redefine evolution and have everyone accept your new take on it.
I’m not the one who is redefining evolution here. That would be evolutionists who define evolution as the origin of the entire biological world (actually the origin of everything when you include the other disciplines), but then zoom in on tiny adaptations to show their theory is a fact. This is the typical equivocation. Equate evolution with adaptation, so then it is an obvious fact, and then claim all of evolution is a fact. Then blame the critic for “redefining” evolution. Can you really not see how absurd this is?
You suggest evolution has merit because of adaptation. That would be like saying the flat earth theory has merit because a field behind your building is flat. The claims of evolution go far beyond adaptation, requiring more than the mere accumulation of adaptive change. They are two, very different things.
CH:"To explain this evolutionists imagined a creative process, far more sophisticated and complex than HGT. Need I say more?"
Paul: Did they? What about a loss of complexity contradicts modern evolutionary theory?
Yes, they did. The loss of complexity comes later. First you need magically to create it. Evolutionists have constructed various notions of a different sort of evolution, acting more horizontally between individuals rather than so much vertically, over time. You can read these for starters.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/05/horizontal-gene-transfer-and-evolution.html
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/11/did-horizontal-gene-transfer-create.html
T. Cook, both cruise control and weather vanes operate within a limited (bounded) range of designed parameters. This is not evolution. Evolution requires change that is unbounded and directional via random mutations and non-random death.
ReplyDeleteEvolutionists often site finch beak size as a prime example of evolution in action. It is not. Bird beak size is determined by the regulation of an existing protein. There is certainly feedback from the environment, but this is a classic example of variation and selection that is bounded. Like cruise control or weather vanes. Nothing new is introduced. The environment gives feedback to the existing controls that regulate function. It is an irony that the only examples of evolution that evolutionists give are not examples of genuine evolution at all, because none exist.
CH said, "That would be like saying the flat earth theory has merit because a field behind your building is flat."
ReplyDeleteGreat analogy.
The whole truth:
ReplyDeleteWould you please tell exactly which parts of evolutionary theory (or "thought") you are not against?
So evolutionists insist that everything spontaneously arose from nothing. They say the most complex things we know of just happened to arise by themselves. But if that weren’t strange enough, they insist that this is a scientific fact, beyond any shadow of a doubt. As obvious as gravity or the roundness of the earth. But they are never able to prove their incredible claims. And when you try to explain the obvious scientific problems with all this, they ridicule and blackball you.
Now all of this adds up to quite a mythology. It really is quite remarkable to see this before your very eyes. This isn’t some weird story out of ancient history. It is happening here and now.
Then they ask you questions like: “Would you please tell exactly which parts of evolutionary theory (or "thought") you are not against?”
Evolution may be true, it may not be true. Who knows. But the fact of the matter is, evolution has (i) tremendous scientific problems, coupled with (ii) dead certain advocates. And when you point this out, they act like you’re being unreasonable in your criticism.
Folks, evolution is a religious theory. This isn't a big mystery. It is all there in the literature. You can trace it back to the Anglicans and Lutherans, you can see it in today’s textbooks. This isn’t about science. Can we please get with the program.
Tedford the idiot said...
ReplyDeleteT. Cook, both cruise control and weather vanes operate within a limited (bounded) range of designed parameters. This is not evolution.
They weren't offered as examples of evolution you idiot. They were examples of feedback mechanisms providing information from the environment.
Evolution requires change that is unbounded and directional via random mutations and non-random death.
The only 'bound' to evolution science is aware of are the constraints imposed by the laws of physics. Animals are limited to a maximum size and mass because of the mechanical strength of bone and muscles, not due to any magic genetic boundary.
Evolutionists often site finch beak size as a prime example of evolution in action. It is not.
Of course it is you idiot. Evolution is defined as changes in allele frequency in a population over time. That includes changing the ratio of existing alleles AND adding new alleles through mutations and sexual recombination. We've only been over this a dozen times already.
It is an irony that the only examples of evolution that evolutionists give are not examples of genuine evolution at all, because none exist.
That's because you're an idiot who defines 'genuine evolution' to be a giraffe giving birth to a cantaloupe.
Cornelius:
ReplyDelete"So evolutionists insist that everything spontaneously arose from nothing. They say the most complex things we know of just happened to arise by themselves."
No they don't. By necessity, scientists have to work with models that don't include divine intervention, since there is no agreed upon and objective way to include divine intervention in models. Privately, plenty of scientists think that God must have intervened in evolution here and there (the great evolutionist and Christian Ronald Fisher proposed that God affects mutations), but there is no way to model that, so we have to make do without it.
If you don't buy into this godless methodology, I suggest you present a superior methodology that does include divine intervention.
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteI understood your explanation to involve the use of a analogy that doesn't work. Ice forming and losing entropy is the result of a closed system losing energy. Adding energy to a closed system tneds to increase entropy, e.g. the ice on a pond melts when heated. Then you mentioned endothemic reactions. When did I demonstrate a misunderstanding of Second Thermodynamics?
And I did read the links provided. I didn't see anything that addresses the question. SO I guess it's just back to "have faith."
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteAnd I did read the links provided. I didn't see anything that addresses the question. SO I guess it's just back to "have faith."
In your case it's just back to "be a trolling ignoramus happy to stay ignorant".
Have fun sucking those eggs nat.
Troy, no one need trouble themselves speculating privately that God must have intervened in evolution by affecting mutations or whatever, because evolution is a myth in the first place... perhaps those that do feel a need to accommodate evolution are under the false premise that it is actually a viable explanation... which it isn't.
ReplyDeletetroy:
ReplyDeleteIf you don't buy into this godless methodology ...
Well I guess I haven't explained this enough times yet, as it seems you still don't understand. Evolution is not atheistic, it is theistic. It is certainly not a "godless methodology."
CH:"Evolution predicts designs (species, protein sequences, etc) to fall into the pattern predicted by common descent. This prediction has been consistently falsified"
ReplyDeleteWe would want to be sure about the power of our methods to detect a pattern before drawing any conclusions about what is definitively right or wrong, I would think.
What's more, to claim that the prediction of the congruence of gene trees has been *consistently* falsified is an overstatement on a grand scale. Your statement passes over the massive success of molecular phylogenetics. The techniques of molecular phylogenetics, while improving, must to cope with a number of problems that result from model assumptions that make tree-building computationally feasible, and substantial data limitations.
When producing phylogenies we need to model nucleotide substitution, usually assuming that the substitution rate matrix and nucleotide frequencies are unvarying across the tree. It's not clear whether that is true even just across Mammalia, let alone all of life (see Weir and Schluter 2011, and Gillman et al. 2011 for an interesting exchange). This introduces error, and potentially bias, into the analysis.
Secondly, we need dense taxon sampling to achieve robust, well supported phylogenies. There are few genes that are well-enough sampled to provide such dense taxon sampling. A related problem is that the deeper we go, the worse such sampling gets. All we have are sequences for extant and a couple recently extinct species. Extinction worsens the resolution of the tree by affecting node density, causing substitution saturation that is difficult to control across broad trees.
Even with this said, when data are plentiful, molecular phylogenetics can produce good results. Consider the case of the molecular clock: variation between taxa and genes, variation in subsitution across time, the effects of selection, and the the blend of substitutions and polymorphisms present in sequence data mean that single genes are very noisy indeed. This noisiness leads some people to outright reject the concept of a molecular clock at all. But, when large amounts of data are used, things average out much better. The molecular clock / fossil record congruence presented by Nei et al. (2010) (Figure 1) is a good example. Consistently falsified, I think not.
Cornelius:
ReplyDelete"Well I guess I haven't explained this enough times yet, as it seems you still don't understand. Evolution is not atheistic, it is theistic. It is certainly not a "godless methodology.""
Well I guess then you can point us to some papers that include God as an explanatory variable.
Paul:
ReplyDeleteConsistently falsified, I think not.
Of course the prediction is falsified. This is yet another example of evolution's abuse of science. Expectations are falsified and evolutionists then turn around and deny it.
If objects floated in mid air once in awhile we wouldn't ignore it because of all the many, many times they didn't.
Regarding all your explanations, of course evolutionists present explanations to try to resolve the contradictions. Those explanations don't change the fact that expectations were falsified.
Evolutionists also use "noise" to explain away some contradictions. Sure, that is perfectly reasonable for many observations.
But observations that deviate from the expected to within known "noise" levels is not the problem here. The problem is not that evolution would need a few oddball mutations to occur here and there that don't line up. What the science reveals are major, fundamental inconsistencies.
Hence evolutionists need entirely new hypotheses (innovative sharing protocols, new macro evolutionary mechanisms, saltations, uncanny convergences, etc). No one is saying evolutionists cannot provide explanations. They're very good at contriving just-so stories, as a consequence of falsifications. But that doesn't mean there were no falsifications.
Cornelius Hunter said...
ReplyDeletetroy: "If you don't buy into this godless methodology ..."
Well I guess I haven't explained this enough times yet, as it seems you still don't understand. Evolution is not atheistic, it is theistic. It is certainly not a "godless methodology."
You've never explained it CH. You've asserted it numerous times without one shred of supporting evidence.
We all understand the difference even if you don't. Which is why no one with the slightest bit of science education takes the nonsense you preach on this site seriously .
T. Cook,
ReplyDeleteAs with Darwin and Evolutionary theory, we often end up with a better understanding of theories than those that initially created them.
I had heard of Karl Popper's theory of knowledge before, but it wasn't until I read David Deutsch's first book, "The Fabric of Reality", in which came to realize its significance. Deutsch's second book "The Beginning of Infinity", expands on this even further by applying it to specific fields, including evolution. I highly recommend them both, if you'd like to explore the subject further.
In respect to evolutionary theory, common decent, HGT and other mechanisms can be classified as a hard to vary explanation of knowledge creation that best explains the specific type of biological adaptations we observe. This represents yet another level of explanation that collaborates evolutionary theory.
For example, from referenced link…
What Popper calls the historical sciences do not make predictions about long past unique events (postdictions), which obviously would not be testable. (Several recent authors—including Stephen Jay Gould in Discover, July 1982—make this mistake.) These sciences make hypotheses involving past events which must predict (that is, have logical consequences) for the present state of the system in question. Here the testing procedure takes for granted the general laws and theories and is testing the specific conditions (or initial conditions, as Popper usually calls them) that held for the system.
One of these theories includes Popper's theory of knowledge, which is based on conjecture and refutation. The specific types of biological adaptations we observe collaborate the logical consequences of a form of C&R.
Furthermore, we can explain our relatively recent and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge in that people have the capacity to be universal explainers. Recently, science has shifted it's focus on long chains of hard to vary explanations. We discard explanation less possibilities or bad explanations (which are shallow and easy to vary) a priori - before testing even beings.
Cornelius is essentially claiming that natural process cannot create knowledge. However, he's attempting to obfuscate the issue by attacking a misrepresentation. In other words, he's failed to actually criticize the underlying explanation behind the predictions of evolutionary theory. Nor has he disclosed one of his own to replace it.
-- Continued --
ReplyDeleteUnlike people, natural process cannot create explanations. As such, they must test every genetic variation. Nor do they exhibit intent or foreknowledge. As such, this particular form of knowledge creation is a hard to vary explanation for the particular type of adaptations we observe in the present.
Me:"Consistently falsified, I think not."
ReplyDeleteCH:"Of course the prediction is falsified. This is yet another example of evolution's abuse of science. Expectations are falsified and evolutionists then turn around and deny it."
Wow. I gave you an example of the molecular clock operating effectively on a timescale of 500 MY when properly implemented, and that is your response?
CH:"If objects floated in mid air once in awhile we wouldn't ignore it because of all the many, many times they didn't."
No kidding. Do you believe that in phylogenetics the exceptions and oddities are ignored? Or do you think that much of the work over the last decade has been to refine phylogenetics to get greater degrees of consistency exactly in response to the exceptions?
CH:"Regarding all your explanations, of course evolutionists present explanations to try to resolve the contradictions. Those explanations don't change the fact that expectations were falsified."
When simple models don't work, we make more complex models. This is consistent with all other fields of science where such modelling is done. Does the failing of a Jukes-Cantor model of nucleotide substitution to reconstruct a phylogenetic tree with well supported clades refute common descent, or does it refute the usefulness of the simplistic JC model?
Rather than trying to tackle all of life at once, perhaps a smaller scale analysis would be useful. Would you agree that we have well-resolved phylogenies for Mammalia supporting common descent, or do you think there are there are 'fundamental inconsistencies' within mammalian phylogenetics as well?
CH: "So evolutionists insist that everything spontaneously arose from nothing. They say the most complex things we know of just happened to arise by themselves."
ReplyDeleteActually, it was Lamarck that though a continual stream of simple life forms was being spontaneously generated out of nothing. Yet you claim Lamarck "right"?
The knowledge of how to build each species, as found in the genome, was created by a variation of how we, as people, create knowledge: conjecture and refutation. Genetic variation represents conjecture and natural selection represents refutation.
Again, what is your criticism of conjecture and refutation as a means of creating knowledge? What is your alternative explanation for how we create knowledge?
Paul:
ReplyDeleteWow. I gave you an example of the molecular clock operating effectively on a timescale of 500 MY when properly implemented, and that is your response?
Truly astonishing. I can tell people about the level of sheer denial, but without actual examples from evolutionists they’re not likely to believe it.
So just what is it about “Life is not a tree” and “there is no independent evidence that the natural order is an inclusive hierarchy” that you do not understand? And why are evolutionists now saying it actually never really was a prediction in the first place, come to think of it, if it hasn’t been falsified?
Cornelius has no criticism of C&R. Instead, he's attacking a misrepresentation of C&R by appealing to a particular level of reductionism. I.E. random mutations cannot create knowledge. Natural selection don't help, etc.
ReplyDeleteApparently, he's hoping his target audience won't notice the difference. We're not fooled.
CH:"So just what is it about “Life is not a tree” and “there is no independent evidence that the natural order is an inclusive hierarchy” that you do not understand?"
ReplyDeleteGee, Cornelius, I guess the part I don't understand is how you get to that conclusion, and leap from there being inconsistencies in deep trees, as is well recognised, to their being "no independent evidence". As I asked you above, rather than attempting to address all of life at once, would you agree that there is a well supported hierarchy for Mammalia?
If objects floated in mid air once in awhile we wouldn't ignore it because of all the many, many times they didn't.
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that things actually do float in mid air once in awhile, right? A helium balloon is probably the simplest example. We don't ignore examples such as that, but neither do we see a few instances of it and immediately conclude that there is no such thing as gravity. Instead, given that the vast majority of items that we know of do actually fall down, we investigate based on the assumption that there must be something special about the balloon that causes it to act differently. In the case of the balloon, its behavior is neatly explained by buoyancy.
In biology the same method of investigation is employed. The vast majority of living creatures fall within the "Tree of Life" predicted by evolution. There are a few organisms that do not fit neatly into this pattern. Based on those anomalies, we do not immediately conclude that there is no such thing as evolution. Instead we investigate those organisms to see if there is something special about them that causes them to diverge from what we would expect. Such investigations are what led to discoveries like horizontal gene transfers.
Venture Free:
ReplyDeleteBased on those anomalies, we do not immediately conclude that there is no such thing as evolution.
Nor did I suggest otherwise.
Paul:
ReplyDeleteGee, Cornelius, I guess the part I don't understand is how you get to that conclusion, and leap from there being inconsistencies in deep trees, as is well recognised, to their being "no independent evidence".
Sorry, I don't follow. What leap did I make?
natschuster said:
ReplyDeleteI understood your explanation to involve the use of a analogy that doesn't work. Ice forming and losing entropy is the result of a closed system losing energy. Adding energy to a closed system tneds to increase entropy, e.g. the ice on a pond melts when heated. Then you mentioned endothemic reactions. When did I demonstrate a misunderstanding of Second Thermodynamics?
And I did read the links provided. I didn't see anything that addresses the question. SO I guess it's just back to "have faith."
---------------------
I suggest that you ask your questions in the Panda's Thumb thread I linked to.
Cornelius Hunter said...
ReplyDeleteThe whole truth:
Would you please tell exactly which parts of evolutionary theory (or "thought") you are not against?
So evolutionists insist that everything spontaneously arose from nothing. They say the most complex things we know of just happened to arise by themselves. But if that weren’t strange enough, they insist that this is a scientific fact, beyond any shadow of a doubt. As obvious as gravity or the roundness of the earth. But they are never able to prove their incredible claims. And when you try to explain the obvious scientific problems with all this, they ridicule and blackball you.
Now all of this adds up to quite a mythology. It really is quite remarkable to see this before your very eyes. This isn’t some weird story out of ancient history. It is happening here and now.
Then they ask you questions like: “Would you please tell exactly which parts of evolutionary theory (or "thought") you are not against?”
Evolution may be true, it may not be true. Who knows. But the fact of the matter is, evolution has (i) tremendous scientific problems, coupled with (ii) dead certain advocates. And when you point this out, they act like you’re being unreasonable in your criticism.
Folks, evolution is a religious theory. This isn't a big mystery. It is all there in the literature. You can trace it back to the Anglicans and Lutherans, you can see it in today’s textbooks. This isn’t about science. Can we please get with the program.
--------------------
I don't see an answer to my question in there. All I see is more griping about evolution and evolutionists.
CH:"Sorry, I don't follow. What leap did I make?"
ReplyDeleteYou have made a leap implicitly rejecting the well-supported phylogenetics of (relatively) recent divergences to focus on the deepest and most ambitious divergences that are possible to attempt with molecular phylogenetics where the greatest degree of difficulty in drawing phylogenetic inferences is encountered.
To identify this more clearly, I will ask you for the third time in this thread: Do you agree that there are well-supported phylogenetic inferences across Mammalia, where mammals form a well-supported nested hierarchy?
The leap Cornelius makes is to assume that predictions of scientific theories are prophecy, in that they can somehow account for an infinite number of unrelated, yet parallel effects.
ReplyDeleteAnd, again, we can likely trace this back to a theistic presupposition that knowledge is not created, but has always existed.
In the case of the biosphere, the future is unknowable because the knowledge that will end up effecting it has yet to be created. Not only does this make possible future outcomes unknowable, but it renderers probabilities inadequate as a means of justifying conclusions. The future will be shaped by knowledge we do not yet have.
On the other hand, Cornelius thinks any theory of biology is either right or wrong, falsified or not falsified, based on it's "predictions." But this would only be possible if the future was knowable in that all of the knowledge that will effect the biosphere in the future has already been created.
This simply is not evident based on mere observations alone. Yet all of Cornelius' argument seem to assume this underlying assumption is true.
Examples? His means of calculating statistical likelihood of protein evolution, claims that Lamarck was "right", clams that evolution has been falsified by exceptions to the phylogenetic tree, etc.
Paul:
ReplyDeleteAs I asked you above, rather than attempting to address all of life at once, would you agree that there is a well supported hierarchy for Mammalia?
If he admitted that, it would be a slippery slope to entertaining the possibility that he's an ape. And that could lead to cognitive dissonances about Adam and Eve...
Ain't gonna happen.
Paul:
ReplyDeleteCH:"Sorry, I don't follow. What leap did I make?"
You have made a leap implicitly rejecting the well-supported phylogenetics of (relatively) recent divergences to focus on the deepest and most ambitious divergences that are possible to attempt with molecular phylogenetics where the greatest degree of difficulty in drawing phylogenetic inferences is encountered.
So to summarize, I provided an example of a false evolutionary expectation and you rejected it, saying (i) we can think up ways to modify the theory to accommodate the contradictory findings, (ii) the data are noisy, (iii) the modeling is quite uncertain and difficult, (iv) we’ve got better data where the modeling is quite a bit more certain, (v) I’m guilty of rejecting those better data.
So I’m guilty of rejecting data (which I did not do) whereas you’re not guilty of rejecting data (which you did do). To address your specific points,
(i) Yes, we can think up ways to modify the theory to accommodate the contradictory findings. But the modifications include unobserved, speculative processes. These explanations are motivated by the belief in evolution, not by science. Whatever we find, we must explain somehow by evolution.
(ii) and (iii): No, the problem is not with the data or the modeling. The problem is that the data do not fit evolution, which you interpret to be a fault of the data or modeling. This is a good example of confirmation bias. When data don’t fit they are set aside as “outliers” or “noise.” Data that do fit, on the other hand, are viewed as legitimate. They are analyzed, modeled, published, etc.
(iv) No, phylogenetic mismatches occur all over the map. The data may be filtered, as described above, to help the fit. Indeed when homologous characters are compared, you automatically have prefiltering by virtue of not including characters with no homologues.
(v) Evolutionists blame the skeptic for what the evolutionists do. If I only had a nickel …
To identify this more clearly, I will ask you for the third time in this thread: Do you agree that there are well-supported phylogenetic inferences across Mammalia, where mammals form a well-supported nested hierarchy?
It would be impossible for a scientist to agree or disagree, because “well-supported” is so vague. If you mean do I agree that the data agree with evolutionary expectations to within a reasonable level of noise in the data, then no, of course not. Such a view would require ignorance or confirmation bias.
If you mean do I agree that the data agree with evolutionary expectations in a similar sense that astronomical data agree with geocentricism, for example, then yes, sure.
This isn’t complicated, but if one wants to look at the science, then one must take off the evolution hat and try looking at things objectively. This is not possible for most evolutionists because, for them, evolution must be a fact. A dispassionate, objective analysis simply is not possible. I couldn’t care less if evolution were true or not. I’m fine if it is true, but importantly, I’m also fine if it is not true. Not so for evolutionists.
I couldn’t care less if evolution were true or not. I’m fine if it is true, but importantly, I’m also fine if it is not true.
ReplyDeleteThen why do you rail against it?
Not so for evolutionists.
So what? You just said you have no dog in this fight.
Are you the conscience of the world?
Pedant:
ReplyDeleteThen why do you rail against it?
The lies and hypocrisy are the problem, not the theory itself. Nothing wrong with unlikely hypotheses, but we shouldn't insist it is a scientific fact.
Scott
ReplyDeleteI wanted to check Deutsch's books you talk about. I ran into a little distraction on the shelf because Deutsch is alphabetically close to Dawkins .
New book by Dawkins took priority. It looks interesting but very basic, almost for kids, lots of excellent illustrations. He writes on one of the pages about an eye evolution: " I think eye evolved".
Think?
Is Dawkins getting softer? Is conversion a la Anthony Flew coming as he (Dawkins) is getting older and closer to kicking a bucket?
Anyway, Deutsch next time.
CH:"(ii) and (iii): No, the problem is not with the data or the modeling."
ReplyDeleteRight. And this is the case because you say so. All those people who run simulations to see what the effects are of missing data, depauperate taxon sampling etc. have obviously been wasting their time. And despite this being erroneously considered an effective way of determining the power of one's analysis to detect a pattern, this doesn't count as science because, once again, you say so.
CH:"No, phylogenetic mismatches occur all over the map. The data may be filtered, as described above, to help the fit."
Actually, usually the solution is to get more data to improve power. Mismatches occur when too few bases are used, inappropriate genes are used (e.g. rDNA for recent divergences, mtDNA for deep divergences), or taxon sampling is sparse. How these affect analyses are well understood. Using enough molecular data gives consistent results of nested hierarchies - the prediction of common descent.
CH:"It would be impossible for a scientist to agree or disagree, because “well-supported” is so vague"
Apart from the techniques to evaluate the robustness of fit - bootstrapping, jackknifing, posterior probabilities, amongst others.
CH:"If you mean do I agree that the data agree with evolutionary expectations to within a reasonable level of noise in the data, then no, of course not. Such a view would require ignorance or confirmation bias. "
So to be clear, you do not agree that there is strong support for a nested hierarchy in mammals as predicted by common descent, based on current molecular phylogenetics?
Hunter:
ReplyDeleteNothing wrong with unlikely hypotheses, but we shouldn't insist it is a scientific fact.
Heliocentrism is, on the face of it, an unlikely hypothesis. Yet, it is a fact that the earth orbits the sun.
Paul:
ReplyDeleteCH:"(ii) and (iii): No, the problem is not with the data or the modeling."
Paul: Right. And this is the case because you say so.
No, this is not controversial.
All those people who run simulations to see what the effects are of missing data, depauperate taxon sampling etc. have obviously been wasting their time.
No, for evolutionary studies those simulations are a good means for evaluating the accuracy of results, such as how well a reconstruction fits a given set of sequence data when there are problems with the data. But phylogenetic mismatches are obvious in cases with good data sets. Again, this is not controversial, in spite of your denials.
Actually, usually the solution is to get more data to improve power. Mismatches occur when too few bases are used, inappropriate genes are used (e.g. rDNA for recent divergences, mtDNA for deep divergences), or taxon sampling is sparse. How these affect analyses are well understood. Using enough molecular data gives consistent results of nested hierarchies - the prediction of common descent.
Paul, this is an example of confirmation bias, which unfortunately is common in evolutionary studies.
Continued …
Paul:
ReplyDeleteCH:"If you mean do I agree that the data agree with evolutionary expectations to within a reasonable level of noise in the data, then no, of course not. Such a view would require ignorance or confirmation bias. "
Paul: So to be clear, you do not agree that there is strong support for a nested hierarchy in mammals as predicted by common descent, based on current molecular hylogenetics?
I thought I was clear, but let me try again. There are basically two ways to view the data. From an evolution perspective evolution is a given from the beginning. The analysis does not test whether evolution occurred, but rather how it occurred. Therefore contradictory results are subject to evolutionary assumptions and given evolutionary interpretations. For instance, they may simply be filtered out. This may even be of necessity because evolutionary assumptions are built-in to the method. For instance, when only homologies are compared. Or, if not filtered out, the contradictions will be explained according to evolutionary speculation and it will be cast as an advancement of our knowledge. Or the contradictions may simply be set aside as “anomalies” awaiting future studies.
OTH, from a neutral perspective, contradictory results are simply viewed for what they are, data that do not fit the evolution model, and require yet more complexity to be added to the model. It is not controversial that such results are abundant, that they are not mere “noise,” and that they are not a consequence of “missing data” or some such modeling problem, again in spite of your denials.
From an evolutionary perspective these results are not viewed as challenges to the “fact” of evolution, but rather as interesting anomalies that will lead to better understandings of how evolution work. Results that fit the model are viewed as normative and dominant. Thus evolutionists characterize the data as strongly supporting evolution, and adding yet another confirmation to the already rock solid theory of evolution.
And they are shocked when a neutral observer points out that the data do not strongly support evolution. The evolutionists criticize such a neutral observer as rejecting and denying obvious evidence, and being driven by ulterior motives, when it is the evolutionists who are doing precisely those things.
We’re all looking at the same data, but coming to different conclusions. Evolutionists believe all of biology spontaneously arose somehow. They insist that evolution is a scientific fact, no question about it, with the contradictory data serving to tell us more about how evolution occurred. Yet the fundamental predictions of evolution continue to fail and contradictions abound. But since evolutionists are not neutral observers, evolution not being true is simply not an option.
There’s no question that phylogenetics, molecular or otherwise, do not produce results consistent with the theory of evolution. This is not controversial. The differences are in one’s presuppositions and biases, and thus how one approaches the problem and treats the data, contradictions, and results. As Lakatos pointed out, advocates of a theory can always protect the theoretical core from anomalous and contradictory data.
Corn-hole's proof of creationism.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MyxmTGt9H2E
CH:But phylogenetic mismatches are obvious in cases with good data sets.
ReplyDeleteInteresting - what qualifies as good?
CH:Paul, this is an example of confirmation bias, which unfortunately is common in evolutionary studies.
I see what you're saying. However, it is not confirmation bias to - for example - use fast-evolving genes (e.g. mt genes) for recent divergences and slow-evolving genes (e.g. rDNA) for deep divergences. The reason is because we can observe purifying selection in action on polymorphisms (e.g. time-dependent rates of molecular evolution; Ho et al. 2005, Ho et al. 2011) and because we also have the fossil record and molecular clock to determine the timeframe on which divergence has happened. Along with the simulation studies, this gives us a sound basis to make such decisions, relating to statistical power and not confirmation bias.
CH:contradictory results are simply viewed for what they are, data that do not fit the evolution model, and require yet more complexity to be added to the model. It is not controversial that such results are abundant, that they are not mere “noise,” and that they are not a consequence of “missing data” or some such modeling problem, again in spite of your denials.
How was it demonstrated that contradictory results were not the result of noise, modelling problems or missing data?
Scott,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the suggestions, I added them to my reading list.
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteWell PaV, most refrigerators around here use a motor/compressor system that runs on 120VAC power from the local utility. That power comes from burning coal, or wind, or a nuclear reactor driving a steam turbine.
You've answered correctly. Unless "work" is done, you can't lower the entropy. Secondly, the system providing the "work" must be isolated from the system whose entropy is being lowered. So you need a closed system, and you need something, or someone, to perform work.
Were those two conditions able to be met in the early evolution of life? (Details please, since I already know what your assertion is going to be.)
PaV Lino the creepy poseur said...
ReplyDeleteYou've answered correctly. Unless "work" is done, you can't lower the entropy. Secondly, the system providing the "work" must be isolated from the system whose entropy is being lowered. So you need a closed system, and you need something, or someone, to perform work.
Oh boy! Now you're going demonstrate that you're as ignorant and clueless about thermodynamics as you are about evolutionary biology.
Tell us PaV, when the higher-entropy water in my back yard pond freezes into lower-entropy ice, what isolated system did the "work"?
Amazing that there's not a single topic you aren't willing to flaunt your brutal ignorance in.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-wallace/intelligent-design-is-dea_b_1175049.html
ReplyDeleteWadda ya think?
Nails it.
ReplyDeleteTell us PaV, when the higher-entropy water in my back yard pond freezes into lower-entropy ice, what isolated system did the "work"?
ReplyDeleteWay to avoid a direct question, Thorton. Allow me to simplify it for you so that it makes a bit more sense. The second law of thermodynamics states that the scent of C#Maj feels just like magenta with pickles on top. Until you answer that direct question I'll just assume that you have no idea what you're talking about, meaning I win by default.
Lino D'Ischia: Unless "work" is done, you can't lower the entropy. Secondly, the system providing the "work" must be isolated from the system whose entropy is being lowered. So you need a closed system, and you need something, or someone, to perform work.
ReplyDeleteIf it is an isolated system, it can't exchange mass or energy and can't otherwise interact with its surroundings, so it can't be responsible for lowering or raising the entropy elsewhere.
Also, entropy can be locally lowered even as mass and energy are exchanged, such as in the formation of a snowflake.
First life was no more likely to self assemble than a Intel Atom processor would. There is absolutely no empirical evidence to contradict this statement. Everything that we know from science is against self assembly of first life. It takes a great deal of subborness against scientific knowledge of systems biology and blindness to believe in the self assembly of first life. Some have said it takes more faith to believe in the self assembly of first life than in a creator. I don't think it even rises to the level of faith. It's just plain subborness and blindness to scientific discovery.
ReplyDeleteScott, in your mind, do you have a firm example of how evolution could be falsified? Or, do you feel the concept of faisification is irrelevant in science?
ReplyDeleteTedford the idiot said...
ReplyDeleteScott, in your mind, do you have a firm example of how evolution could be falsified? Or, do you feel the concept of faisification is irrelevant in science?
You've already been given numerous examples of things that had they been found would have falsified the hypothesis of evolution with common descent. Finding the phylogenetic tree made from the fossil record completely disagrees with the one produced from the genetic record. Or finding that extant species don't fit into a nested hierarchy.
ToE is quite falsifiable. It just hasn't been falsified.
Looks like PaV-Lino decided to cut his losses after his embarrassing debacle in the 'population genetics' thread. The prospect of making himself look equally dumb with his misunderstanding of thermodynamics suddenly gave him cold feet.
ReplyDeleteHey tedford, you believe that the tooth fairy, pink unicorns, santa claus, the easter bunny, bigfoot, nessie, ghosts, flying purple eaters, angels, demons, and monsters under your bed are real, don't you?
ReplyDeleteWhen you watch Barney on TV, you believe that it's a real dinosaur, don't you? I'm sure you also believe that The Flintstones is an accurate documentary about prehistoric times.