Monday, February 22, 2010

Hopeful Monsters: An Endless List of Special Cases

Textbook evolutionary theory holds that evolutionary change occurs gradually. It may speed up or slow down but change, when it occurs, takes small steps. But from the fossil record to observed adaptations in the field, biological data do not always cooperate with theory. In fact, populations do respond dramatically to environmental challenges in a time window measured in years—not millions of years—and single mutations or the management of existing genes effect such responses. A review from last week, entitled Revenge of the hopeful monster, summarized the situation as follows:

Experimental evidence has shown that individual genetic changes can have vast effects on an organism without dooming it to the evolutionary rubbish heap. Single-gene changes that confer a large adaptive value do happen: they are not rare, they are not doomed and, when competing with small-effect mutations, they tend to win. But small-effect mutations still matter—a lot. They provide essential fine-tuning and sometimes pave the way for explosive evolution to follow. As the molecular details unfold, theory badly needs to catch up.

For example, consider freshwater sticklebacks which can rapidly adjust their pelvic spine length, from generation to generation, depending on the environment. How does the fish achieve such dramatic body plan modifications?

The answer seems to be that a stretch of DNA that enhances the production of a particular protein is sometimes found to be cut out. The reduced production of the protein explains the reduction or loss of pelvic spine length.

But reduced levels of the protein should also cause all kinds of other nonsensical changes to the fish. Why aren’t they observed? The answer is that this DNA editing occurs only in the pelvis and not elsewhere. The result is a helpful design change rather than chaos. As the review explained:

With expression of [the protein] preserved in all other vital structures, freshwater sticklebacks could lose their pelvic spines without dire repercussions elsewhere.

And this design modification is observed to occur independently, in different stickleback populations.

This example illustrates the general finding of built-in adaptation capabilities in biology. In different species we find different mechanisms to effect design changes. As the review explained:

Large effect or small, evolution begins to look like an endless list of special cases, each a new challenge to Fisherian models.

Evolution as an endless list of special cases? Now we must believe evolution created finely tuned, built-in, design change levers that respond precisely to environmental shifts. And these design changes are supposed to be examples of evolution? Yes, the theory does badly need to catch up. And evolutionists, in their Darwinian Wonderland, are just the ones to fix the problem. You can’t make this stuff up.

53 comments:

  1. Two ironic things about this post:
    !) in previous posts, Cornelius has complained about evolutionists' use of ad hominems when arguing anti-evolutionists. THen he goes and says evolutionists exist in "Darwinian wonderland." such insults don't bother me (an evolutionist), but the double standard is pretty blatant.
    2) THrough sarcasm, he then states that these same lost-in-wonderland Darwinists aren't fit to fix their own theory. Yet all of the work he cites was done by these same Darwinists, using techniques of evolutionary biology to address evolutionary questions. It seems strange to disparage a group of people as unfit to do research, but then cite their research approvingly (as evidence that they are unfit to do research?).

    ReplyDelete
  2. nano:

    ----
    THen he goes and says evolutionists exist in "Darwinian wonderland."
    ----

    Evolutionists over and over show they are impervious to problems and just keep on marching down the alley, regardless of their absurdities. "Darwinian Wonderland" is an apt description of evolutionary thought.

    Evolution constructs precise, "finely-tuned" mechanisms so the stickleback can then undergo large-scale body plan changes in an evolutionary instant when the environment requires it!!?

    You *cannot* be serious. This is absolutely ludicrous. Evolutionary thought is bankrupt--whatever we find is blindly ascribed to evolution, no matter it is totally absurd. To call this a "Darwinian Wonderland" is being kind.

    ReplyDelete
  3. thanks for proving my point. scare-quotes, asterices and name calling are not the stuff of solid argumentation. yet you sit there and accuse evolutionists of doing the same. take a quick look: who is designing experiments, collecting data, analyzing results, writing and publishing papers? evolutionists. who is sitting here throwing insults from the sidelines while accusing evolutionists of doing the same? you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. nano:

    "who is designing experiments, collecting data, analyzing results, writing and publishing papers? evolutionists."

    Evolution is burning up our tax dollars, it is not helping science. Evolutionists have this bizarre notion that their theory has been the key to the life sciences. Yes, even false theories can help (flat earth models are used everyday), but evolution rarely has been important in key life science research findings.

    ReplyDelete
  5. evolutionists find our subject interesting and this motivates our research; not everyone wants to be a cancer biologist. many interesting (and sometimes useful) findings come from evol bio. for example, i study evolution of integumentary coloration (funded by your tax dollars) but my findings are being used for novel fiber optic applications. i find pure optics dull, and optics people wouldn't think of (or at least haven't thought of) examining the tissues I examine for inspiration. so is this
    "burning up our tax dollars"? again, your rhetoric is very overheated, particularly for one who decries the use of ad hominems.

    ReplyDelete
  6. nano:

    Evolutionists mandate their metaphysics for everyone else, push a theory that has all kinds of absurdities, demand everyone agree that it is a fact, deny passing grades / letters / admission / advancement to anyone who fails to submit, and misrepresent the science to the public.

    They then claim their theory is the key to science, and that the people (whom they have black-balled) who point this out are lazy impediments to progress.

    When this is pointed out they then cry alligator tears. Unbelievable.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cornelius -

    I believe you are missing nano's point.

    Your last post is another demonstration of nano's point - more insults and smear tactics. Does it not bother you at all that you are insulting truly enormous numbers of people, including the VAST majority of the scientific elite with this cheap trash-talk? Doesn't it ever cross your mind that there is a chance that there might be even a single person who believes in evolution who does not deserve your crass censure?

    No-one is claiming the theory of evolution is the key to science. It is merely a theory. One of many.

    'Evolutionists' (or as other people call them, biologists) are not misrepresenting science - they are the ones DOING it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cornelius,
    you are all over the place, and are proving my point even more. evolutionists are in wonderland, then are a waste of tax dollars, then are fascists.. who's the one using ad hominems again? perhaps rather than seething in anger, you can try testing your hypothesis about the Darwinist cabal by doing something like submitting a paper or a grant. i know a full-on creationist(who has testified in favor of teaching creationism in schools) who has over a million dollars in NIH money right now, so if you write something of high quality I don't think your hypothesis will be supported..

    ReplyDelete
  9. nano:

    Evolutionists are fond of facts, so let's talk about some facts. It is a fact that evolutionists ruin the careers of scientifically accomplished, competent people who don't buy their metaphysics. That is not an ad hominem.

    It is a fact that evolutionists claim their unlikely theory, such as explained in this blog post, is true. They claim the science makes evolution as much a fact as is gravity, but gravity we observe and feel whereas evolution is scientifically unlikely. Their claim is absurd, that is not an ad hominem.

    It is a fact that evolutionists have always made religious and metaphysical truth claims to motivate and mandate their theory. That is not an ad hominem.

    All of this makes a mockery of science. What you interpret as "seething in anger" is a factual description of the view you support. I'm not angry about it, but I am explaining the facts.

    It is not an ad hominem to explain that a view has no basis when it has no basis. It is a fact. There is no scientific basis for the claim evolution is a fact--period. That is not an ad hominem. It is a fact. I got interested in evolution when I tried to demonstrate the claim. I couldn't, and there is no such demonstration in the literature, unless it is in some remote document hidden away somewhere, like the Coca-Cola recipe, which goes unreferenced.

    One of the few things evolutionists agree on is that their view is a fact. There is no basis for this claim. This is not an aside or minor claim. It is not a trivial mistake. This is the primary claim of evolution, and it has no basis. This means evolutionists are in Wonderland.

    I'm sorry if these facts seem harsh to evolutionists such as yourself. You can use that impression to dismiss the criticism if you like.

    ReplyDelete
  10. >'Evolutionists' (or as other people call
    >them, biologists) are not
    >misrepresenting science - they
    >are the ones DOING it.

    In what way is evolution used as a theory when "doing science", as you say? Please give an example.

    The truth is that "the theory evolution" is NOT used in any way when "doing science". 70 scientists were asked if they would have done their work differently if they had thought that the theory of evolution was wrong. The answer form ALL of them were the same: NO.
    (http://www.thescientist.com/article/display/15676/)

    When you claim that todays science is based on a belief in the theory of evolution you are wrong. Either you are lying deliberatly to equate Darwinism with science, or you simply don't know any better.

    Theory of evolution is a BELIEF-system; its not any more scientific than any other belief-system...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Cornelius,
    first, your facts are wrong. 1)None of the "Expelled" cases stands up to scrutiny. Gonzalez was closest, but the fact is that he was at a research 1 university and he didn't get any grant money. Amy Bishop was an evolutionist, got more grant money than Gonzalez, and couldn't even get tenure at a non-R1 school. how do you explain that? 2) no once claims the THEORY of evolution is on the same footing as the FACT of gravity. THey say the THEORY of evolution is on the same footing as the THEORY of gravity, and the same for the FACTS. in othr words, that organisms evolve is as much a FACT as that they fall down. how they do so is explained by the THEORY and if you check the literature, you will see that many people are now calling for a new THEORY of gravity.. funny you haven't blogged about that..

    ReplyDelete
  12. 3) you seem obsessed with this point, but it is weird to focus on what are basically pedagogical points. I (and all my evolutionist colleagues) use the theory of evolution to generate testable hypotheses which I then test. i would never claim the theory is a fact bc I know the difference btwn theories and facts. if you don't like the way we do science, you're free to do it your own way. actions speak louder than words.

    ReplyDelete
  13. nanobot74:
    >I (and all my evolutionist colleagues)
    >use the theory of evolution to
    >generate testable hypotheses
    >which I then test.

    Can you give an example of how you used the theory of evolution to come up with a hypothesis?

    ReplyDelete
  14. dalahimself -

    "In what way is evolution used as a theory when "doing science", as you say? Please give an example."

    Well, to pick a random one off the top of my head - when figuring out ways to combat viruses. Viruses evolve just like every other living thing. Once a virus is widespread in a population and a cure/vaccination is brought out to combat it, often the virus reacts to the presence of the cure/vaccination and may evolve to be resistant or even immune to the drug.

    A working understanding of the principles of natural selection is necessary in understanding how viruses operate.

    As for the study you cite, I'm afraid I might be missing the point. I can't follow the link because I think I have to log in.

    "When you claim that todays science is based on a belief in the theory of evolution you are wrong."

    I never made that claim. The whole of science is NOT based on the theory of evolution. It has little or nothing to say in the fields of physics or chemistry, for example. The theory of evolution is just one theory - one of many. It just happens to be an extremely well-supported and widely accepted one.

    Why do you term it a belief system? A belief in what? Is does not have any sacred tests, priests, temples, sacred artifacts, it sets no rules of behaviour, provides nothing to worship, says nothing at all about an afterlife, a deity, spirits, or a 'soul', it makes no metaphysical claims, rests on nothing more than demonstrable and replicable observations and it is perfectly compatible with all manner of religious views other than the most stridently fundamentalist ones. So in what way is it a belief system, exactly?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Cornelius,
    even if your facts were not in dispute, my larger point is that you are using the same tactics you are decrying. for example, you say that using the term "ID-creationist" is a slur. yet it is a fact that ID adovcates have dishonestly attempted to insert creationist ideas into school curricula under the guise of ID, and that many ID advocates are also creationists. so, by your reasoning, anyone using "ID creationist" is simply stating the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  16. dalahimself,
    without giving too much away about myself (I am not tenured): I noted that certain complex morphological structures were very evolutionarily labile (popped in and out during evolution). I thus hypothesized that these structures could be formed through minor tweaks in the chemistry of existing parts such that those parts would form complex structures through self assembly. i am now testing that hypothesis through multiple experimental and observational approaches (and it seems to be pretty well supported). without the evolutionary evidence, I probably would have never questioned the conventional wisdom that these structures are difficult and costly to produce.

    ReplyDelete
  17. nano:

    ====
    first, your facts are wrong. 1)None of the "Expelled" cases stands up to scrutiny. Gonzalez was closest, but the fact is that he was at a research 1 university and he didn't get any grant money. Amy Bishop was an evolutionist, got more grant money than Gonzalez, and couldn't even get tenure at a non-R1 school. how do you explain that?
    ====

    It is bad enough that evolutionists conveniently look the other way, but apologists such as yourself who spread lies take it to another level. You have no idea what you're talking about, or you are just plain lying. Either way it is pathetic (that's not an ad hominem--certainty coupled with ignorance = pathetic).


    ====
    2) no one claims the THEORY of evolution is on the same footing as the FACT of gravity. THey say the THEORY of evolution is on the same footing as the THEORY of gravity, and the same for the FACTS. in othr words, that organisms evolve is as much a FACT as that they fall down. how they do so is explained by the THEORY
    ====

    But that's the point. Yes, I didn't type carefully enough. I did not mean that a particular hypothesis of evolution is claimed to be a fact, but that evolution, per se, is claimed to be a fact, every bit as much as is gravity. I mentioned the blog post at the top of these comments as an example of the massive problems with evolutionary theory.

    The fact-theory distinction is legitimate enough, but evolutionists play a shell game with it. Yes, you can have uncertainties in your theory and still be confident that the overall idea is a fact. Gravity is a good example, because we observe and feel it everyday. This is not the case with evolution. You cannot have an asinine theory and then turn around say "no problem, we know it must be a fact." There is no scientific basis for the claim that evolution is a fact. The claim is constantly made, and the reasonings / proofs given are always metaphysical. It is a big scham.

    ReplyDelete
  18. nano:



    ========
    even if your facts were not in dispute, my larger point is that you are using the same tactics you are decrying. for example, you say that using the term "ID-creationist" is a slur. yet it is a fact that ID adovcates have dishonestly attempted to insert creationist ideas into school curricula under the guise of ID, and that many ID advocates are also creationists. so, by your reasoning, anyone using "ID creationist" is simply stating the facts.
    ========

    Your larger point is as problematic as your other points. ID and creationism are two different and distinct theories. Anyone claiming otherwise is either ignorant or lying. Either way it is pathetic.

    Are there ID advocates who are also creationists, and vice-versa? Yes, some. Not many AFAIK, but some. So just as an evolutionist who believes god created things is sometimes referred to as a "theistic evolutionist" you could rightly refer to an IDer who is also a creationist as an "ID-creationist." But of course that is not what is going on here, and everyone knows it. The terms "ID-creationist" and "ID-creationism" are routinely and consistently used, even in journal papers, as labels for IDs and ID, respectively.

    You say my tactics are no different. That is false. For instance, I don't associate evolution with atheism. That would be an easy rhetorical attack to use. More so, it would be an easy mistake to make. Many critics have genuinely concluded atheism must be behind evolution. That is false, and not only do I not say such a thing, but I have taken pains to point out that it is false.

    Nor do I use outlier evolutionists as fodder for criticizing evolution. I stick to mainstream evolutionists, and the mainstream evolutionary literature. I use the peer-reviewed literature, heavily used textbooks by leading, recognized, evolutionists, and newspapers, magazines and popular literature when the author is representing mainstream evolutionary thought.

    I find plenty of dumb mistakes in the evolutionary literature. These mistakes were not intended, and I'm sure the author would retract it if given the chance. I *never* mention these mistakes or otherwise use them to attack evolution. That would be a strawman. Quite the opposite, when I criticize evolution I take pains to ensure I am criticizing mainstream evolutionary thought.

    Evolutionists, OTH, often don't do this. The "ID-creationist" and "ID-creationism" labels are good examples. Here's another example. One time I made a mistake on an unpublished overhead graphic, discussing an uncontroversial point (the prevalence of convergence in biology). That unintended mistake has been criticized and panned by evolutionists far, far more than the actual points that I make. It is pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Cornelius,
    if you're going to call someone a liar, you should explain why you think they're lying. you're right, Gonzalez did get ~$60k grant money, but at an R1 school that is the same as nothing. and Amy Bishop got over $200k grant $ at a non-R1 school and didn't get tenure. where am I lying here?

    as for fact/theory, you still don't get it. facts and theories are DIFFERENT THINGS. Theories provide explanations of groups of facts, but are not facts themsevles. we feel the FACT of gravity every day, but not the THEORY. We see the FACT of evolution every day in e.g. antibiotic resistance but we don't see the THEORY. It is really a simple apples-oranges problem, one that a trained scientist should not have.

    ReplyDelete
  20. As for the "mainstream" of ID thought: Is Dembski an outlier? Philip Johnson? Of Pandas and People? the crew at uncommon descent? it seems more like Behe is the outlier than them.

    ReplyDelete
  21. nano:

    =====
    if you're going to call someone a liar, you should explain why you think they're lying. you're right, Gonzalez did get ~$60k grant money, but at an R1 school that is the same as nothing. and Amy Bishop got over $200k grant $ at a non-R1 school and didn't get tenure. where am I lying here?
    =====

    I was not referring to Gonzalez. But if you want to talk about that case, it is a fact that opposition to his tenure was idealogically motivated. I can't believe evolutionists would try to whitewash this case with comparisons to, of all people, Amy Bishop.


    =====
    as for fact/theory, you still don't get it. facts and theories are DIFFERENT THINGS.
    =====

    I never said they weren't. In fact I said the distinction is legitimate. Of course they're different things.


    ====
    Theories provide explanations of groups of facts, but are not facts themsevles. we feel the FACT of gravity every day, but not the THEORY. We see the FACT of evolution every day in e.g. antibiotic resistance but we don't see the THEORY. It is really a simple apples-oranges problem, one that a trained scientist should not have.
    ====

    Oh my. This is astonishing. Ritchie, I hope you're taking notes because here is another example of where evolutionary thinking takes you. "We see the FACT of evolution every day in e.g. antibiotic resistance" so therefore it is a fact that blind mutations and the like created the millions of species and wonders of biology. Don't worry that the science makes no sense--it is a fact. See?

    This is not even wrong--it's scary. This is the thinking that lies beneath the scientific absurdities. This is what is going on under the hood of evolutionary thought. Fallacious thinking, metaphysical mandates, asinine science, all coupled with power. It's scary.

    ReplyDelete
  22. [Cornelius, I don't fool myself into thinking (a) that you haven't heard what I'm about to say before, and (b) that it makes any difference whatsoever what anyone tells you regarding evolution, but perhaps others will see the light.]

    You cannot have an asinine theory and then turn around say "no problem, we know it must be a fact." There is no scientific basis for the claim that evolution is a fact. The claim is constantly made, and the reasonings / proofs given are always metaphysical. It is a big scham.

    Evolutionary theory is a theory very well supported by numerous facts. One example is what nano mentions about resistance to antibiotics. Then there's Crotian lizards, E. coli, virus resistance (flu, HIV, etc.), vaccine resistance, sickle-cell anemia and Falciparum, mice coat color, Pseudomonas, and Darwin's finches. And those are just some of the examples of directly observed evolution. On top of that there's evidence from biogeography, genetics, embryology, molecular biology, physics, geology, chemistry, and of course paleontology. (I may have left out some.) These are the bases for the claim that evolution is a fact, as in 'evolution did and do occur'. There is absolutely nothing metaphysical about any of this evidence.

    The theory of evolution is by no means complete (though calling it asinine is disingenuous, and I suspect you don't really know much of it beyond the usual "natural selection and random mutation") - it is lagging far behind in explaining the evidence that we have for the fact of evolution. That we are also constantly seeing new experiments that cause us to update the theory is not sign that the whole theory is wrong. Rather, what you are then seeing is the theory maturing, if you will.

    If it really were a scam, then how do you think it could be that the thousands and thousands of scientists worldwide (does anybody have an idea of what that number is?) who work directly on evolution can continue to keep the big secret that what they are working on is actually a lie, and they all know it? Alternatively, do you really think that thousands of people, who are smart enough to do well in college, and then go on to do a PhD (which I expect you may mock, or counter that a there are plenty of doctors who don't believe in evolution, like how many people with a PhD in evolution, again?) are really too dumb to see that they are all fooling each other, while the creationists, who get their opposition to evolution from interpretation of religious scripture, are actually on to something?

    Evolution as an endless list of special cases? Now we must believe evolution created finely tuned, built-in, design change levers that respond precisely to environmental shifts.

    You can believe whatever you want, but some respect for the scientific method is appreciated, even when it applies to a domain that interferes with that of theology.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Bjørn Østman:

    How is it that Crotian lizards are strong evidence for evolution.

    For those interested in why this is a false claim, see this:

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

    ReplyDelete
  24. Also, those interested in more background on Bjørn's claims can see these:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/02/hopeful-monsters-endless-list-of.html
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/02/do-you-believe-in-magic-how-evolution.html
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/epigenetic-inheritance-can-evolution.html

    ReplyDelete
  25. nanobot74:
    >I noted that certain complex
    >morphological structures were
    >very evolutionarily labile
    >(popped in and out during evolution).
    >I thus hypothesized that these
    >structures could be formed through
    >minor tweaks in the chemistry of
    >existing parts such that those
    >parts would form complex structures
    >through self assembly.

    You are just saying that you noticed certain structures "popped in and out of evolution", and that you thus made a hypothesis. This is not an example of how you use the theory of evolution to make your hypothesis.
    Please be specific in how you applied the theory of evolution to make your hypothesis.
    What part of random mutation and natural selection made you hypothesize "that these structures could be formed through minor tweaks in the chemistry"?
    In the way you are writing this you might as well have made that hypotesis by guessing. Again, please be specific...

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ritchie:
    >A working understanding of the
    >principles of natural selection is
    >necessary in understanding how
    >viruses operate.

    You are not giving me an example of how the theory of evolution is used, you are just saying that it is. Everybody knows that viruses may become immune, but this is not an example of the use of the theory of random mutation/natural selection in science.
    Again, like in my post to nanobot74 above, I want an example how how the theory of random variation and natural selection is USED when doing science.



    Ritchie:
    >Why do you term it a belief system?

    Some people obviously belive it, no matter how improbable it proves to be....

    ReplyDelete
  27. Bjørn Østman:
    >...And those are just some of the
    >examples of directly observed
    >evolution.

    You seem to describe any observed change/adaption as "evolution" which may be where part of the disagreement lies, I guess.
    The question, however, is not really what we call these changes; the question is how we explain them.

    Maybe you belive that these examples of adaptions/changes in Ecoli, lizards, etc. can be explained using random mutations and natural selection (RNS). The point is that RNS, which of course is the cornerstone of "evolutionary theory", seems more and more redicolous as an explanation for what we are actually observing.

    ReplyDelete
  28. One example is what nano mentions about resistance to antibiotics. Then there's Crotian lizards, E. coli, virus resistance (flu, HIV, etc.), vaccine resistance, sickle-cell anemia and Falciparum, mice coat color, Pseudomonas, and Darwin's finches. And those are just some of the examples of directly observed evolution.

    It's interesting how those examples end to refute the progressive and constructive evolutionary creation myths typical to Darwinism. Darwin, when arguing that imaginary evidence is scientific argued something along the lines of: "If I could be shown an organism which I could not imagine coming about in a gradual series of constructive steps then my theory would absolutely break down. I can always imagine things, therefore my theory if verified." It's clear that Darwinists understand the problem is origins and construction, not preservation and destruction. Yet here you cite natural selection, a process of preservation and destruction as if it is evidence supportive of Darwinian creation myths. It isn't. Preservation and destruction are not construction and have nothing to do with the origins of complex adaptation and function. Take an example:
    In addition to our brain, our linguistic ability, and our highly developed visual ability, we possess another wonderful adaptation, the ideal manipulative tool—the human hand. No other animal possesses an organ so superbly adapted for intelligent exploration and manipulation of its physical surroundings and environment. Only the great apes, our cousins, come close. Yet the hand of the chimp and gorilla, although possessing an opposable thumb, is far less adapted to fine motor movement and control. Although some chimps are remarkably dexterous, when one sees them attempt even simple manual tasks, they appear clumsy and inept compared to humans. Even a chimp with the intelligence of a human would have considerable difficulty carrying out many of the manipulative tasks that we take for granted, like peeling an apple, tying a knot, or using a typewriter.
    ....
    In the context of explaining man’s biological preeminence on earth, the crucial question is not whether the human hand represents the absolute pinnacle of manipulative capability, but whether any other species possesses an organ approaching its capabilities. The answer simply must be that no other species possesses a manipulative organ remotely approaching the universal utility of the human hand. Even in the field of robotics, nothing has been built which even remotely equals the all-around manipulative capacity of the hand.
    The hand not only provided man with the ability to manipulate and explore his environment but also with the ability to construct all manner of diverse tools and instruments, the use of which has been crucial to the acquisition of technological and scientific knowledge. It is impossible to envisage man progressing beyond the most primitive technology without the hand.
    (Nature's Destiny: How the Laws
    of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe
    by Michael Denton :241)


    Consider a population of humans which natural selection operated on as a result of poison in their food supply. Only those born without hands survived because they were the only ones that ate a certain type of food. This would be beneficial to those that survived but it would destroy function and overall adaptability. In fact, if a process like this continued one could predict stasis/preservation and extinction/destruction, not progressive forms of evolution.

    Of course evolution happens, just like excrement happens.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Cornelius,
    you try getting tenure at an R1 school with $60k worth of grant money over 6 years. it won't happen, no matter if you're an evolutionist or not.

    as for the other point, you're putting words in my mouth. i said the fact of evolution is observed in e.g. antibiotic resistance. natural selection and common descent are also facts of evolution. the theory is that the millions of species descended through evolutionary processes. i am not claiming this theory is a fact, bc theories by definition are not facts. but the theory of evolution is a useful framework for making testable hypotheses, which I and thousands of other evol biologists do every day.

    dala,
    you need to learn more about evolution. i noted that these structures pop in and out over evolutionary time. complex structures are thought to be difficult to evolve. the fact that they appeared and disappeared so frequently led me to hypothesize that their development was not so complex and could be induced by simple changes in existing parts (you know, how evolution works). everything about te work had its basis in evolutionary theory.

    ReplyDelete
  30. If it really were a scam, then how do you think it could be that the thousands and thousands of scientists worldwide (does anybody have an idea of what that number is?)

    This move from a search for knowledge/scientia and the truth based on facts, logic and evidence to talking about people's professional identities is made so often that one might suspect that's all that most biologists care about. Like the eugenicists of old, all that many seem to care about is propping up evolutionary creation myths which support their status and standing in society. How do you think that there was a general consensus among German biologists about eugenics? Did they know it was a lie, was it a big secret?


    Alternatively, do you really think that thousands of people, who are smart enough to do well in college, and then go on to do a PhD (which I expect you may mock, or counter that a there are plenty of doctors who don't believe in evolution, like how many people with a PhD in evolution, again?) are really too dumb to see that they are all fooling each other...

    Were the eugenicists dumb? There are more important things in life than intelligence. For example a decent humble person may be much less likely to be wrong about something than a highly intelligent moral degenerate. It's curious how you seem to be imagining progress in science and yourself to stand at the pinnacle of Progress and so on. I suppose if I were to imagine progressive creation myths I might imagine the same thing, yet why not imagine yourself to be stupid and wrong? After all, if your mythology of progress is correct then whatever you're supposedly right about today will be proven wrong tomorrow.

    At any rate, with respect to stupidity and consensus perhaps a deconstrution of the old eugenic consensus might help:
    …the anthropological fable is a work of imagination, a historical scenario, yet offered as an explanation of one or another social phenomenon of either that time or our own. It is a kind of reverse science fiction, situated in the past rather than in the future. …

    What claim can this kind of historical fiction make to be scientific? It simply cannot, even in the loosest sense of science. It is just that the anthropological fable appeals to ideas of competition, struggle, selection, etc., ideas of Darwinian biology–or rather, socio-economic ideas that Darwinism borrowed and naturalized, thus giving them scientific backing. Returned to the sociology from whence they came, they are endowed with a kind of scientific aura, and their use in anthropological fables confers on the latter a dignity to which they have no right.

    The problem is that Darwinism, properly speaking, resorts to just this kind of historical scenario in its explanation of the origin of species. The simplest of these scenarios, in its modern form, sees a certain characteristic as appearing by chance mutation and, once shown to be favourable to its individual bearer, being preserved by natural selection. This basic model can be given added sophistication, mathematical for example, but the fact remains that the Darwinian explanation still consists in imagining a historical scenario… To criticize the explanatory principle that the anthropological model provides in social Darwinism [i.e. Nazism] is equally to criticize the Darwinian principle that explains the evolution of species by reconstructing historical scenarios. It thus amounts to an attack on science (since Darwinism is deemed scientific, at least among biologists)….
    (The Pure Society: from Darwin to Hitler by Andre Pichot :47-49)


    So, were the people who believed in "anthropological fables" stupid? If they were not, then is it not possible that a consensus can emerge among highly intelligent people (as naturally as excrement) which is wrong? If they were just stupid, then why do you seem intent on sniffing around at the rear of the current Herd and following along?

    ReplyDelete
  31. thanks for proving my point. scare-quotes, asterices and name calling are not the stuff of solid argumentation.

    Putting your fear of asterisks aside, even if he called you a mentally retarded chimp and used Darwinian creation myths to reduce your views to your biology you should still be able to deal with the facts, logic and evidence he brought up. It is odd that you demand civility given that if we take Darwinism seriously it becomes a "universal acid" (Dennett's terms) which dissolves and liquidates civilization/language. Apparently you do not take it seriously or believe it to be true.

    ReplyDelete
  32. as for the other point, you're putting words in my mouth. i said the fact of evolution is observed in e.g. antibiotic resistance. natural selection and common descent are also facts of evolution.

    Natural selection predicts preservation and destruction, not the gradual and progressive construction typical to hypotheses of common descent, i.e. evolutionary creation myths. What the theory of natural selection predicts has been observed and what has been observed comes into consilience with the stasis generally observed in the fossil record as well.

    Ironically if biologists are concerned about their status and professional identity then they need to stop equivocating and wallowing around in hypothetical goo. There is no theory of evolution comparable to the theory of gravity, it is generally a collection of hypotheses which are therefore unfalsifiable. And "evolution," whatever it is, does not mean that the theory of natural selection supports or comports with the notion of common descent.

    ReplyDelete
  33. nanobot74:
    >...the fact that they appeared and
    >disappeared so frequently led me
    >to hypothesize that their
    >development was not so complex
    >and could be induced by simple
    >changes in existing parts...

    ...Of course the hypothesis was based on your observation. But in what way did you use "evolutionary theory" to come up with your hypothesis??
    Thats the question; it should be simple enough to answer....

    ReplyDelete
  34. dala,
    first my observations were based entirely on evolutionary methodology, i.e. examination of phylogenetic trees. you can't have phylogenetic trees without the theory of evolution. second, the theory predicts that structures built by complex developmental pathways should not be very evolutionarily labile. so i hypothesized that their development was not so complex, explaining why they evolved over and over again. again, the logic of the entire project is evolutionarily based, and is yielding some very interesting (and potentially practical) results.

    ReplyDelete
  35. nano:

    =======
    as for the other point, you're putting words in my mouth. i said the fact of evolution is observed in e.g. antibiotic resistance. natural selection and common descent are also facts of evolution.
    =======

    Ah, no, I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm using your words verbatim. As I wrote:

    ----------
    Oh my. This is astonishing. Ritchie, I hope you're taking notes because here is another example of where evolutionary thinking takes you. "We see the FACT of evolution every day in e.g. antibiotic resistance" so therefore it is a fact that blind mutations and the like created the millions of species and wonders of biology. Don't worry that the science makes no sense--it is a fact. See?

    This is not even wrong--it's scary. This is the thinking that lies beneath the scientific absurdities. This is what is going on under the hood of evolutionary thought. Fallacious thinking, metaphysical mandates, asinine science, all coupled with power. It's scary.
    ---------

    You say I put words in your mouth, and then continue with the same absurdities. You write:

    "the fact of evolution is observed in e.g. antibiotic resistance"

    This is a false statement. Antibiotic resistance demonstrates the fact of antibiotic resistance. It demonstrates the fact of evolution only if you equate the two, and that is a fallacy known as equivocation. Antibiotic resistance and evolution are different things, not the same thing (what is this, 2nd grade ?! Unbelievable! ).

    As astonishing as this is, it unfortunately is common amongst evolutionists. It appears over and over in the evolution genre, and likewise here with you, Bjorn and others repeating the mantra. Ritchie, I hope you're following this.

    You then say "natural selection and common descent are also facts of evolution." This is another false statement. Common descent is not a fact, no matter how many times you hear that in your echo chamber. Evolutionists cannot make a claim to be a fact by repetition, although not for lack of trying.

    This is a spectacular example of evolutionary thinking and logic (or lack thereof). Evolutionary thought is so confused that you cannot even help evolutionists out of their rut. You point out an obvious fallacy, and you expect the evolutionist to say "oops, I didn't mean that, I take that back ..." but instead they're so confused they think you're putting words in their mouth. No, we're using your words exactly as you say them.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Cornelius,
    antibiotic resistance is a demonstration of evolution by natural selection in action. falling down is a demonstration of gravity in action. this doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is a fact anymore than it means that the theory of gravity is a fact. but it does mean that evolution by natural selection is a real force operating in the world, just like gravity.

    ReplyDelete
  37. nano:

    ====
    antibiotic resistance is a demonstration of evolution by natural selection in action. falling down is a demonstration of gravity in action. this doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is a fact anymore than it means that the theory of gravity is a fact. but it does mean that evolution by natural selection is a real force operating in the world, just like gravity.
    ====

    This literally is no different than a peddler's shell game.

    Yes, a rock falling down is a demonstration of gravity in action. Similarly a bacteria population adjusting and surviving is a demonstration of antibiotic resistance in action. Antibiotic resistance does not demonstrate "the FACT of evolution."

    Evolution is the claim that all the species arose via strictly naturalistic mechanisms. That is not equivalent to a population of bacteria adjusting and surviving the application of an antibiotic. These two are entirely different things. Furthermore, there is no scientific evidence that the mechanisms in antibiotic resistance can create the species and their wonders.

    But then again evolutionists already know all this. They admit to this in their honest moments. Evolutionists need hopeful monsters and elaborate mechanisms (somehow created by evolution) to create the species.

    But nonetheless, evolutionists claim such antibiotic resistance as proof of the fact of evolution. This is an equivocation--a shell game. And it consistently shows up in the literature. Evolution makes a mockery of science and lies to the public about the biological evidence. Then they blame critics and insist evolution is true, beyond the shadow of a doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Cornelius,
    by your logic a rock falling down is a demonstration of a rock falling down. why the double standard? are you really denying that antibiotic resistance comes about through evolution by natural selection?

    ReplyDelete
  39. dalahimself -

    "You are not giving me an example of how the theory of evolution is used, you are just saying that it is. Everybody knows that viruses may become immune, but this is not an example of the use of the theory of random mutation/natural selection in science."

    Then I'm not sure what you're asking for. This is a real world demonstration of how assuming the truth of natural selection leads us to understand a fact about the world - how viruses operate. Isn't this sufficient? Can you elaborate on exactly what you're asking for?

    ReplyDelete
  40. COrnelius -

    Since you addressed me, yes I am paying attention. Though (perhaps predictably) I agree with nanobot.

    Antibiotic resistance is a real world example of natural selection in action, is it not?

    ReplyDelete
  41. View As Web Page
    Cornelius, you referenced this:

    One hint that biology would not cooperate with Darwin’s theory came from the many examples of rapidly adapting populations. What evolutionists thought would require thousands or millions of years has been observed in laboratories and in the field, in an evolutionary blink of an eye. For instance, lizards placed in a new environment responded rapidly, developing new head morphology and digestive tract structure.

    Cornelius, are you seriously arguing that because the Croatian lizard study is an example of rapid evolution, then this is counter to the theory of evolution? Darwin was not right about everything, which is why we should not talk about "Darwin's theory", but about "the theory of evolution". They are not the same thing, anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  42. How is it that Crotian lizards are strong evidence for evolution.

    The Croatian lizards, as well as the all the other examples that I gave, are de facto cases of evolution observed. What you can contest is what the underlying mechanisms are, but emphatically not that evolution is a fact, as when you said

    You cannot have an asinine theory and then turn around say "no problem, we know it must be a fact." There is no scientific basis for the claim that evolution is a fact. The claim is constantly made, and the reasonings / proofs given are always metaphysical. It is a big scham. [Emphasis added.]

    If you only mean fact in regards to a theory, then you the whole sentence makes no sense anyway. Of course a theory is never going to be a fact. However, in the case of evolution, the theory of evolution is the best explanation for the observed instances of evolution - in the lab, in nature, and in the fossil record.

    As for the Croatian lizards, so far only the morhological changes have been documented. They are currently working on the underlying genetic changes. Of course, when they show what those are, you can/will contest them, saying that they do not support evolution at all. And that's fine only if you propose another testable mechanism for the observed instance of evolution. And that would be the day...

    ReplyDelete
  43. nano:

    ====
    are you really denying that antibiotic resistance comes about through evolution by natural selection?
    ====

    You continue to play word games. We can do science, or we can play word games.

    First, it is a fact that antibiotic resistance arises from complex structures whose origin evolution does not explain beyond non scientific, absurd, speculation.

    Second, you are equivocating on evolution. Antibiotic resistance and the creation of new species are different phenomena. If you want to argue that they are really two versions of the same phenomena, then you are hypothesizing. That's fine (although even evolutionists have dropped such silliness), but the former does not demonstrate "the FACT" of the latter.

    "It is really a simple apples-oranges problem, one that a trained scientist should not have."

    Right. Not only do evolutionists rely on pretzel logic, but they then say it is the skeptic who is making the logical errors that "a trained scientist" should not be making. Unbelievable.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Ritchie:

    ===
    yes I am paying attention. Though (perhaps predictably) I agree with nanobot.
    ===

    You're not alone. It seems most journalists reflect, rather than evaluate, evolutionary claims.

    ===
    Antibiotic resistance is a real world example of natural selection in action, is it not?
    ===

    Arg. Do you really think natural selection is the issue? Do you really think antibiotic resistance demonstrates the fact of evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Cornelius,
    if arguing on a blog is how you "do science", then, well, I'm sorry. I'm sure NIH is thrilled with the outcome of their investment in your career.

    second, i am not playing word games. you continue to say that i am trying to prove that all species arose through evolution by pointing out that some bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics through evolution by natural selection. I am not. I am simply stating that this well-established process shows that evolution is a real process that occurs in the real world (i.e. it is a fact). that is all. this does not mean that chimps and humans descended from a common ancestor, or anything else. it means that evolution is a real force, like gravity is a real force. what gravity is, how it keeps the planets in orbit, etc. are part of the theory of gravity, and how species descended from common ancestors are all parts of the theory of evolution

    ReplyDelete
  46. Cornelius -

    "Arg. Do you really think natural selection is the issue? Do you really think antibiotic resistance demonstrates the fact of evolution?"

    Yes, as a matter of fact I do!

    Doctors insist that people finish a pescription of antibiotics because unless they do, traces of the virus may remain in their bodies. Let's say 10% of the virus remains. It will be the 10% which is the most resistant to the antibiotics. So then is the virus is allowed to breed and spread, it will be descended from this slightly more drug resistant 10%. Do this a few times through a few people and the virus gets more and more drug resistant each time and eventually you end up with a strain of the virus which is resistant or immune to the antibiotics.

    That is a beautiful example of evolution through natural selection. That is it. Right there. Evolution in action. A virus evolving into a new strain. This is exactly what evolution is.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Cornelius,

    Clearly you take issue with evolutionary theory. What alternative do you propose? What are your answers?

    Don't take this as baiting or anything else. I find it useful and interesting to actually hear what people think and why.

    Since you are clearly arguing AGAINST modern evolutionary theory, I think it would be interesting to hear what you are arguing FOR. Lastly, how did you come to your conclusions? What data or evidence do you find most convincing?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Ryan:


    =====
    Clearly you take issue with evolutionary theory. What alternative do you propose? What are your answers?
    =====

    One of the unintended consequences of Copernicus' work was an appreciation of theory underdetermination and anti realism. Different theories, both of which could not be true, could fit the empirical data equally well. Obviously any discussion of theory evaluation should not go too far without an awareness of these issues. Another important issue in theory evaluation is the problem of unconceived alternatives, and another is how science is defined:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/01/question-for-joe-felsenstein-and.html

    Issues such as these, and the history of science in general, provide abundant warnings for rationalism. I tend more toward empiricism so am less concerned with having alternatives at hand.


    =====
    Lastly, how did you come to your conclusions? What data or evidence do you find most convincing?
    =====

    Perhaps you are asking about my evaluation of evolution. The question might be better put "What data or evidence do you *not* find most convincing?" I do not find religious claims to be very convincing, and since evolution is predicated on them, I find evolution to be a weak theory. Its fundamental predictions have been consistently falsified.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Bjørn:

    ==========
    [Cornelius, I don't fool myself into thinking (a) that you haven't heard what I'm about to say before, and (b) that it makes any difference whatsoever what anyone tells you regarding evolution, but perhaps others will see the light.]
    ==========

    So, the rationalist begins by accusing the empiricist of being closed minded. Classic.



    ==========
    You can believe whatever you want, but some respect for the scientific method is appreciated, even when it applies to a domain that interferes with that of theology.
    ==========

    To what theology are you referring?


    ==========
    Cornelius, are you seriously arguing that because the Croatian lizard study is an example of rapid evolution, then this is counter to the theory of evolution? Darwin was not right about everything ...
    ==========

    Are you seriously arguing that non random biological adaptation, in response to environmental challenges, supports evolution? It is astonishing that fundamental theoretical problems are dismissed with a wave of the hand. Not a problem, after all, it’s evolution. And evolution skeptics are the ones who are closed minded. Nice.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Bjørn:

    ==========
    The Croatian lizards, as well as the all the other examples that I gave, are de facto cases of evolution observed.
    ==========

    You are equivocating on evolution. Is the parking lot outside your window a de facto case of a flat earth? But this is even worse. At least the parking lot makes sense under the flat earth model. Croatian lizards falsify a *fundamental* prediction of evolution made by leading, mainstream evolutionists. For instance:

    ---
    Mutation merely provides the raw material of evolution; it is a random affair, and takes place in all directions. Genes are giant molecules, and their mutations are the result of slight alterations in their structure. Some of these alterations are truly chance rearrangements, as uncaused or at least as unpredictable as the jumping of an electron from one orbit to another inside an atom; others are the result of the impact of some external agency, like X-rays, or ultra-violet radiations, or mustard gas. But in all cases they are random in relation to evolution. Their effects are not related to the needs of the organisms, or to the conditions in which it is placed. They occur without reference to their possible consequences or biological uses. –Julian Huxley
    ---


    ---
    We call these events [the various types of DNA sequence alteration] accidental; we say that they are random occurrences. And since they constitute the only possible source of modifications in the genetic text, itself the sole repository of the organism’s hereditary structures, it necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition—or the hope—that on this score our position is likely ever to be revised. --Jacques Monod
    ---

    The Croatian lizards are precisely *not* examples of evolution and it is a testament to the anti intellectualism in evolutionary thought that evolutionists make such an ignorant argument.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Bjørn:

    ==========
    However, in the case of evolution, the theory of evolution is the best explanation for the observed instances of evolution - in the lab, in nature, and in the fossil record.
    ==========

    Hard to beat that rock solid evolutionary logic. You gotta admit that evolution is the best explanation for evolution.



    ==========
    As for the Croatian lizards, so far only the morphological changes have been documented. They are currently working on the underlying genetic changes. Of course, when they show what those are, you can/will contest them, saying that they do not support evolution at all. And that's fine only if you propose another testable mechanism for the observed instance of evolution.
    ==========

    So, we can’t point out that evolution is absurd unless we propose another testable mechanism for the observed instance of evolution. Can I make up some rules too? Let’s see, how about you can’t make silly claims?

    ReplyDelete
  52. The parallels between these attacks on scientists doing research in evolutionary biology and the attacks on climate scientists is striking. Both are based on wishful thinking on the part of the attackers, whose arrogance is amazing. Where does this mean-spirited arrogance come from?

    ReplyDelete
  53. nano:

    ====
    are you really denying that antibiotic resistance comes about through evolution by natural selection?
    ====

    Response by Cornelius Hunter:

    "You continue to play word games. We can do science, or we can play word games."
    ====

    This should be of no surprise, since this tactic was done at the very beginning back in Eden. Take a look at the effective usuage of word & shell games from the master himself.

    Genesis 3:1 (GOD’S WORD Translation)

    1 "The snake was more clever than all the wild animals the Lord God had made. He asked the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must never eat the fruit of any tree in the garden’?”

    I appreciate you don't use scripture, so I have no problem doing so.

    Thanks for your Blog.

    ReplyDelete