“The Convictions of a Monkey’s Mind”
After discussing Richard Lenski’s long term experiment (LTEE), Baraniuk steps back to discuss the role of genes in evolution. Here is what he has to say:
Over the last century scientists have catalogued the genes from different species. It turns out that all living things store information in their DNA in the same way: they all use the same "genetic code".
What's more, organisms also share many genes. Thousands of genes found in human DNA may also be found in the DNA of other creatures, including plants and even bacteria.
These two facts imply that all modern life has descended from a single common ancestor, the "last universal ancestor", which lived billions of years ago.
So, to paraphrase, we have two premises and a conclusion. The premises are:
P1: All living things store information in their DNA in the same way.
P2: Organisms also share many genes.
And the conclusion is:
C1: All modern life has descended from a single common ancestor.
It would be wrong to say this is a false claim. When we say that someone has made a false claim, the implication is that, while wrong, there was at least some logical reasoning present, some logical thread to follow. A false claim is a claim that starts with some evidence and in the process of getting to the conclusion, fouls up in some sort of an observable way. There was a stumble in an otherwise, at least somewhat, logical train of thought. We can at least see what the fellow was getting at. We can sympathize a bit, and reconstruct his attempt, and fix if for him, at least as best as we can. It may still be a hopeless argument, but at least we can see where he was going.
For the evolutionist there is no train of thought—no logical reasoning present. It is closer to, ironically, what Darwin described as “the convictions of a monkey's mind.”
It is complete gibberish.
To say that the conclusion C1 above does not follow from the premises P1 and P2 would be like saying your pet dog failed to beat you at chess when all he did was barf all over the board. Your dog not only failed to beat you, he didn’t even play the game.
It is not that evolutionists make a few mistakes here and there in an otherwise well thought out attempt. It is that they completely fail to provide anything remotely resembling a scientific argument for their Epicurean conviction that the entire biological world (and everything else for that matter), arose by itself.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
You are always so hung up on the logical arrangements of words and their definitions, yet you state that he was making a claim without supporting evidence. In fact, he merely stated that those two premises imply common ancestry. Which they do. They could also imply common design or continuous intervention by an all-powerful being. The strength of the argument comes from supporting evidence.
ReplyDeleteWhat supporting evidence do you have for ID? Have you, or any ID proponent, proposed the mechanisms by which these "designs" are realized? Have you, or any ID proponent, proposed the nature of the designer? Have you, or any ID proponent, tested these theories?
Evolutionary theory does all of this. And does it quite well.
For example, in addition to the two premises mentioned above, we know that mutations in DNA occur with every generation. We know that this can and has resulted in new and/or modified functionality. We know that comparisons of DNA and proteins amongst extant species closely resembles comparisons that have been based on comparative anatomy. We know that fossils are arranged chronologically in the rock strata. We know that we can date these strata. We know in what strata to look for transition fossils that fall between two similar fossils of different age (i.e., we don't look for rabbits in the pre-cambrian). We know the positions of land masses throughout the past and this matches quite well with the types of fossils and extant organisms found geographically.
There are many things that we do not yet have knowledge of. But gaps in knowledge is not the same thing as strong evidence for ID.
We know that fossils are arranged chronologically in the rock strata.
DeleteWith new species "appearing as though they were planted there."
"
DeleteWith new species "appearing as though they were planted there.""
And also several fairly continuous lineages (eg. horse, whale and others). But regardless. What we know about evolution and fossilization, we would expect the continuous and granular fossil record to be the exception, not the rule.
"P1: All living things store information in their DNA in the same way."
ReplyDeleteAlso, P1 is false and is known to be false.
"We can sympathize a bit, and reconstruct his attempt, and fix if for him, at least as best as we can."
ReplyDeleteHow would you fix this then? Would you care to offer an alternative conclusion or hypothesis? Or different premises?
I notice you accidentally forgot to include the further clarifying paragraph from the article
ReplyDelete"By comparing how many genes organisms share, we can figure out how they are related. For instance, humans share more genes with apes like chimps and gorillas than other animals, as much as 96%. That suggests they are our closest relatives."
So it's not just the fact we share genes with other organisms, it's the distinct nested hierarchical pattern of sharing that makes this piece of evidence so strong.
I've never understood why Creationists who supposedly are men of God so often turn into compulsive liars when trying to attack evolution.
Oh we'll be getting to that. Nice own goal though.
DeleteP1: All information for all life was contained in DNA at the origin of life.
ReplyDeleteC2: Thete is a super intelligent creator, Iow God.
P1: All information for all life is contained in DNA.
ReplyDeleteC2: Thete is a super intelligent creator, Iow God.
Hi Peter.
DeleteWhy does the creator have to be the Abrahamic god? Couldn't it be something nobody has thought of?