Friday, January 20, 2012

Evolution Professors: There Will be Anatomical Similarities Among Related Organisms

What exactly is a scientific prediction? Philosophers have long since pointed out that many so-called scientific predictions do not qualify. For instance, sometimes a prediction is made after the fact. Other times the prediction is too broad or vague. In some cases a failure of the prediction can be too easily accommodated, using minor adjustments to the theory. In fact sometimes the prediction is not even required by the theory. It is simply used to make the theory look good. These textbook examples from the philosophy of science can be found in abundance in evolutionary theory. Consider, for example, Randy Moore and Sehoya Cotner who, in their new book Arguing for Evolution: An Encyclopedia for Understanding Science, state that evolution predicts “There will be anatomical similarities among related organisms.” It is a typical example of how evolutionists commit even obvious fallacies in their apologetics.

The evolutionary prediction that “There will be anatomical similarities among related organisms” is, for starters, an after-the-fact prediction. It has been known since antiquity that species are not simply randomly designed, but instead share at least some patterns. And the prediction is incredibly vague. It could mean just about anything. But this is only the beginning.

The prediction that “There will be anatomical similarities among related organisms” is not even binding. Biology is full of falsifications of this prediction. We humans and squids, yes squids, share similar vision systems. It is an incredible anatomical similarity among very different species. On the other hand, different frog species have completely different development pathways to form their vision systems. These are just two of biology’s many examples of unrelated organisms with striking similarities and related organisms with striking differences. When confronted with such falsifications, evolutionists respond that “evolution does that too.” As the philosopher warned, sometimes prediction failure can be too easily accommodated.

In fact, evolution’s ability to accommodate such massive contradictions to the prediction shows that the prediction was not even required by the theory in the first place. Evolutionists have no problem explaining violations of their expected pattern. Evolution, they say, can temporarily speed up, thus creating big change and erasing the expected similarities. This and other just-so explanations reveal that this prediction never really was a genuine prediction in the first place. It is just there to make the theory look good.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

17 comments:

  1. Cornelius:

    The prediction that “There will be anatomical similarities among related organisms” is not even binding. Biology is full of falsifications of this prediction. We humans and squids, yes squids, share similar vision systems. It is an incredible anatomical similarity among very different species. On the other hand, different frog species have completely different development pathways to form their vision systems. These are just two of biology’s many examples of unrelated organisms with striking similarities and related organisms with striking differences.

    Wait. Why do you say that humans and squids are unrelated and different frog species are related? How do you know this?

    Could it be that you decided this based on analyzing more than just a single trait?

    ReplyDelete
  2. You can find the author's more complete discussion of their statement here:
    Arguing for Evolution

    ReplyDelete
  3. On a similar note, has anyone here read Louis Agassiz's "Essay on Classification"? It is an excellent book on the relationship between design and taxonomy - a subject that is sorely overlooked in our modern functionalist emphasis.

    ReplyDelete
  4. When the authors wrote “There will be anatomical similarities among related organisms” they obviously didn't mean that related organisms are similar in every anatomical trait, as Cornelius (the trustworthy man who fabricates relations between belief in evolution and economic behavior) would have you believe. The similarity is of course based on many traits, not just on vision traits. It is well known that closely related species differ dramatically in some isolated traits, such as penis morphology (see here), and that rapid evolution in such traits can contribute to speciation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 'It is just there to make the theory look good.'

    I prefer the word, 'conjecture' in these 'just-so' kinds of context, Cornelius, but scientific rigour has never been a forte of our secular- fundamentalist friends, so why expect nicety of language? On with the motley!

    ReplyDelete


  6. As the philosopher warned, sometimes prediction failure can be too easily accommodated.

    What "prediction failure"? The prediction is that "There will be anatomical similarities among related organisms". It does not say that related species will be anatomically identical, just that there will be similarities. That allows that there will also be differences which, as you've noted. there are. Since the prediction never rules out differences, how can the differences falsify the prediction?

    In fact, evolution’s ability to accommodate such massive contradictions to the prediction shows that the prediction was not even required by the theory in the first place.

    What "massive contradictions"? Differences that the prediction never denied? Is this how you and your kind would teach science, trying to score debating points off a loosely-phrased sentence from a popular science book?

    Religion drives science out of the classroom, and it matters.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Science and Pseudoscience - Imre Lakatos - exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerate science program’

    "nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific" - Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote was as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Darwin.27s_theory

    In fact, by the criterion laid out by Lakatos in the following article and audio lecture, Darwinism is found to be a ‘degenerate science program’, i.e. a ‘pseudoscience’;

    Science and Pseudoscience - Lakatos
    http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/about/lakatos/scienceAndPseudoscience.aspx

    Science and Pseudoscience - Lakatos - audio
    http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/2002_LakatosScienceAndPseudoscience128.mp3

    The following evidence is the evidence that shows Darwinism to be a ‘degenerate science program’ using Lakatos’s criteria

    Predictions of Materialism compared to Predictions of Theism within the scientific method:
    https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9

    Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US

    Where’s the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit

    How neo-Darwinian evolution avoids falsification from 'anomalous' genetic evidence:

    A Primer on the Tree of Life - Casey Luskin - 2009
    Excerpt: The truth is that common ancestry is merely an assumption that governs interpretation of the data, not an undeniable conclusion, and whenever data contradicts expectations of common descent, evolutionists resort to a variety of different ad hoc rationalizations to save common descent from being falsified.
    http://www.discovery.org/a/10651

    How to Play the Gene Evolution Game - Casey Luskin - Feb. 2010
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/how_to_play_the_gene_evolution.html

    Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis - 2006
    Excerpt: Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/7/2043.abstract

    How neo-Darwinian evolution avoids falsification from the fossil record;

    Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested? - Paul Nelson - Feb. 2010
    Excerpt: Fig. 6. Multiple possible ad hoc or auxiliary hypotheses are available to explain lack of congruence between the fossil record and cladistic predictions. These may be employed singly or in combination. Common descent (CD) is thus protected from observational challenge.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/seeing_ghosts_in_the_bushes_pa.html

    The Fossil Record and Falsifiable Predictions For ID - Casey Luskin - Audio
    http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-03-26T14_56_42-07_00

    ReplyDelete
  8. This following article reveals how evolutionists avoid falsification from the biogeographical data of finding numerous and highly similar species in widely separated locations:

    More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism - March 2010
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/sea_monkeys_are_the_tip_of_the.html

    The Case of the Mysterious Hoatzin: Biogeography Fails Neo-Darwinism Again - Casey Luskin - November 5, 2011
    Excerpt: If two similar species separated by thousands of kilometers across oceans cannot challenge common descent, what biogeographical data can? The way evolutionists treat it, there is virtually no biogeographical data that can challenge common descent even in principle. If that's the case, then how can biogeography be said to support common descent in the first place?
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/the_case_of_the_mysterious_hoa052571.html

    Many more instances are found in Dr. Hunter's blog:

    Darwin’s Predictions
    http://www.darwinspredictions.com/

    further note:

    Is evolution pseudoscience?
    Excerpt:,,, Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other pseudosciences — astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever — would meet so many.
    http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience

    Theism compared to Materialism within the Scientific Method
    https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfNWZ3ejQyZGc5&hl=en_US

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dr. Hunter, you'll get a kick out of this:

    The Atheist Doctor
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FRQzQpnYhKI

    ReplyDelete
  10. A wild BA^77 appears! BA^77 used "Link Spam". It's super irrelevant!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks didymos, right on cue after the video!!! Couldn't have been better timing for a poster child for atheism if I had asked for it. Thanks again! LOL

    ReplyDelete
  12. Evolutionists remind me of 'psychics' They make their predictions so vague that ANYTHING can be accommodated to fit them. I remember how 'surprised' evolutionists were when the kangaroo genome was sequenced:

    'There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order,' said Jenny Graves, director of the Centre of Excellence for Kangaroo Genomics.

    'We thought they'd be completely scrambled, but they're not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome,' she added.


    http://tinyurl.com/5lbwt9

    So, just to re-cap: had the genome been completely different from ours, well that would be evidence for evolution, the fact it has "great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there...", well THAT'S evidence for evolution as well. If that's considered 'science,' then
    R.I.P science.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yeah, like 'god-did-it' isn't "vague".

    ReplyDelete
  14. Fifi again, for Fifi's sake! :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Cornelius,

    The evolutionary prediction that "There will be anatomical similarities among related organisms" is, for starters, an after-the-fact prediction.

    Using evolution, I predict that when a human woman gives birth, it will be to a human child that will be similar but not identical to the mother. The woman will not give birth to a bee, a tree, a dog or a frog.

    And the prediction is incredibly vague. It could mean just about anything.

    But it doesn't.

    "The prediction that "There will be anatomical similarities among related organisms" is not even binding."

    In science, predictions RARELY are "binding". They're probabilistic.

    We humans and squids, yes squids, share similar vision systems. ...On the other hand, different frog species ...

    The prediction is that closely related organisms are similar, not that they are the same.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Prediction ism has been a problem with evolution.
    In fact most of the predictions are just lines of reasoning.
    Further so much of evolution has its predictions based on geological presumptions and so more so are not biological predictions.

    It just is logical that a false idea couldn't possibly work under close inspection.
    Science is meant to bring close inspection to ideas before they are to be credible .
    evolution acceptance shows there are more motives in man.

    ReplyDelete