Thursday, December 24, 2009

Is Design Theory Scientific? A Case Study

Evolutionists often say design theory does not qualify as legitimate science because it is not strictly naturalistic. Science, they say, must rigidly adhere to methodological naturalism, and restrict all explanations and causes to natural processes. This naturalism mandate renders evolutionists vulnerable to charges of (i) atheism and (ii) stacking the deck. Is not the naturalism-only mandate an obvious sign of atheists at work and, furthermore, is it not simply a ploy to define competing theories as unacceptable to begin with? Actually, no. Certainly some evolutionists are atheists, and perhaps some evolutionists stack the deck when they argue, but neither of these are entailed in arguments for evolution--the problems with the naturalism-only mandate are far more severe.

To understand the problems with the naturalism-only mandate, one must understand just what is being mandated. Some evolutionists appear to make the bare assertion that only rigidly naturalistic explanations can qualify as genuine science. As wiith most bare assertions this one doesn't work very well. For instance, it is easily countered by the bare assertion that rigidly naturalistic explanations are not required for genuine science (so there!). Some design critics, such as Taner Edis, warn evolutionists against making such an assertion for it does not allow for design theory to be rejected by according to the evidence.

But more thoughtful evolutionists, such as Joe Felsenstein, provide an underlying reason for the mandate. Felsenstein explains:

what he has just done is to admit that the hypothesis of a Designer is not science, as it predicts every possible result. If you predict every possible outcome, the ones that are seen and the ones that are not, then you have not predicted anything! ...

If there are none, then the Design he speaks of is an infinitely flexible hypothesis that predicts nothing, and thus is really not a scientific hypothesis at all … which is what I originally said.

In other words, in order to qualify as legitimate science a theory must distinguish between different outcomes. Naturalism is needed because otherwise each outcome is equally probable and the theory is not true science.

Deciding what does and does not qualify as legitimate science is notoriously difficult. There seem to be exceptions to every rule. But perhaps Felsenstein's criterion is reasonable. Shouldn't a scientific theory say at least something about the probabilities of what we might observe in the data?

Evolutionists say this test shows their theory to be the perfect model of true science. Consider, for example, the recurrent laryngeal nerve. As evolutionist Jerry Coyne explains:

The reason why the recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example, makes a big detour around the aorta before attaching to the larynx is perfectly understandable by evolution (the nerve and artery used to line up, but the artery evolved backwards, constraining the nerve to move with it)

In other words, historical contingencies and constraints play an important role in evolutionary explanations. Today's designs are not independent of their history. When we see obvious similarities between species evolutionists make the historical connections.

But special creation and design theory have no such basis from which to draw. Designs are independent. God could have created the species in any fashion, so there is no way to distinguish outcomes. Are not all designs equiprobable? As Coyne explains, the recurrent laryngeal nerve

makes no sense under the idea of special creation ... No form of creationism/intelligent design can explain these imperfections

Evolutionists use such examples to argue that their theory is scientific whereas creation and design are not. Now let's look at the facts.

These claims of evolutionists are false and hypocritical. Evolution does not distinguish different outcomes for the recurrent laryngeal nerve. When incredibly fantastic, mind boggling designs are found, they ascribe the wonder to natural selection. When similarities between species are found, they ascribe them to historical contingencies.

And evolutionists have a seemingly never ending list of mechanisms they use to explain everything in between. Whatever we find in biology, evolutionists say it must have evolved. Their predictions and expectations are often falsified and they have to patch their theory repeatedly. And there is no distinction between a new, fantastic design and a repeated design--both are equiprobable under evolution.

If a new, fantastic design appears such as the trilobite eye, then evolutionists ascribe it to natural selection. If similar designs are found in different species, then it is ascribed to common descent. If later cousin species are found to lack the design, then common descent can be dropped as an explanation and the design can be said to have evolved independently. The evolutionary explanation is extremely flexible.

If distinguishing between outcomes is the hallmark of true science, then evolution is the theory that doesn't qualify.

As for design theory, while it does not rule out historical contingency as a possible explanation it, in any case, looks for a rationale for what we find in nature. The more probable outcomes are functional designs that require planning, foresight, mechanisms, and so forth. Design theory tries to figure out how nature works rather than viewing it as a fluke and accident of history. And the history of science is squarely on its side. Over and over evolutionary expectations that nature is a fluke are overruled by the evidence. Over and over we find function and fantastic designs which make no sense under evolution.

How do you want to do science? Do you want to constrain every explanation to an improbable theory, or do you want to figure out how nature works without a priori theoretical constraint?

34 comments:

  1. Dr. Hunter,

    This is Steve Gann,

    I have not yet had the opportunity to discuss the scientificness of Design as my audience is already convinced of that. But I was wondering, how do you think the argument unfold if the opponent was presented with the fact that science is both descriptive and explanatory?

    Let's say for the sake of argument the Theistic ID person grants we will never know how God *poofed* things into existance. So, no explanation of such poofing can be formed. That is only half of the scientific enterprise. What about the descriptive aspects?

    -We can determine if biochemical components are complex and contigent.

    -We can discover Chicken & Egg scenarios.

    What have you experienced with this line of reasoning?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve:

    I think these are good points, though you might go further with them and introduce the historical versus experimental sciences distinction.

    I wonder if this distinction should receive more attention in the origins debate, and in particular it seems ID fits better in the latter and evolution in the former. There are IDers who think about the former, and evolutionists certainly claim their theory is essential for the latter. But I think these are weak spots for the respective ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It seems to me that the problem with Felsenstein's critique is that he is relying on a strawman argument. He is not accurately describing what Design theory is attempting to do. Design theory is intended to differentiate between complex patterns and those which are designed. For example, the structure of a snowflake can be beautiful and complex, but vastly different from an ice sculpture. Design theory does not try to describe who created the ice scuplture, or to list all the possible ice sculptures, but to explain what is the essential difference betweeen a snowflake and an ice sculpture. The ice scuplture is extreamely improbable and serves a accomplish some goal. I certainly am not convinced by Felsenstein's critique. An old adage says that you can judge a person by the company he keeps. Felsenstein I think is quite at home with the intellectual light weights at Panda's thumb.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ??? Okay, I'm obviously missing something here...

    You make the point quite clearly in your OP that many people think Design theory is not scientific because it is not falsifiable. If your theory covers every possible outcome, then it has no predictive power and thus is not testable. It is not science.

    Is Design theory falsifiable? If so, what evidence do you think could falsify it?

    Contrary to what you seem to claim here, the theory of evolution through natural selection is highly falsifiable. The tree of life/relatedness predicted by common descent (all but absolutely verified by the DNA and fossil record) didn't HAVE to be true. The fact that it is does not make evolution through natural selection less falsifiable - it just points towards it being correct!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ritchie:

    "Is Design theory falsifiable? If so, what evidence do you think could falsify it?"

    Well for starters plausible evolutionary explanations would certainly do the job.

    "Contrary to what you seem to claim here, the theory of evolution through natural selection is highly falsifiable. The tree of life/relatedness predicted by common descent (all but absolutely verified by the DNA and fossil record)"

    You just demonstrated my point. You said evolution is highly falsifiable and then pointed to falsifying evidence and made the false claim that it supports evolution. See www.DarwinsPredictions.com.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Well for starters plausible evolutionary explanations would certainly do the job."

    Cute. But in actual fact, incorrect. It would not.

    A lot of proponents of design theory and creationism insist that their theory and the theory of evolution by natural selection are the only two explainations for the diversity of life on Earth, and then set about trying to pick holes in the theory of evolution by natural selection to try to show that their theory is correct by default.

    This method is thoroughly unscientific and as far as I can see, an attempt of obfuscate the fact that there is little or no scientific evidence for design theory.

    A theory must explain the relevant evidence itself. Regardless of whether or not a competing theory can. The more evidence it can account for (that is, the more predictions a theory makes which turn out to be correct), the more solid the theory.

    In other words, design theory must make testable predictions FOR ITSELF, and not just criticise (accurately or not) competing theories.

    In short, criticism of evolution by natural selection does not count as positive evidence for design theory.

    "You just demonstrated my point. You said evolution is highly falsifiable and then pointed to falsifying evidence and made the false claim that it supports evolution."

    I'm sorry to say I cannot follow that link. It says 'invalid'. Is it spelt correctly?

    A shame because I would really like to know what DNA or fossil evidence you think contradicts the theory of evolution by natural selection.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ritchie:

    "I'm sorry to say I cannot follow that link. It says 'invalid'. Is it spelt correctly?"

    It works fine for me. Perhaps you should try again:

    http://www.darwinspredictions.com/

    Also, you can get to it by clicking on the 2nd link given at my blog (on the right hand side where it says "Survey of failed evolutionary predictions". Please let me know if you still have trouble. Thanks,

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ah yes, just got it working. I was obviously being a numptie. :)

    Right, I'll have a rummage through this, but while I do, I'll have to refer you back to my original point - even if this all turns out to be correct (and I've only skimmed it and can spot a couple of errors already!) then it still does not provide any positive evidence for design theory.

    Criticism of one theory is not positive evidence for another. Do you have any positive evidence for design theory?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ritchie:

    "In short, criticism of evolution by natural selection does not count as positive evidence for design theory. [...] Criticism of one theory is not positive evidence for another."

    So you're saying a theory stands (or falls) on its own? That we can come to conclusions about how good a theory is by just looking at that theory, without reference to other competing theories?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dr. Hunter,

    As you and I have discussed before, abiogenesis and the principle of continuity are mandated by Methodological Naturalism (MN) and Uniformitarianism (UF).

    Is the argument for Design compatible within these axioms? What I mean is, the issue is contigent, purposeful complexity (design) vs. necessary, nonpurposeful complexity. No mention of a designER is needed. The designer could have preprogrammed the laws to develope life as we know it.

    I ask this because it seems like the "Is design science?" debate seems to scramble these metaphysical levels.

    A design protagonist says "object X shows contingent, purposeful complexity." as positive evidence, but then is rebuffed with "What evidence is there for a designer?" (I am not saying this has been used on this blog thread...just in general.)

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is nonsense. Your whole counterargument seems to be "since evolution is not falsified by certain things I can think of, it is therefore unfalsifiable."

    But evolution isn't unfalsifiable. For instance, the absence of self-similar layers of patterns at either the phenotypic or genotpyic levels would falsify the theory, as would the lack of consistent chronology in the geologic strata.

    By contrast, intelligent design offers no testable predictions. Everything and nothing is explained by intelligent design.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "So you're saying a theory stands (or falls) on its own? That we can come to conclusions about how good a theory is by just looking at that theory, without reference to other competing theories?"

    Precisely.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ritchie:

    ===
    "So you're saying a theory stands (or falls) on its own? That we can come to conclusions about how good a theory is by just looking at that theory, without reference to other competing theories?"

    Precisely.
    ====

    Well that makes sense to me. Do you agree that evolution is not a very good theory?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Well that makes sense to me. Do you agree that evolution is not a very good theory?"

    I do not agree. I think evolution by natural selection is indeed backed up by evidence and stands on its own. Can the same be said of design theory?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ritchie:

    "I do not agree. I think evolution by natural selection is indeed backed up by evidence and stands on its own."

    But evolution has substantial scientific problems. So when evolutionists say it is backed up by the evidence, though it obviously is not, I realize they are not making theory-neutral judgments about the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "But evolution has substantial scientific problems. So when evolutionists say it is backed up by the evidence, though it obviously is not, I realize they are not making theory-neutral judgments about the evidence."

    I follow your logic there. But allow me to suggest it is your belief that evolution has substancial scientific problems which is flawed, not evolution.

    Nevertheless, happy as I would be to discuss the merits and apparent (to you) flaws of evolution with you, for the moment I'd like to point out that you seem to be dodging my point.

    What is the positive supporting evidence for design theory?

    Without any, you cannot claim design theory is scientific.

    It seems ironic, given the subject of this post, that in absense of evidence for design theory you just want to discuss the evidence for evolution, thus demonstrating the point I am making. Design theory must stand or fall on its own, no matter how good or bad the evidence for evolution is.

    (back tomorrow)

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Steve:

    "As you and I have discussed before, abiogenesis and the principle of continuity are mandated by Methodological Naturalism (MN) and Uniformitarianism (UF).

    Is the argument for Design compatible within these axioms?"

    Well yes, I think it is.



    "I ask this because it seems like the "Is design science?" debate seems to scramble these metaphysical levels."

    It quickly can become confusing because folks are operating both from their own (i) philosophies of science and demarkation criteria and (ii) definitions of design. So it is difficult to advance the discussion much.

    But I think a benefit of design theory is simply the removal of the rationalist, evolutionary constraints and blinders. Design science levies very few rules, but it does free one up to figure out how nature works without being forced to link all findings back to a silly origins myth.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ritchie:

    ==========
    A theory must explain the relevant evidence itself. Regardless of whether or not a competing theory can. The more evidence it can account for (that is, the more predictions a theory makes which turn out to be correct), the more solid the theory.

    In other words, design theory must make testable predictions FOR ITSELF,
    ==========

    Well I don't think design theory can predict (or retrodict as the case may be) why and where, for instance, frogs show up in the history of life.

    So I'm afraid it isn't very scientific according to your criterion. Of course a slew of other research programs also would fall outside of science on your view, such as SETI and, oh by the way, evolution.



    "I follow your logic there. But allow me to suggest it is your belief that evolution has substancial scientific problems which is flawed, not evolution."

    How so? The many failed predictions of evolution are not controversial. How can a theory produce so many failed predictions without harm?


    "What is the positive supporting evidence for design theory?"

    Programmed cell death
    Genetic code design
    Protein coding segments in non coding DNA regions
    Non Genetic Protein Translation Mechanisms
    Biosonar
    Light polarization control
    RNA repair systems
    DNA repair systems
    DNA positioning in the nucleus
    Biological clocks
    Cell division and polarity
    Plant defenses
    Cellular immune systems
    Teeth materials
    Epigenetics
    Protein synthesis
    Action potential propagation
    DNA rewriting during development
    Photosynthesis


    "Without any, you cannot claim design theory is scientific."

    Why is that?


    "It seems ironic, given the subject of this post, that in absense of evidence for design theory you just want to discuss the evidence for evolution"

    Well you brought up evolution and I responded.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Well I don't think design theory can predict (or retrodict as the case may be) why and where, for instance, frogs show up in the history of life.

    So I'm afraid it isn't very scientific according to your criterion."

    Here we agree. And for this reason, design theory is simply not science. It cannot be tested because it makes no predictions, and it explains every possible outcome. A theory which predicts anything explains nothing.

    Design theory is, in short, not science.

    "Of course a slew of other research programs also would fall outside of science on your view, such as SETI and, oh by the way, evolution."

    ??? SETI is not a theory. It is a programme. It is a group of people who Search for Extra-Terristrial Intelligence. If you want to describe it in terms of science, it is one big experiment. To test the hypothesis that intelligent life exists on other planets.

    And as for evolution, here is a very brief list of evidence which supports it:

    THE GENE - It was a specific prediction of evolution is that children inherit specific traits from their parents. This is something we take for granted these days, but it was not at all an established fact in 1859. For evolution to be true, there needed to be a specific vehicle by which parents pass on their biological information to their children. This was a prediction vindicated by Gregor Mendel's law of the independent assortment of heriditary particles. Written in 1866, it was inititally ignored, to be rediscovered and become the basis of an entire branch of science - genetics.

    GENE SEQUENCES - If common descent is correct then descendents of shared ancestors inherit the genes of those ancestors. Again, this fundamental principle of evolution has been verified. Genetics shows us a tree of life - of relatedness between all species on Earth, which all share exactly the same building blocks: DNA.

    FOSSIL RECORD - The pattern of the fossil record is a statistically unlikely prediction. It necessitates a particular pattern. Yet it is a pattern which is indeed real. Species do not suddenly appear out of nowhere. The fossil record clearly shows how huge animal groups (for example, mammals) come from a shared ancestor. Again we take this as obvious, but that's because we know with hindsight that it is correct. It didn't have to be. We could have all sorts of animals popping up here and there throughout history from nowhere. But we don't. We can trace, for example, mammals back to a specific time in history before which we find absolutely none. If a single fossil were ever to be discovered in the wrong place (the famous 'rabbit in the Cambrian'), the whole theory would come crashing down. But in all the thousands of fossils we have, I know of none which contradict the pattern absolutely necessary for natural selection. And if such a fossil did exist, there are people who would make it their business to make such discoveries widely known.

    ...

    ReplyDelete
  21. ...

    COMPARATIVE ANATOMY - Linked to genetics. Animals share the characteristics of common ancestors. Every amphibian, reptile, mammal and bird, for example, share the same arrangement of bones. This can be further broken downwhen we look at more recent common ancestors - all mammals share a skeleton which is more similar, all rodents share a skeleton which is more similar still, etc.

    GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION - If two specific species descended from a common ancestor, then they cannot possibly live in two utterly seperate and inaccessible places. Every species of lemurs, for example, live on Madagascar. Why? Because a common ancestor of them all lived there. Caves often have unique ecosystems. Speciation patterns again provide positive evidence for evolution.

    WITNESS - The last point I will raise is that we can witness evoltuion in action before our eyes!

    http://www.physorg.com/news127667797.html

    http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

    This post is getting long so I will stop here.

    Quite impressive for a theory 'unsupported by the evidence'.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "The many failed predictions of evolution are not controversial. How can a theory produce so many failed predictions without harm?"

    The number of failed predictions a theory makes does not matter nearly as much as the number of verified predictions a theory makes. A good theory is one that explains a lot of data - that is, one which makes a high number of verified predictions. Not one which makes a low number of failured predictions.

    The theory of evolution basically underpins the whole of modern biology. In a theory this large and influential, of course there will be many predictions made, which assumes the truth of evolution, which will turn out to be wrong. This hardly reflects on the truth of evolution though.

    "Programmed cell death
    Genetic code design
    ...
    DNA rewriting during development
    Photosynthesis"

    How do any of these positively support design theory?

    " - Without any, you cannot claim design theory is scientific.

    - Why is that?"

    A scientific theory must be supported by evidence. Without any, it is speculation. A mere hypothesis.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Wow, I apolgise for the appaling grammar in my last post. That'll teach me to proof-read!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ritchie....the number of failed predictions is much more important that you think. This is the way you know a theory is not just a useful fiction. The Ptolemaic model of the cosmos made very accurate predictions for over a 1000 years before being replaced. In the end, it was not what it could predict, but what it failed to predict that made the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ritchie:

    "http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html"

    I responded to this in a new post, which I have. More later on your other points.

    ReplyDelete
  26. In comment #3 of this thread, "Peter" said:

    "It seems to me that the problem with Felsenstein's critique is that he is relying on a strawman argument. He is not accurately describing what Design theory is attempting to do. Design theory is intended to differentiate between complex patterns and those which are designed. For example, the structure of a snowflake can be beautiful and complex, but vastly different from an ice sculpture. Design theory does not try to describe who created the ice scuplture, or to list all the possible ice sculptures, but to explain what is the essential difference betweeen a snowflake and an ice sculpture. The ice scuplture is extreamely improbable and serves a accomplish some goal. I certainly am not convinced by Felsenstein's critique. An old adage says that you can judge a person by the company he keeps. Felsenstein I think is quite at home with the intellectual light weights at Panda's thumb."

    I would be interested to know how you think design theory detects design. I believe I understand how William Dembski's Design Inference works -- it basically detects patterns that are too good (on some scale, and the relevant one here is fitness) to have occurred by a purely random process such as mutation (unaffected by natural selection), even once in the history of the universe. No one would argue that the ability of birds to fly could just have happened by random mutation.

    What has he then detected? Either design or natural selection, I would say. Dembski does not think so. He believes that his Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information shows that natural selection cannot improve fitness. I have argued in a response at the Reports of the National Center for Science Education, which can be read here, that his version of the theorem will not do the job he wants it to do, since he has to change the specification in midstream.

    Take a look at that. You should be able to comprehend it easily, as it was written by and for us lightweights at Panda's Thumb.

    Then let us all know what is wrong with my argument. If nothing is wrong with my rebuttal to Dembski, then design theory does not in fact detect design, just design-or-natural-selection.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ritchie:

    THE GENE - It was a specific prediction of evolution is that children inherit specific traits from their parents. This is something we take for granted these days, but it was not at all an established fact in 1859. For evolution to be true, there needed to be a specific vehicle by which parents pass on their biological information to their children. This was a prediction vindicated by Gregor Mendel's law of the independent assortment of heriditary particles. Written in 1866, it was inititally ignored, to be rediscovered and become the basis of an entire branch of science - genetics.

    False. Evolution's predictions regarding inheritance were fuzzy. In fact Darwin's ideas on inheritance turned out wrong and, tellngly, Mendel's work (which actually was useful) was ignored for several decades. Yes, evolution needed some form of inheritance, but that had been known long before Darwin got in a boat and went anywhere. Mendel's finding create the existence problem, and the associated false prediction of evolution. See:
    http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_5.1_Mechanisms_of



    GENE SEQUENCES - If common descent is correct then descendents of shared ancestors inherit the genes of those ancestors. Again, this fundamental principle of evolution has been verified. Genetics shows us a tree of life - of relatedness between all species on Earth, which all share exactly the same building blocks: DNA.

    False, this has not been verified but rather has been falsified. This is not controversial. Even evolutionists are going easy on the tree of life model. True, this is a fundamental principle, but it has long since been falsified. See:
    http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_4.2_Genomes_of
    http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_4.3_Genomes_of

    ReplyDelete
  28. Ritchie:

    FOSSIL RECORD - The pattern of the fossil record is a statistically unlikely prediction. It necessitates a particular pattern. Yet it is a pattern which is indeed real. Species do not suddenly appear out of nowhere. The fossil record clearly shows how huge animal groups (for example, mammals) come from a shared ancestor. Again we take this as obvious, but that's because we know with hindsight that it is correct. It didn't have to be. We could have all sorts of animals popping up here and there throughout history from nowhere. But we don't. We can trace, for example, mammals back to a specific time in history before which we find absolutely none. If a single fossil were ever to be discovered in the wrong place (the famous 'rabbit in the Cambrian'), the whole theory would come crashing down. But in all the thousands of fossils we have, I know of none which contradict the pattern absolutely necessary for natural selection. And if such a fossil did exist, there are people who would make it their business to make such discoveries widely known.

    False. Species do appear abruptly in the fossil record. All kinds of new phyla appear abruptly in the Cambrian Explosion, for example. Many other "explosions" came later. If anything, the history of life is characterized by various inverse trees: rapid explosions of diversity followed by reductions of that diversity via extinctions. Of course the fossil record does not show that species came "from a shared ancestor." That's absurd. The fossils tell us what was there, not how it got there. Furhtermore, there is no shared ancestor even suggested for many of the forms that rapidly appear. And of course fossils have shown up in the wrong place (eg, trilobites). Evolutionists simply resort to the "missing fossils" explanation or the "rapid evolution" explanation. Theories such as evolution don't come crashing down, that's silly. Most fundamental predictions of evolution turned out false but the theory goes on just fine, thank you. This is not about science.




    COMPARATIVE ANATOMY - Linked to genetics. Animals share the characteristics of common ancestors. Every amphibian, reptile, mammal and bird, for example, share the same arrangement of bones. This can be further broken downwhen we look at more recent common ancestors - all mammals share a skeleton which is more similar, all rodents share a skeleton which is more similar still, etc.

    False. According to evolution animals must shed characteristics, gain new ones, gain identical ones independently, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ritchie:

    GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION - If two specific species descended from a common ancestor, then they cannot possibly live in two utterly seperate and inaccessible places. Every species of lemurs, for example, live on Madagascar. Why? Because a common ancestor of them all lived there. Caves often have unique ecosystems. Speciation patterns again provide positive evidence for evolution.

    False. Fossil species show up in all kinds of odd places (such as the early placental mammal in Australia). The stories are at times, as evolutionist Ernst Mayr once put it, "indeed almost unbelievable."



    WITNESS - The last point I will raise is that we can witness evoltuion in action before our eyes!

    False. See: http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_5.2_Biological_variation


    ====================

    This is not to say the evolution doesn't have some successful predictions. The evidences cited above are, as usual, an extreme exaggeration and a careful filtering out of the negative evidences. But one can come up with some successful predictions. But the dramatic failed predictions of evolution raise serious questions about the theory.

    Evaluating the relative importance and implications of the various predictions is ultimately subjective. Is the theory really bad, somewhat bad, just mediocre, or what? One could have long discussions of just where the theory stands. But evolutionists are far from any such scientific discussion. They insist that evolution is a fact. This claim is so absurd one hardly knows where to start. How does one address claims that make no sense?

    ReplyDelete
  30. THE GENE - The piece you wrote here (at darwinspredictions.com) gives the impression that Gregor Mendel's work proved Darwin's theory wrong. This is absolutely not the case.

    It is true that the idea of 'blending inheritance' was popular (perhaps the pervading) idea of the time. But Darwin's theory necessitates that new genetic variations are passed on and thus accumulate in a species. It is totally at odds with blending inheritance. If traits blended, they could not accumulate as Darwin's theory absolutely requires them to do. Darwin and Mendel's work was absolutely complimentary and it is one of the great mysteries/tragedies of Darwin's life that he never read Mendel's work. Mendel's findings do not falsify Darwin's theory - they verify them!

    GENE SEQUENCES - I am staggered that you think the tree of life has been falsified, and more so that you think this as 'not controversial'.

    The 4.2 section of darwinspredictions seems to be making the extrodinary claim that in closely related species, "... evolution expected that such cousin species would have quite similar genes. There would be no new genes evolved in such a brief time period."

    It is true that the more closely related two species are, the more genes they share. We share more genes with a chimp than with a turtle because our common ancestor with a chimp lived much more recently than ours with a turtle. But that does not mean there would be NO gene differences. There would just be FEWER differences than ours with a turtle. Which is correct. Why on Earth would the theory of evolution through natural selection predict NO new genes in two species seperated by 6 million years? That's absurd.

    As for 4.3, you think evolution through natural selection has been falsified by the fact that "many examples of functionally-unconstrained highly similar stretches of DNA have been discovered in otherwise distant species"? Ummm, why?

    The overall genomes of species would be more distant the further removed two species were, it's true. But two extremely distantly-related species would still have SOME stretches of DNA that were the same. Humans share about 50% of their DNA with bananas. Of course all species will have SOME genes in common. Why? Because we all descend from a common ancestor.

    ReplyDelete
  31. FOSSIL RECORD - I notice your newest post is about the Cambrian Explosion. Since your misconceptions of it are repeated in it, I will address them there (PS, I promise I'm not about to take over your blog like a troll...)

    I do however have to ask why you think trilobites have appeared in the wrong place?

    COMPARATIVE ANATOMY - "False. According to evolution animals must shed characteristics, gain new ones, gain identical ones independently, etc."

    I'm afraid you have demonstrated here that it is your understanding of evolution which is flawed.

    Animals are genetically the accumulation of the sucessful genes of their ancestors.

    Features which become unnecessary (such as back legs on a whale) are indeed gradually lost over time. However this takes an awfully long time, and in the process they become known as vestigial features. The legs of whales have indeed been reduced to little nubs of bone on the skeletal column. These serve no purpose. They are there because they were, in the ancestors of whales, legs.

    Other vestigial features include goosepimples on humans, fur on whale and dolphin embryos, tails on crabs, and webbing on the feet of frigate birds.

    ReplyDelete
  32. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION - "False. Fossil species show up in all kinds of odd places (such as the early placental mammal in Australia)."

    I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying there is no TREND in geographical distribution such as one common descent would predict, or that there a few specific examples off puzzling cases?

    I'm afraid I can't find mention of this placental mammal in Australia (after admittedly only a very search on Google). However, why would the existence of such a thing undermine or falsify evolution through natural selection?

    WITNESS 5.2 seems bizarre too. Firstly it claims the fact that evolution happens quicker than expected falsifies it. Huh? How can that be if no-one stipulates a 'speed' evolution has to function at? The case of the lizards changing their eating habits is a wonderful of example of evolution taking place before our eyes.

    Then it goes on to mention epigenetics. Again, this is not incompatible to the theory of evolution.

    http://web.me.com/christinalrichards/Portfolio/Epigenetics.html

    And then adaptive mutations. These are certainly interesting, but hardly contradict evolution do they? Is the implication that 'random' mutations somehow react to selection pressure and are therefore not quite so 'random'? Let's imagine for a moment this was the case. So what? That notion hardly opposes evolution through natural selection, does it?

    "One could have long discussions of just where the theory stands. But evolutionists are far from any such scientific discussion. They insist that evolution is a fact."

    Defenders of the evolution by natural selection may have become rather dogmatic about insisting the truth of the theory in recent years. But I suspect this is merely in response to those who seek to place Creationism or Intelligent Design as a serious competing theory - particularly in the classroom. Richard Dawkins is particularly vocal about how frustrating it is as a professor to have to constantly fight a rear-guard action against people who challenge fundamental scientific theories out of little more than zealous religious belief. I am not saying this is true in your case, but you must at least admit that the vast majority of people who back Intelligent Design seem to act from religious motivations, not scientific ones.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ritchie:

    "As for 4.3, you think evolution through natural selection has been falsified by the fact that ..."

    Please be careful. Nowhere is the claim made that evolution has been falsified. It is the predictions of evolution that have been falsified.




    "Why on Earth would the theory of evolution through natural selection predict NO new genes in two species seperated by 6 million years? That's absurd."

    Acually, it is not absurd. Evolutionists tout the high similarity between chimp-human homologous genes as powerful evidence because, after all, evolution can only go so fast, but now you are saying evolution can also create completely new genes in the same timeframe?

    Also, you may be interested in this:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/search?q=accelerated



    "I do however have to ask why you think trilobites have appeared in the wrong place?"

    It is not that they appear in the wrong place, it is that the various kinds are in the wrong order. Advanced ones predate simpler ones. Here is a representative quote. You can find much support for this: "I found most of the various kinds [of trilobites], including some unique and advanced ones, present in the earliest known fossil beds." --Niles Eldredge

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Please be careful. Nowhere is the claim made that evolution has been falsified. It is the predictions of evolution that have been falsified."

    Okay, yes that's true. Point taken.
    Although we do still seem to disagree on what predictions evolution makes/made.

    "Evolutionists tout the high similarity between chimp-human homologous genes as powerful evidence because, after all, evolution can only go so fast, but now you are saying evolution can also create completely new genes in the same timeframe?"

    I have never known anyone to claim that humans and chimpanzees are 100% genetically identical. I've heard people say humans are between 95% and 98.5% identical (depending on precisely who you ask, apparently). But this still leaves 1.5% - 5% which is not shared.

    As for the link you cited, could you please explain to me in laymen's terms why exactly HAR's are supposed to be problematic for evolution by natural selection? I'm not a scientist, but it seems to me that if you map out the genome of a species which then splits into two species, the genetic differences will indeed group, won't they? Don't genes have a 'trickle down' effect on other genes? Why should the theory of evolution by natural selection predict that these differences should be spread out evenly?

    As for trilobites, can you be more specific? Which ones are out of order? Which ones appear far earlier than we should expect them to appear, and why?

    Maybe this might help, as a reference:
    http://www.trilobites.info/firsttrilos.htm

    ReplyDelete