Proteins are the cell’s special machines that perform a variety of tasks. Some of them help to regulate the production levels of other proteins by influencing the transcribing of the DNA genes that code for the proteins. New research is investigating how one such transcription factor, GATA-1, works and, as usual, it isn’t simple.Looking at baby red blood cells in mice, the research found the genes that GATA-1 influences are positioned together along the DNA molecule. GATA-1 binds to specific locations along the DNA molecule and genes that cluster around those locations tend to be induced or repressed by the binding of GATA-1. Genes not in these clusters are relatively unaffected. So if GATA-1 is to influence the production of certain proteins, then the corresponding genes need to be positioned in these regulatory clusters.
But why are some genes induced while others are repressed? One factor is how close the gene is to the GATA-1 protein. The closer genes tend to be induced whereas the more distant genes tend to be repressed. So the positioning of the genes is even more fine-tuned. Not only are the genes to be influenced found in the regulatory clusters, but their position within the cluster is important.
There are other factors as well. For instance, TAL1 is another transcription factor and when it is absent the nearby genes are usually repressed. This is usually accompanied by a modification of one of the histone proteins around which the DNA is wrapped. Specifically, the 27th amino acid in histone H3, a lysine, is trimethylated (three methyl groups are added to the side chain).
These and other factors help to explain how GATA-1 works to regulate protein production, and why some genes are induced while others repressed. But the observed factors do not fully explain the patterns of protein production. For instance, many repressed genes do not lack the TAL1 transcription factor. There is still more to be learned.
Evolutionists believe these protein regulation mechanisms and factors arose from molecular mishaps that were passed on. Those mishaps that luckily helped out persisted. The gene positionings, GATA-1 design, production and binding sites, TAL1, histone trimethylation machine, and other intricacies just happened to arise by happenstance. And they worked. Religion drives science and it matters.
"Religion drives science and it matters."
ReplyDeleteWhat is the religious content of this research? Please be specific.
"What is the religious content of this research? Please be specific."
ReplyDeleteThe post does not make such a claim. Please reread the final paragraph. In this case, the religion is not in this research, but in the conviction that evolution is a fact, and so the mechanisms and factors involved in protein regulation must be the result of evolution.
Cornelius -
ReplyDeleteConviction that a certain proposition is a fact (whether erronous or not) is not the definition of 'religion' in any dictionary I've seen.
Religion is more than just a conviction.
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete====
Conviction that a certain proposition is a fact (whether erronous or not) is not the definition of 'religion' in any dictionary I've seen.
===
I see. so "god wouldn't design the species this way..." is not religion, but "god would design the species this way..." (ie, creationism) is religion. Hypocrisy pervades evolutionary thought.
"I see. so "god wouldn't design the species this way..." is not religion, but "god would design the species this way..." (ie, creationism) is religion."
ReplyDeleteAs has been pointed out many times to you, this sentiment does not "drive science." It is a negative argument against creationism, not part of the positive case for science. Nor is it all implicated by the article posted above.
Cornelius -
ReplyDeleteAt the risk of merely echoing learned hand, the theory of evolution is not built on the assumption of what God would or would not design.
Also, it has no prophets or scripture, it has no preists or temples, it makes no claims as to what happens after death, and invokes no gods or supernatural agents/forces.
Accepting the theory of evolution is no more 'religious faith' than accepting the theory of gravity or germ theory.
"this sentiment does not "drive science." It is a negative argument against creationism, not part of the positive case for science."
ReplyDeleteGee, I didn't know that. So what's the positive case that evolution is a fact? Surely you can point me to a journal paper. Oops, no, Sober's journal paper on this shows that the argument is *not* positive, but rather is religious.
Well surely you can point us to a textbook. Oops, no, the textbook's, such as Ridley's tome, show that the argument is religious.
Well surely the plethora of proofs of evolution in the popular literature reveal your "positive" case. Oops no, they give the same religious arguments.
None of this is surprising given that religious convictions motivate evolutionary thought. Darwin's book was one long sermon, reflecting prior thought and setting the stage for what was to come.
All you need to do is provide a journal paper showing why Sober is wrong. Give us the secret citation showing the scientific case why evolution is a fact. Why make the claim without backing it up? Why the coke-recipe-like secrecy? I'll be the first to confess my error and proclaim evolution a fact.
But the citation is never given. The evidence never provided. Just idiotic metaphysics and absurd science. And then evolutionists like you make empty claims, with unspecified sources and hypocritical accusations.
Welcome to Wonderland. Evolutionary thought is pathetic.
"Surely you can point me to a journal paper. . . Well surely you can point us to a textbook."
ReplyDeleteYes. Any article or text that assesses the evidence for evolution without making the specified argument against creationism would meet your criteria. That is to say, all research articles and texts. See, e.g., the literature detailing the evolution of antibiotic resistance. You should ask Zachriel or nano for specific references, as they've both been good about posting such. (I am not a scientist myself, but I can google papers as well as any layperson if you're unable to do so yourself.)
"Give us the secret citation showing the scientific case why evolution is a fact." This is analogous to demanding "the secret citation showing the scientific case why gravity is a fact." I refer you to a library. In fact, to *all* libraries. Try a major university to start with, as they tend to keep research journals. You may have to disregard the contents of those journals, however, as much of the research material generated by scientists over the past two hundred years contradicts your employer's statement of faith.
"But the citation is never given. The evidence never provided."
Zachriel and others have posted a number of citations over the past few days. Why do they not suffice?
"And then evolutionists like you make empty claims, with unspecified sources and hypocritical accusations. Welcome to Wonderland. Evolutionary thought is pathetic."
Your angry rhetoric emphasizes the hollowness of your position; you can decry the work of scientists all day long, but it only emphasizes that that is *all* you can do. You can neither refute their discoveries nor supply your own. Bitter jibes are no substitute for research, Dr. Hunter.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeletecan you please explain what you see as the difference between the theory of evolution and the fact(s) of evolution? I think this is the source of a lot of confusion. I readily admit that many people on my side of the debate are similarly confused, so perhaps this will help clear things up for all of us.
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete======
At the risk of merely echoing learned hand, the theory of evolution is not built on the assumption of what God would or would not design.
======
Please answer the following questions:
1. Regarding their views on origins topics, which of the following thinkers have you read or studied?
Rene Descartes
Nicolas Malebranche
Thomas Burnet
Ralph Cudworth
John Ray
Gottfried Leibniz
Matthew Tindal
Christian Wolff
Thomas Wollaston
Peter Annet
Immanuel Kant
David Hume
Auguste Comte
John Playfair
Henry Peter Brougham
David Friedrich Strauss
Robert Chambers
Baden Powell
Alfred Wallace
Charles Darwin
Joseph Le Conte
Rudolf Bultmann
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
H.H. Lane
Arthur Lindsey
Theodosius Dobzhansky
Sir Gaven de Beer
Stephen Jay Gould
Niles Eldredge
Douglas Futuyma
Howard Van Till
Mark Ridley
Ken Miller
Elliott Sober
John Avise
Michael Shermer
Francisco Ayala
Jerry Coyne
2. Which of them advocated strictly naturalistic origins?
3. How many were tentative in their claims on origins?
4. In the reasoning they gave to support their claims on origins, which of them based their arguments on religious beliefs?
Cornelius -
ReplyDelete1. From that list:
David Hume (on miracles)
Charles Darwin
Stephen Jay Gould
Michael Shermer
Jerry Coyne
2. All of them (actually Darwin is contentious here. He still credited the first spark of life to God, though exactly whether this reflected his genuine belief or whether it was just to sugar the pill to minimize an anticipated hostile reception from religious circles is, I believe, not entirely clear).
3. I assume you are using 'tentative' more in the scientific meaning of 'provisional' or 'based on experiment' rather than just 'unsure', so I'll say all of them.
4. None of them (though I know Elliott Sober is an ID advocate, so my money would be on him being one).
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete===========
1. From that list:
David Hume (on miracles)
Charles Darwin
Stephen Jay Gould
Michael Shermer
Jerry Coyne
===========
OK
===========
2. All of them (actually Darwin is contentious here. He still credited the first spark of life to God, though exactly whether this reflected his genuine belief or whether it was just to sugar the pill to minimize an anticipated hostile reception from religious circles is, I believe, not entirely clear).
===========
Good.
===========
3. I assume you are using 'tentative' more in the scientific meaning of 'provisional' or 'based on experiment' rather than just 'unsure', so I'll say all of them.
===========
False, none were tentative. After Darwin the analogy with gravity arose. Post Darwinists promote the claim that evolution is a fact -- as much as gravity is a fact. With Darwin and before high claims of certainty are also made, just not using that analogy.
===========
4. None of them (though I know Elliott Sober is an ID advocate, so my money would be on him being one).
===========
False all of them. All of the ones you read, and all on the list. All sign up to the claim that evolution is a fact, all use religious premises to prove it (or agree with such arguments already given), and none provide a scientific proof. There is no such proof in the literature--none.
Also, Sober is not an ID advocate.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteare you going to explain what you see as the difference between the fact and theory of evolution? perhaps you can use the fact and theory of gravity to compare/contrast/.
nano:
ReplyDelete=====
can you please explain what you see as the difference between the theory of evolution and the fact(s) of evolution? I think this is the source of a lot of confusion. I readily admit that many people on my side of the debate are similarly confused, so perhaps this will help clear things up for all of us.
=====
Put very simply, evolution is the idea that the species originated strictly naturalistically. Any divine action involved must have been restricted to acting through natural laws, so it is not detectable. The idea is scientifically absurd, so evolutionists are unable to give a plausible account. This, they say, is how science works. Evolutionary research is a good example of science at work, they say.
So there is great uncertainty as to how the species actually are to have arisen strictly naturalistically. But for three and a half centuries evolutionists have made powerful religious arguments that mandate evolution. They are no less powerful today than in the 17th century, and they make evolution a fact. So we know evolution, one way or another, is a fact.
Evolutionists have repeatedly explained this, and are quite clear about it. They repeatedly use religious arguments to prove the fact of evolution, and explain that while they know evolution must be true (as true as gravity, for example), they also agree that the particulars (ie, how it actually is supposed to have occurred) remains a theory with many questions. This is what happens when religion gets into science.
Then, when a skeptic like me repeats back to evolutionists their own claims, they say we don't understand science, and we don't understand what is meant by "fact." They can say evolution is a fact, just like gravity, but we can't. If they say it, they're right. If we say it, we're wrong.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteok, well, you didn't actually answer the question (how the theory and fact of evolution differ), but I will explain my views here. i will ask you to please not insert your own definition of evolution anywhere and simply read:
one fact of evolution is that evolution is a real process operating in the real world. we can see evolution happening when bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. in this way evolution is like gravity bc gravity is also a real process operating in the real world. we can see this when we sit down. tied up with this fact is a second fact: natural selection. I don't think you'd disagree that natural selection is a real process, and is a mechanism by which evolution happens. A third fact of evolution is common descent. I know you may disagree, but the evidence that at least some species share common ancestors with other species is very strong. that is, common descent is a real historical pattern. these are what i see as the facts of evolution.
Cornelius -
ReplyDelete"False, none were tentative. After Darwin the analogy with gravity arose. Post Darwinists promote the claim that evolution is a fact -- as much as gravity is a fact. With Darwin and before high claims of certainty are also made, just not using that analogy."
After his voyage on the Beagle which first inspired him, Darwin spent twenty years in England meticulously gathering evidence for his theory of evolution through natural selection before he actually published On the Origin of Species. In other words, this very first book was based on twenty years of observations and comparrissons - evidence. Not religious assertion.
As the years have ticked by, much, much more corroborating evidence has been added to the pile - the fact that the fossil record continues to reveal the pattern the theory of evolution demands, the discovery of DNA, the creation of the entire fields of forensics, geneology, genetics... all this and more amounts to a pretty huge pile of evidence for the theory of evolution.
This is all solid evidence. And the theory of evolution is the only theory we have yet dreamed up which accounts for it.
"False all of them. All of the ones you read, and all on the list. All sign up to the claim that evolution is a fact, all use religious premises to prove it (or agree with such arguments already given),"
We are back to square one. HOW exactly are these arguments religious? As I said, mere conviction is not religion. And the theory of evolution is not based on any religious premises (for example, it is not based on the premise that 'gGd wouldn't design a species this way...').
If you disagree, perhaps you would like to state WHICH religious premises you think it is based on.
"and none provide a scientific proof. There is no such proof in the literature--none."
No, there is not a single proof. But that is not how theories work. They work because they account for a vast deal of evidence and observed data. The theory of evolution is a good theory because it accounts for a vast deal of evidence and data.
There is no single proof of the theory of gravity. It is a good theory because it accounts for a vast deal of evidence and data.
There is no single proof of germ theory. It is a good theory because it accounts for a vast deal of evidence and observed data.
That is how theories work. We generally stick with the theories which best explain the evidence - until we formulate new ones which explain it better (for example, explaining more of it).
"Also, Sober is not an ID advocate."
Okay, I won't press that one.
now, for the theory. The theory of evolution is that all species are descended with modification from other species by natural selection and drift (another fact that I forgot). THis theory is extremely useful a a framework to make and test hypotheses. As for its accuracy, I view it as a well-supported theory, but mostly as a useful and interesting one. I think i speak for a lot of my colleagues when I say that we wouldn't have pursued careers in science were it not for our interest in the theory. other biologists can get along just fine without really knowing any evolutionary theory. some people may insist the theory is a fact, but that doesn't make sense bc of the apples-oranges problem.
ReplyDeleteOoops, sorry for cutting your posts in half, nano...
ReplyDeleteRitchie:
ReplyDelete=====
In other words, this very first book was based on twenty years of observations and comparrissons - evidence. Not religious assertion.
=====
False, the twenty years and book were not the first, and they were not based merely on empirical science. You say you have read or studied Darwin. If so, then you would know this. For instance:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-to-read-darwin.html
Just because Darwin was talking about barnacles and fossils does not mean there is no religion.
====
As the years have ticked by, much, much more corroborating evidence has been added to the pile - the fact that the fossil record continues to reveal the pattern the theory of evolution demands, the discovery of DNA, the creation of the entire fields of forensics, geneology, genetics... all this and more amounts to a pretty huge pile of evidence for the theory of evolution.
====
False. The *problems* have mounted up. The DNA structure, information, code, repair, transcription all falsify predictions of evolution.
====
And the theory of evolution is the only theory we have yet dreamed up which accounts for it.
====
Irrelevant, and you have already agreed so.
====
We are back to square one. HOW exactly are these arguments religious?
====
Unbelievable. I've explained this and you keep on repeating the same question, as though there is no answer. They are religious because they contain premises about what god would and wouldn't do. That's called "religious."
====
And the theory of evolution is not based on any religious premises (for example, it is not based on the premise that 'gGd wouldn't design a species this way...').
====
Of course it is.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-to-read-darwin.html
====
No, there is not a single proof. But that is not how theories work. They work because they account for a vast deal of evidence and observed data. The theory of evolution is a good theory because it accounts for a vast deal of evidence and data.
====
Ahhh, I get it. Please see this for the essence of evolutionary thought:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM
Here's how it goes:
* Evolution is a fact.
* How so?
* The evidence proves it.
* But the evidence is contradictory.
* Well there is not a single proof. But that is not how theories work.
====
There is no single proof of the theory of gravity.
====
Truly astonishing. This is what you get from religion.
nano:
ReplyDelete=====
one fact of evolution is that evolution is a real process operating in the real world. we can see evolution happening when bacteria become resistant to antibiotics.
=====
Bacterial resistance is a complex process which evolution does not explain -- hardly a demonstration of evolution.
=====
in this way evolution is like gravity bc gravity is also a real process operating in the real world.
=====
False. Bacterial resistance is not the same as the species originating from strictly naturalistic processes.
====
tied up with this fact is a second fact: natural selection. I don't think you'd disagree that natural selection is a real process, and is a mechanism by which evolution happens.
====
False. Even evolutionists now downplay selection.
http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_5.2_Biological_variation
====
A third fact of evolution is common descent. I know you may disagree, but the evidence that at least some species share common ancestors with other species is very strong. that is, common descent is a real historical pattern. these are what i see as the facts of evolution.
====
False. The claim is not that some species share common ancestors. The claim is that *all* species share a common ancestor. And the claim is not that there exists evidence. The claim is that it is a fact, as much as is gravity.
=======
The theory of evolution is that all species are descended with modification from other species by natural selection and drift (another fact that I forgot). THis theory is extremely useful a a framework to make and test hypotheses.
=======
False. The claim is not merely that evolution is useful. The flat earth theory is useful. The claim is that it is a fact, as much as is gravity.
=====
I think i speak for a lot of my colleagues when I say that we wouldn't have pursued careers in science were it not for our interest in the theory.
=====
Irrelevant.
=====
some people may insist the theory is a fact, but that doesn't make sense bc of the apples-oranges problem.
=====
False, this is the consensus. If you disagree, then why don't you say so? And better yet, why not come out of the closet and say so? I hope you're not too fond of your job.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeletelet's take this one at a time. antibiotics kill some bacteria, but not all of them. those that survive have resistance to the antibiotics. these survivors reproduce and form a new population of bacteria that are resistant to the antibiotics. how is this not evolution? you clearly agree that it is in some sense, or else why would you argue that it's not the same as new species evolving. even though I asked you nicely not to, you are imposing your definition of evolution on my statements.
p.s. if you think "the theory of evolution is a fact" is the consensus view, don't you think they would say that on ground zero of the Darwinist conspiracy, the NCSE website? strange they don't...
ReplyDeletehttp://ncse.com/evolution/education/theory-fact
nano:
ReplyDelete====
antibiotics kill some bacteria, but not all of them. those that survive have resistance to the antibiotics. these survivors reproduce and form a new population of bacteria that are resistant to the antibiotics. how is this not evolution? you clearly agree that it is in some sense, or else why would you argue that it's not the same as new species evolving. even though I asked you nicely not to, you are imposing your definition of evolution on my statements.
====
This is not evolution in two senses. The first sense is that, as I have pointed out, the creation of all the species is not the same bacteria adapting. Yes, you can hypothesize that the mechanisms are largely the same, but that introduces an unproven and problematic hypothesis. Even many evolutionists have admitted to this. So antibiotic resistance in bacteria counts as a demonstration of evolution only to the extent that the hypothesis is correct.
The second sense is that populations adapt to challenging environments with modifications that counter the challenge. In other words, it is not a story of blind variation and natural selection. Please see this:
http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_5.2_Biological_variation
This has long been observed, and long since opposed by evolutionists. But the evidence has become too obvious to ignore, and so even evolutionists are admitting to it, and trying to incorporate it into their theory. They say evolution created evolvability.
As time goes by evolution becomes increasingly complex as it has to explain more and more contradictory findings. Evolutionists always find a way, no matter of unlikely and complex, to patch up the theory. But it makes no sense to then say that the observations, such as antibiotic resistance, which required a patch to the theory, are now demonstrations of evolution.
Cornelius,
ReplyDelete"So antibiotic resistance in bacteria counts as a demonstration of evolution only to the extent that the hypothesis is correct." so i think we are in agreement that evolution in this sense is a fact, i.e. the process of evolution by natural selection occurs. that is all i was saying. the rest of your comments are about the theory.
now, natural selection. again, I think we are in agreement that natural selection is a real process acting in the world. your comments about its significance to evolution are really about the theory. but natural selection is also a fact, yes?
nano:
ReplyDelete==============
p.s. if you think "the theory of evolution is a fact" is the consensus view, don't you think they would say that on ground zero of the Darwinist conspiracy, the NCSE website? strange they don't...
http://ncse.com/evolution/education/theory-fact
==============
But NCSE does say evolution is a fact. See for example Branch's and Mead's recent paper here:
http://ncseprojects.org/webfm_send/732
Quote:
======
“That evolution is a theory in the proper scientific sense
means that there is both a fact of evolution to be explained
and a well-supported mechanistic framework to account for
it. To claim that evolution is ‘just a theory’ is to reveal both
a profound ignorance of modern biological knowledge and
a deep misunderstanding of the basic nature of science”
(Gregory 2008: 50). Gregory was hardly the first scientist
to emphasize the point, too: 27 years before, just as two
states were enacting legislation requiring equal time for
creation science, Stephen Jay Gould offered a characteristically
lucid explanation of “Evolution as fact and theory”
(Gould 1981).
======
Gould's paper is a good example of the religious claims that motivate and justify evolution, and make it a fact.
nano:
ReplyDelete===
now, natural selection. again, I think we are in agreement that natural selection is a real process acting in the world. your comments about its significance to evolution are really about the theory. but natural selection is also a fact, yes?
===
There is good empirical evidence that selection is not very important in determining the changes we observe, but yes, there are cases where it is important. Certainly in our immune systems.
ok, good. so we agree that evolution and natural selection are real processes. a more contentious issue will be common descent. the shared genetic code, processed pseudogenes and ERVs are some of the strongest evidences for common descent. let's take a specific example. do you agree that there is good evidence that modern whales and hippos shared a common ancestor?
ReplyDeleteps the fact that they're referring to in that paper is common descent.
ReplyDeletenano:
ReplyDelete======
ok, good. so we agree that evolution and natural selection are real processes. a more contentious issue will be common descent. the shared genetic code, processed pseudogenes and ERVs are some of the strongest evidences for common descent. let's take a specific example. do you agree that there is good evidence that modern whales and hippos shared a common ancestor?
======
Yes.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteWhat is really mind boggelingly incredible is that evolutionists can claim that these highly complex biological processess where created by random chance and ***never*** have to support this claim with any statistical calculations. In no real science field would such week support be tolerated. The only possible explanation is that religious belief drives evolution, and it matters.
Peter:
ReplyDelete=========
What is really mind boggelingly incredible is that evolutionists can claim that these highly complex biological processess where created by random chance and ***never*** have to support this claim with any statistical calculations. In no real science field would such week support be tolerated.
=========
Good point. In fact when the mathematicians showed the calculations don't work they were met with "well evolution is a fact, so the calculations must be wrong."
A more reasonable response evolutionists sometimes give is "well the calculations can't be done because the problem is way too difficult." OK, but then we're in no position to claim evolution is a fact.
=========
The only possible explanation is that religious belief drives evolution, and it matters.
=========
Not only is this the obvious inference, but it is *explicitly* what evolutionists have been telling us all along.
Hi Cornelius, I like your blog for pointing out inconsistencies in the theory of evolution. Thus I would be very pleased if you could clarify two things:
ReplyDelete1) Is it a misunderstanding on my side or do you say that it makes a difference if somebody conducts research to prove or disprove the theory of evolution?
2) You said:
"They are religious because they contain premises about what god would and wouldn't do. That's called "religious." "
Does this mean that the theory of gravity is also a religion or religious, too?
ok great, so you accept common descent in at least some cases. now, taking a step back, do you think there's good evidence that camels, whales and pigs all share a more distant common ancestor?
ReplyDeleteAdmin:
ReplyDelete===
1) Is it a misunderstanding on my side or do you say that it makes a difference if somebody conducts research to prove or disprove the theory of evolution?
===
Not sure what you mean.
===
2) You said:
"They are religious because they contain premises about what god would and wouldn't do. That's called "religious." "
Does this mean that the theory of gravity is also a religion or religious, too?
===
No, but Leibniz opposition was. It was another example of evolutionary-type thinking pushing back against good science.
nano:
ReplyDelete"ok great, so you accept common descent in at least some cases."
Why do you conclude that?
@Cornelius
ReplyDeleteNever mind the first question. Concerning the second question I unfortunately don't know enough about the dispute between Newton and Leibniz. But after screening what I could find, I think I understand what you mean. Not all scientific theories are religious or rather antireligious because they do not invoke god as a cause but some are.
why do i conclude that? bc you agreed that there was good evidence that whales and hippos shared a recent common ancestor. since you didn't indicate you had any evidence that this was not the case, I assumed you meant that, in this case, you agred that the hypothesis of the descent of whales and hippos from a common ancestor was supported.
ReplyDeletenano:
ReplyDelete====
why do i conclude that? bc you agreed that there was good evidence that whales and hippos shared a recent common ancestor.
====
Evolutionists seem to be completely ignorant of the problem of theory evaluation. This is just one typical example. The fact that good evidence exists for a theory does not mean it is true. There is good evidence for the flat earth and geocentrism. That doesn't mean they are true. What thinkers contemplated centuries ago we have now lost. After all, evolution is a fact.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteI wasn't asking about the theory of evolution. I was asking if you thought the data supported the hypothesis that whales and hippos shared a recent common ancestor. do you reject this hypothesis in spite of the fact that the data support it (as you agreed it did)?
nano:
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid the problem of theory evaluation applies equally to the hypothesis that whales and hippos shared a recent common ancestor. It is not controversial that many of the problems with evolution apply equally to common descent, as typically construed. It is a fact that many findings have been contrary to the expectations of common descent.
On the other hand, is there evidence for common descent, such as in your example? Sure, of course there is. But to conclude therefore in favor of common descent is not scientific. In science we look at all the information available, consider what is no known, and caveat our conclusions accordingly. We don't conclude that an idea is a fact because there are *some* supporting observations, while ignoring the problems. There are, after all, supporting observations for geocentrism.
Do I reject common descent? No, I don't reject it, I simply recognize it for what it is. Common descent is an idea with substantial scientific problems. We're nowhere close to fact-hood here. Common descent is not a very good scientific theory, period. It is what it is.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteYou are still not answering the question. From what I see, you reject a hypothesis even though the data support it. Again, I am asking about this specific example, not common descent in general. Please explain why you reject the hypothesis in this specific case. what is the problem with the evidence in this specific case?
Dr. H,
ReplyDeletePatience of Job, my friend!
Listen, I can explain evolution entirely perfectly in no time. Here goes:
"When I was a boy I knew that in the future I would need to be able to have sex with adult women, so I made myself grow into an adult male. I didn't meant to do it. It just happened by accident."
There, that's evolutionary theory! You never know what you're going to need, but you just do it, ahead of time, so then when you need it, you have it!
Here's another:
"Many varieties of plogo flowers are (fill in non-teleological verb here) to look precisely like the female of the buzzing acid-wasp. (So that, but not so that, only, "by accident so").. By accident so the male of the buzzing acid-wasp happens to notice the plogo flower, and tries to hump it, by accidentally and by chance coating itself with the pollen, which came about also by chance, stuck onto the head and back bristles, which came about ALSO by chance of course! YOU SILLY!
And then the male acid-wasp goes to another accidentally-I-look-exactly-like-a-female-of-your-species flower and tries to hump it, and happens to accidentally drop a dollop of that pollen into said receptor area of said accident..er...flower...
And, viola! Survival of the survivingest!
Come on, man! Evolution is SIMPLE! "Nature" builds (but not really "builds" which implies...hands, or brains, or..)...
I got it...
Nature "EVOLVES" everything to work JUST SO!
IT IS SIMPLE! Don't complicate it, hombre! Have a brew! Kick back! Uncle Jerry Coyne will regail you with stories of how the camel got his humps. (He slept on a bed of desert sand, doncha know)...
cheerios,
Will.
Hey Nanoo,
ReplyDeleteListen, we may all have common ancestors. I mean, we're all hear in the big, blue marble, that wet portion of it, in any case, in the big, super-active, endlessly creative (or, whoops, can't use that word), endless, eternal (whoops, but far as we can tell it is), universe.
So, we all spring from the same well. The question is, does this process indicate:
Organization and Order,
Structure,
Creativity,
in other words,
Mind...
Or don't it?
I mean, it do or it don't, my brother. You know?
If it indicates Mind, that is, a transcendent, penetrating sense of creativity, structure and order, from top to bottom, micro to macro, then we've got to hand it to the Universe, or however you want to name it, that the eternal Mind is at work, and we are not only products of it - we are thinking its thoughts. We are exemplars of its prowess, and symptoms of its nature.
We are powered by it.
Or, according to Dickie Dawkins, we're spots on the side of the hamster cage. Maybe, that just happened to come into being.
By the way, is there structure, order and creativity in the spots on the side of the hamster cage? You'll need a microscope, but once you get there - well, darn it, there is. There surely is.
So, let's all get on the "MIND train." Whoo-whoo! And let science follow logic for a change. The universal mind - apply it to your worldview, and see what happens...
nano:
ReplyDelete====
You are still not answering the question. From what I see, you reject a hypothesis even though the data support it.
====
So, what is it about "we look at all the information available" that you don't understand?
What is is about "We don't conclude that an idea is a fact because there are *some* supporting observations, while ignoring the problems." that doesn't make sense to evolutionists?
====
Again, I am asking about this specific example, not common descent in general. Please explain why you reject the hypothesis in this specific case. what is the problem with the evidence in this specific case?
====
So all the problems with common descent don't count because they were discovered for other species ?
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteso by your judgement the hypothesis of common descent of whales and hippos can never be supported no matter what the evidence because of some (unspecified) problems with common descent found in some other (unspecified) species? These must be some pretty serious problems, but I don't see anything about them on your darwin's predictions site. perhaps you're saving it for a cover article in Nature?
nano:
ReplyDelete====
so by your judgement the hypothesis of common descent of whales and hippos can never be supported no matter what the evidence
====
But I never said that. In fact, quite the opposite, I explained that I don't reject common descent necessarily, but recognize it for what it is.
====
because of some (unspecified) problems with common descent found in some other (unspecified) species?
====
But there are plenty of specified problems and specified species as examples. What do you mean?
====
These must be some pretty serious problems, but I don't see anything about them on your darwin's predictions site. perhaps you're saving it for a cover article in Nature?
====
But www.DarwinsPredictions.com has 14 falsified predictions. Did you not see those?
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteif there are so many examples, it should be easy to list some. yet you don't. perhaps you can take one of your falsified predictions and explain how it applies to the common descent of whales and hippos.
nano:
ReplyDelete"if there are so many examples, it should be easy to list some. yet you don't."
But I've given 14 examples.
I'll paste in the table of contents at www.darwinspredictions.com/, since you don't seem to have seen it. 14 predictions are discussed. They are all problems for common descent (assuming the usual definition).
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
1.1 How to compare findings with expectations
1.2 Two examples
1.3 Evolution’s falsifications and complications
1.4 Objections of evolutionists
1.5 About this document
1.6 Executive summary
1.7 Acknowledgements
1.8 References
2 DNA predictions
2.1 The DNA structure gave rise to first life
2.2 The DNA code is not unique
2.3 Fundamental molecular processes
3 Early evolution predictions
3.1 Evolution has hundreds of millions of years available
3.2 Eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes
3.3 Simple beginnings
4 Design of life predictions
4.1 Evolutionary leftovers are common
4.2 Genomes of similar species
4.3 Genomes of distant species
5 Biological change predictions
5.1 Mechanisms of biological change
5.2 Biological variation is independent of need
5.3 The molecular clock
5.4 Gradualism
6 Behavior predictions
6.1 Altruism
7 The fact of evolution
7.1 The process of elimination
7.2 Other process of elimination arguments
7.3 Evolution is a necessary consequence
8 Conclusions
OK, let's take one. How does 2.1 (the unknown origin of the genetic code) argue against the common descent of whales and hippos?
ReplyDeletenano:
ReplyDelete===
OK, let's take one. How does 2.1 (the unknown origin of the genetic code) argue against the common descent of whales and hippos?
===
2.1 is about the DNA's role in OOL (not merely the genetic code which is the focus of 2.2). Common descent says all species are genealogically related to a single first life. One of its predictions was the role of DNA in that process, as explained in 2.1. That prediction did not fare well in the light of biology.
This and the other 14 examples show a variety of common descent predictions gone wrong. Yes, "The whale and hippo share a common ancestor" is not one of them, but you are making a mockery of science by claiming general predictions of your theory, found to be false, don't matter because they don't involve the particulars of a narrow example you have selected.
For instance, 2.1 deals with the origin of that first life. So perhaps you'll move the goal posts to exclude that early portion of your common descent theory. Instead of going all the way back, you could move the starting point to some arbitrary down stream time. You could continue with that strategy to eliminate all 14, chopping off parts of your theory to exclude the problems. But that would be special pleading.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteno matter how many times you say otherwise, I am not invoking the whale and the hippo to make a general case about common descent. i am simply asking if you think the evidence supports the common descent of whales and hippos from a recent common ancestor. you said yes before (and then added caveats about not "accepting" it later), so maybe we can move on from there. now, do you think the evidence supports the common descent of camels, whales and hippos from a more recent common ancestor?
nano:
ReplyDelete===
no matter how many times you say otherwise, I am not invoking the whale and the hippo to make a general case about common descent.
===
But I did not say otherwise. In fact, I pointed out that your argument amounts to special pleading.
===
i am simply asking if you think the evidence supports the common descent of whales and hippos from a recent common ancestor. you said yes before (and then added caveats about not "accepting" it later), so maybe we can move on from there.
===
But again you are misrepresenting what I said. I added caveats only because you seemed to misunderstand. You asked if I agreed there was evidence for common descent of whales and hippos. I agreed, and you erroneously took that as concurrence that they do share such a common ancestor. So I had to explain the distinction between (i) evidence for a hypothesis and (ii) validity of a hypothesis. These are two different concepts which evolutionists seem to confuse.
===
now, do you think the evidence supports the common descent of camels, whales and hippos from a more recent common ancestor?
===
No, *the* evidence obviously does not support such a hypothesis, though there is *some* evidence for it.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteIf this is special pleading, then it is also special pleading to say that we can measure gravity on the macroscale ignoring the fact that it operates differently on the quantum scale. every test of a hypothesis is not a test of an entire theory. common descent of two organisms does not require common descent of every organism.
Cornelius Hunter,
ReplyDeleteLet's start with a few examples. And we're looking for a scientific evaluation based on the available evidence.
Do Darwin's Finches share a Common Ancestor?
Do birds?
Do land vertebrates?
Feel free to elaborate so that we fully understand your position.
nano:
ReplyDelete====
If this is special pleading, then it is also special pleading to say that we can measure gravity on the macroscale ignoring the fact that it operates differently on the quantum scale.
====
No, there are problems with common descent in various cases. It is special pleading to then pick out a case where the data are not yet available, and hold it up as an example of common descent. For instance, there are falsified predictions involving two frog species, or involving humans and mice. These are not so different from your case of the hippo and whale.
===
every test of a hypothesis is not a test of an entire theory. common descent of two organisms does not require common descent of every organism.
===
Sure, and as we gather more data we can explore more and more cases. What we do know, for now, is that many predictions, in various cases, have been falsified. So while we cannot rule out common descent everywhere, we do find substantial problem with the theory that all species share a common ancestor.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteZach:
ReplyDelete====
Let's start with a few examples. And we're looking for a scientific evaluation based on the available evidence.
Do Darwin's Finches share a Common Ancestor?
Do birds?
Do land vertebrates?
Feel free to elaborate so that we fully understand your position.
====
My position is that evolution might be true (I could care less one way or another), but that evolution is not a good scientific theory because while there is obvious evidence for evolution on the whole it makes little sense in light of biology, that the claim evolution is a fact is religiously motivated, that evolution is therefore effectively a religious theory, that evolution makes a mockery of science, and that these observations are so obvious they are not even controversial to any objective observer.
As such, evolutionists such as yourself misrepresent science. You are blessed as few people in history to have an excellent education and employment. You have excellent knowledge of nature, yet you misrepresent science to those who do not share your blessings. You lend your voice and authority to a lie.
As scientists it is our duty (and privilege) to explain science to the public. Evolutionists have not merely failed to do a good job at this, they have distorted and misrepresented science.
Now get this: The evolutionist claims evolution is a fact, I point out the obvious absurdities, and he then wants me to fill in details. Wait a minute, you have made ludicrous claims to which you will not own up.
But if you want to know my position, I just stated it.
Zachriel: Do Darwin's Finches share a Common Ancestor?
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter: My position is that evolution might be true (I could care less one way or another), ...
As such, evolutionists such as yourself misrepresent science...
But if you want to know my position, I just stated it...
Didn't see the answer there. Are you saying that the evidence is not convincing for the Common Descent of Darwin's Finches?
Nearly all of our general readers see articles about primitive hominid fossils, dinosaur eggs and the evolution of flowering plants. Most are fascinated by these discoveries and understand the basics of Common Descent, though perhaps not the details. As you won't admit that Darwin's Finches are related by Common Descent, it would be reasonable for people to be skeptical of your position.
We can discuss Common Descent of Darwin's Finches. Of course, it has to be seen in the light of the overall phylogenetic tree.
Burns, Hackett and Klein, Phylogenetic Relationships and Morphological Diversity in Darwin's Finches and Their Relatives, Evolution 2002.
Cornelius Hunter: You lend your voice and authority to a lie.
Zachriel's domain is rather limited. Any authority comes from the argument and the evidence.
Cornelius,
ReplyDelete"It is special pleading to then pick out a case where the data are not yet available, and hold it up as an example of common descent. For instance, there are falsified predictions involving two frog species, or involving humans and mice." what, specifically, are the data for frogs, human and mice (references, please)? Then we can compare the data for them and whales/hippos:
Nikaido et al. PNAS 96:10261.
Cornelius is trying to weasel out. Whale-hippo, whale-hippo. Focus on that.
ReplyDeleteIf evolution is a lie, then why did biologists predict the artiodactyl-whale connection on the basis of comparisons of anatomy alone, arrangements into nested hierarchies/trees of descent--
and then later, pakicetus and ambulocetus are dug up, transitional forms matching the theory--
and then genetic comparison show great similarities between cetaceans and hippos; here I mean specifically the common pattern of ERV insertions?
What theory fits that data best? Seems to me the theory that whales and hippos have a common ancestor.
Do you, Cornelius, know of a better theory to explain the data above besides common descent? Specifically, the transitional fossils and the genetic similarities and ERV insertions? What's the better theory?
Yes or no? If you have a better theory, spit it out, and it must be specific enough to make some predictions about artiodactyl-cetacean differences that are DIFFERENT from common descent-based predictions.
If you don't know a better theory, then how bout taking back what you said about evolutionists teaching a lie? They are teaching the only theory that puts out testable specific predictions distinguishable from competitors and that have been confirmed, no?
Yes or no? Don't weasel. Oh, I know, you'll weasel weasel weasel by just pointing us to your list of "failed predictions of Darwinism" that are stuff that either increases the likelihood of evolution, or new biology that doesn't prove or disprove it either way.
Whale-hippo-- do you know a better theory-- yes or no?