Not Even Wrong
This week one of the top scientific journals in the world published what would seem to be a ground breaking paper. The paper claims to have found evidence for the independent evolution of nervous system similarities across the Bilateria. As the abstract explains:Our findings … suggest that the similarities in dorsoventral patterning and trunk neuroanatomies evolved independently in Bilateria.
By the end of the manuscript the authors are even more confident:
Therefore, the expression of dorsoventral transcription factors evolved independently from the trunk neuroanatomy at least in certain bilaterian lineages
This is a monumental claim, but there is only one problem: It is blatantly false. The paper’s findings did not “suggest” the evolution, independent or otherwise, of the transcription factor expression patterns. They certainly did not demonstrate, show or find such an incredible conclusion.
It would be difficult to overstate how misleading this paper is. It provided literally zero evidence for any such evolution. Nothing. Nada.
There simply is no such scientific evidence in the paper. The claim that they found that the expression of dorsoventral transcription factors evolved independently in certain bilaterian lineages is not even wrong.
Let’s be clear about this. I am not saying their claim is weak. I am not saying their claim is faulty. I am not saying they failed to make their case conclusively. The problem is they don’t have any case at all.
We cannot criticize the science because, well, there is no science. For a paper entitled “Convergent evolution of bilaterian nerve cords,” one would have expected at least some evidence and explanation for the evolution of bilaterian nerve cords.
Unfortunately papers such as this inform journalists and science writers. They report that scientists have now discovered yet another aspect of evolution. It is yet another example of how science proves evolution.
In fact, if one is looking for a meaningful takeaway, what the study did find is that the expectations of evolution—that nervous system similarities would align with the evolutionary tree—turned out to be, like so many other of evolution’s predictions—false. But that doesn’t fit the narrative.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
I look forward to your rebuttal paper in Nature where you show how they managed to publish a scientific study which has zero science in it.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you'll get right on it the second Tuesday of next week. :D
Why don't you enlighten us on the scientific evidence for the independent evolution of nervous systems. Or maybe darwinism is a science free zone where the fairytale is assumed, just sprinkle a few nerve cells and throw in some time and poof out pops a full blown brain and nervous system. I don't understand why anyone would not accept such solid rational scientific evidence for darwinian evolution.
DeleteI will give you credit though. You are well recognized in the community as an expert in science-free writing.
ReplyDeleteAlways impressive.
DeleteCornelius, although we will probably never agree on anything to do with science, I wish you and your family a merry Christmas.
ReplyDeleteI also wish a merry Christmas to Nic, wherever you are.
Cornelius, although we will probably never agree on anything to do with science,...
DeleteThat is because you don't know anything about science.
Thank you WS. And right back at you.
DeleteWilliam,
DeleteThat's me over there.
Though I have been silent for a while I have been watching. I too wish to extend to everyone here a Merry Christmas and a prosperous, safe and happy New Year.
Joe G,
Delete"That is because you don't know anything about science."
Not appropriate, Joe. William is simply showing he is mature enough to realise there are things more important in life than scoring points in a debate. Things that unite us a people. There is a time to concentrate on those things and set aside the things that divide us. Christmas is such a time. Enjoy it.
LoL! @ Nic- Willie doesn't score any points as it always loses.
DeleteChristmas? You mean the celebration that Christians took from pagans and made it their own?
Doesn't the fact that Jesus was NOT born on December 25 mean anything to you?
Joe G,
Delete"Doesn't the fact that Jesus was NOT born on December 25 mean anything to you?"
Not at all, should it mean something?
Only Joke Gallien can take a sincere Christmas greeting and turn it into an insult.
DeleteFor a big fat bloke Joke G is such a small small man.
Ghostrider,
DeleteWhat is funny about Joe's comment is the fact we do not know for sure what day or year Christ was born, so exactly how does he know it was not December 25th?
Have a very Merry Christmas, Ghostrider and a happy and prosperous New Year.
Nic:
DeleteWhat is funny about Joe's comment is the fact we do not know for sure what day or year Christ was born, so exactly how does he know it was not December 25th?
Read the Bible. It is easy to figure out from that.
The only reason we celebrate Jesus' birth on December 25th is because the Church wanted to usurp the pagan's solstice celebration.
Joe G,
Delete"the Church wanted to usurp the pagan's solstice celebration."
Their intention was not to usurp the holiday, it was to celebrate Christ's birth without fear of detection as others would be busy with their pagan celebrations.
Have a Merry Christmas, Joe.
Why would they fear detection seeing that the Emperor was a Christian?
DeleteThe first recorded date of Christmas being celebrated on December 25th was in 336, during the time of the Roman Emperor Constantine (he was the first Christian Roman Emperor).
https://www.whychristmas.com/customs/25th.shtml
Merry Christmas back at you- mine will be white and I won't be shoveling until Tuesday
and:
DeleteThe most loudly touted theory about the origins of the Christmas date(s) is that it was borrowed from pagan celebrations. The Romans had their mid-winter Saturnalia festival in late December; barbarian peoples of northern and western Europe kept holidays at similar times. To top it off, in 274 C.E., the Roman emperor Aurelian established a feast of the birth of Sol Invictus (the Unconquered Sun), on December 25. Christmas, the argument goes, is really a spin-off from these pagan solar festivals. According to this theory, early Christians deliberately chose these dates to encourage the spread of Christmas and Christianity throughout the Roman world: If Christmas looked like a pagan holiday, more pagans would be open to both the holiday and the God whose birth it celebrated.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/how-december-25-became-christmas/
Sounds like a usurping to me
Joe,
Delete"Sounds like a usurping to me"
Suit yourself.
Yes, Constantine converted to Christianity but the vast portion of the population remained pagan for many decades afterwards. Maybe you should read some history rather than simply posting links to it. :)
Yes, Constantine converted to Christianity but the vast portion of the population remained pagan for many decades afterwards.
DeleteRight, that is why they wanted Christmas to coincide with the pagan celebration. Then eventually Christmas just took over, as they planned.
Amen. this article is making the case ONCE MORE that similarity exists in nature beyond coming from a branching tree.YES
ReplyDeletethis is because common design would have such a design.
these researches actually are evidence for common design.
Yes they must ONCE MORE invoke convergent evolution because regular evolution flops.
The more smarter we get about biology the more.I PREDICT, will convergent evolution need to be invoked.
Yes its like biological systems are from a thinking being using common laws to rule biology.
Like in physics. probably same guy.
RB: "Yes they must ONCE MORE invoke convergent evolution because regular evolution flops."
DeleteNo, we involve convergent evolution because there are only so many ways to obtain similar functionality.
So many ways seems a lot of ways!
DeleteAnyways
Convergent evolution is constantly needed these days because they find results, similarity, where regular evolution would not do it.
Many problems with this for another time.
Yet it shows a curve in investigation. A new direction .
The smarter things are researched the more old time evolution flops.
Convergent evolution was not the first choice, or desired, but instead plan B.
Yet the rejection of common design , as a option, would predict this curve in modern research.
In fact convergent evolution is very unlikely.
More then old time evolution wHICH is very unlikely.
Common design by the great creator using basic blueprints, involved but still fixed, is very likely.
I think evolutionism is rapidly becoming intellectual untenable.
Not step by step but in leaps.
RB, your lack of understanding of what convergent evolution is astounding. You argue that a shark and dolphin look similar because of common design. Completely ignoring the fact that physics places limits on how to move quickly through water.
DeleteLet’s examine examples of common design. The carburetor and fuel injector both introduce fuel and air to the engine in a precise mix yet share no common design. Incandescent, fluorescent and LED lights all produce the same wavelengths of light yet share no common design.
It seems that design is full of examples of the same function performed by completely different (not convergent) designs.
DeleteLet’s examine examples of common design.
Cars- all gas powered cars have engines that are fed fuel- they all have wheels and tires. They all have starters and alternators- the list goes on.
Houses- if built to the same building code will have many common designs starting at the spacing of the wall studs.
PCs- All have the same internal hardware architecture
Don’t forget about toasters.
DeleteEven the instruction manual for any toaster is over your head
DeleteI'm impressed that someone with a PhD in biophysics and computational biology would think that an article in the primary literature should start with the evidence for evolution, from Darwin and Wallace to today, instead of focusing on the hypothesis the authors were aiming for.
ReplyDeleteGabriel:
Deleteshould start with the evidence for evolution, from Darwin and Wallace to today
If they had, it would have been impossible for them to arrive at those conclusions.
"It seems that design is full of examples of the same function performed by completely different (not convergent) designs."
ReplyDeleteThen similarities do not means common origin i.e. similarities do not means evolution.
“Then similarities do not means common origin i.e. similarities do not means evolution.“
DeleteYou are correct. Similarities alone do not mean common origin or evolution.
Similarities are evidence for a common design. And we have direct observations of and experience with common designs.
DeleteWhat Common Descent has to account for but cannot are the anatomical and physiological DIFFERENCES observed between two allegedly related populations like chimps and humans. And because of that the concept is untestable and out of the realm of science.
You know you're right, Dr. Hunter. However, the paper does do a good job of proving that similarities in bilateria did not evolve from a common ancestor.
ReplyDelete:-)
DeleteBeing an evolutionist means that even falsified predictions prove your theory.