Wanna Play Ball Scarecrow?
Recently Larry Moran, Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto, asked for assistance. Professor Moran will be attending the upcoming “New trends in evolutionary biology” Scientific meeting at The Royal Society, and he has asked for help in deciding what question to pose to the speakers. For Douglas Futuyma, who will be defending the status quo against the scientific evidence, Moran already has a couple of ideas, such as:
As you explain in your textbook, describing the pathways to modern species contributes to the FACT of evolution and the FACT of descent with modification but how those genetic changes actually occur and become fixed is part of evolutionary theory. Do you distinguish between evolutionary theory and the actual history of life?
Moran, like Futuyma, defends the belief that the species arose by chance. As the all-caps help to illustrate, he is a modern-day Epicurean. And I’m sure Professor Moran would not disagree that this is a softball question—a setup for Futuyma to rail on those who think the scientific evidence is actually a problem for evolution. But Moran is mistaken here, as this is not a debate against creationists.
This line of defense—that scientific failures are relevant to the theory of evolution, but not to the fact of evolution—is standard theory protectionism, routinely used by evolutionists when they are presented with any of the many empirical problems with their Epicurean theory.
Not only is this argument a revealing own-goal (it provides a live demonstration that evolution is not exposed to the empirical evidence and is not falsifiable), but it is not relevant in The Royal Society meeting since the bad guys, in this case, are fellow evolutionists who simply are beginning to reckon with the science.
They completely agree that evolution is a fact. So Moran can set aside the silly canards about “the FACT of evolution and the FACT of descent with modification.”
On the other hand, Darwin’s God suggests a slightly different approach. If Moran wants to ask a meaningful question of Futuyma, why not query his fellow Epicurean where and how he discovered that “the Creator” would not likely have bestowed “two horns on the African rhinoceroses and only one on the Indian species.” That was, after all, one of Futuyma’s points in his book, Science on Trial.
And if there is time for a follow-up Moran might, as diplomatically as possible, ask the ardent evolutionist why anyone should take him seriously?
Religion drives science, and it matters.
The FACT of evolution and the FACT of common descent seem to me to be a single claimed fact.!
ReplyDeleteCommon descent could only mean evolution regardless of mechanism!
Why is it a fact???
Or rather why is the mechanism a facxt because there has been change?
Yes all people are from Adam/Eve and look at our looks today and so indeed evolvingness has occurred. Yes its a fact but how is not a fact.
the great question to ask all of them is WHY is evolutionary biology claimed as a scientific theory when iots not based on biological scientific evidence??
Its based on foreign evidences, themselves mussy, but not on real time biology!
Its indeed almost like a religion in aspects. !!
I would also ask what is the origin of a species?!
What is a species? When has it crossed a threshold in change from a parent population to qualify as a new population called species?
Is it based on anatomy?
I don't think there are species but only results of mechanism working on some creature like people.
So its really the origin of differences in populations that is the question?
"As you explain in your textbook, describing the pathways to modern species contributes to the FACT of evolution and the FACT of descent with modification but how those genetic changes actually occur and become fixed is part of evolutionary theory. Do you distinguish between evolutionary theory and the actual history of life?"
ReplyDeleteI think calling evolution a fact is Richard Dawkins idea. This
was to help re sell it to the public when people started to doubt that natural selection could really explain life's diversity.
RationalWiki has an article outlining the characteristics of Woo. I thought it was interesting how much of the “Woo” characteristics applied to Neo-Darwinism. At the very least, I think it might serve as a neat outline for a post here. (I would substitute speculation for #1 and under #5 substitute paranoia about flyover democracy and theocratic cabals suppressing the truth.)
ReplyDeleteBill Cole
ReplyDeleteI think calling evolution a fact is Richard Dawkins idea. This was to help re sell it to the public when people started to doubt that natural selection could really explain life's diversity.
That evolution has occurred - the change and diversification of life forms on the planet over the last 3+ billion years - is a well verified scientific fact. It's as much a fact as the moon orbiting the Earth is a fact.
Many of the mechanisms which caused the changes are know, the details of others are not. That is evolutionary theory. Even if current evolutionary theory were totally overthrown tomorrow that wouldn't alter one iota the scientific fact of evolution.
Pathetic. This silly equivocation is what evolutionists are reduced to.
DeleteDirt worshipper:
DeleteEven if current evolutionary theory were totally overthrown tomorrow that wouldn't alter one iota the scientific fact of evolution.
You are a species of imbecile. The fact of evolution over billions of years is not evidence for Darwinian evolution. It does not matter if it's thousands, billions or quintillions of years. The combinatorial explosion does not give a rat's ass.
GR
ReplyDelete"That evolution has occurred - the change and diversification of life forms on the planet over the last 3+ billion years - is a well verified scientific fact. It's as much a fact as the moon orbiting the Earth is a fact."
Your right here but that is not what Dawkins is claiming. He is claiming that universal common descent is a fact. The observation of change in the fossil records is not proof of the connection between species. Darwin had an inference argument but the discovery of DNA has created a new wave of skepticism.
Bill Cole
ReplyDeleteYour right here but that is not what Dawkins is claiming.
Those were your words, not mine.
BC: "I think calling evolution a fact is Richard Dawkins idea."
The observation of change in the fossil records is not proof of the connection between species.
Science doesn't offer proof. Science offers positive supporting evidence. The phylogenetic tree produced from the fossil record which very closely matches the phylogenetic tree created independently by the genetic record is exceptionally strong positive evidence for common descent. All extant cats, dogs, and bears shared a carnivorous mammal common ancestor between 55-60 MYA. Sorry but there's nothing Creationists can do about that scientific fact except bellyache.
GR
DeleteOh no. Thats not accurate.
First your conclusions are based, only work, if the geology claims are true.
A fossil is only that. Any connection is speculation.
If the fossils were done at the same time and the differences like creatures means they lived together then it would also be a genetic relationship.
Seeing like genes between creatures could only mean likeness but not common descent.
There is no positive supporting evidence here. Only supporting assertions in a row.
Its not logical or scientific.
its just lines of reasoning from very raw unconnected data.
Old/new evolutionists have not been smart enough to do a proper investigation regardless of what is true.
Gr
Delete"Science doesn't offer proof. Science offers positive supporting evidence."
Except when you call something a fact you are implying it is proven. Since Dawkins is calling something unproven a fact he selling evolution to the public. Why do you think he needs to do this?
Dirt worshipper:
DeleteThe phylogenetic tree produced from the fossil record which very closely matches the phylogenetic tree created independently by the genetic record is exceptionally strong positive evidence for common descent.
Nonsense. It is exceptionally strong evidence for common intelligent design. As any software engineer will tell you, computer programs are descended from previous programs. In fact, this is such a huge part of intelligent software design that the programming tools enforce it. It's called "object oriented design" or OOD, a software design principle whereby programs (or classes) are designed by first inheriting the attributes and functions of previous classes before adding new functionality.
Go suck a on a rock or something and stop behaving like an idiot.
Bill Cole
ReplyDeleteExcept when you call something a fact you are implying it is proven.
We refer to something as a fact when it has been demonstrated true beyond all reasonable doubt. The fact of evolution over deep time has been so demonstrated. Again, too bad if the ID-Creationists go boo hoo hoo over it.
GR
ReplyDelete"We refer to something as a fact when it has been demonstrated true beyond all reasonable doubt. "
Can you name any other time in the history of science that a theory has been turned into a fact without direct evidence?
This lack of integrity is why you are practicing scientism.
Bill Cole
ReplyDeleteCan you name any other time in the history of science that a theory has been turned into a fact without direct evidence?
(facepalm) No one said the theory is a fact. That evolution over deep time has occurred is an empirically observed fact. The theory is the proposed mechanisms which explain the observed fact.
Your lack of integrity in playing these childish bait-and-switch word games is why you are a Creationist.
BC: "Can you name any other time in the history of science that a theory has been turned into a fact without direct evidence?"
ReplyDeleteWhat theory are you referring to? Evolution is an observable fact. Evolutionary theory is a theory that attempts to define the mechanisms underlying the observed facts. And there is tons of evidence that support the proposed mechanisms.
Gravity is an observable fact. Newton's theory of gravity describes a mechanism to explain it. With plenty of evidence to support it.
The concepts of fact and theory are very simple.
Evolution is an observable fact.
DeleteThere you go again ...
Do you guys have actually an answer to this question ? Why would the Creator bestow "two horns on the African rhinoceroses and only one on the Indian species" ?
ReplyDeleteThe evolutionary thesis would advance that a second horn provides a selective advantage or it's just due to some random changes.
What would ID make of that?
the creator didn't make horns aplenty rhinos. in fact i think the rhino is only a post flood adaptation of some less impressive creature.
DeleteThe horns would be from some mechanism not much different then human colours.
It could be sexual selection of chance mutation or rather show how easily biological change happened soon after the flood based on health in biology.
WS
ReplyDelete"What theory are you referring to? Evolution is an observable fact. "
Can you describe how you have observed it?
I don't see any trilobites or dinosaurs today. The flu virus is constantly changing. We have very good fossil lineages for the horse, the whale and numerous other species.
DeleteWillam,
Delete"I don't see any trilobites or dinosaurs today. The flu virus is constantly changing. We have very good fossil lineages for the horse, the whale and numerous other species."
That trilobites and 'dinosaurs' may have become extinct is not evidence of evolution, it is only evidence for the fact these creatures once existed and now do not.
As for 'fossil lineages', they are only evidence of common traits. Any argument for common ancestry is based on presupposition and conjecture.
Can you describe how you have observed it?
ReplyDeleteSome of the strong positive evidence observed was already described above. If you weren't so lazy and/or disingenuous you could find more such evidence yourself with a 30 second Goggle search. But as a Creationist you are lazy and/or disingenuous.
Hi Cornelius, this paper wrote by an expert in the field called my attention.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00239-015-9727-3
ReplyDelete