Saturday, September 11, 2010

Why Some People Favor Common Descent

The scientific evidence does not favor evolution but that doesn't mean we know all the answers. In fact some people who agree evolution is unlikely, nonetheless argue for common descent. This can be confusing because common descent is so often presented as integral to Darwin's idea. But this need not be the case.

Evolutionary thought entertains a seemingly unbounded spectrum of hypotheses about how the species arose. It is by no means limited to natural selection, or even common descent. At the core of evolutionary thought is naturalism. The origin of species must be explained naturalistically. Beyond that, practically anything is allowed.

Common descent can also be an open-ended idea. Yes, it is usually considered to be within evolution's strictly naturalistic paradigm, but that is not a necessary constraint. For many people, it is clear that naturalistic explanations don't do a very good job, but nonetheless there is evidence for shared ancestry.

What all this means is that when one person argues against common descent and another for common descent, they may actually be not too far apart. Hopefully we all acknowledge the broad outlines of the evidence. And hopefully we all understand the important role of metaphysics in interpreting that evidence.

But such shared understandings do not narrow us to a single choice. Some may favor common descent while others may not. That does not mean the former denies the evidence against common descent, or that the latter denies the evidence for it. It simply means that our current level of knowledge leaves us with a substantially underdetermined origins problem. We simply do not have sufficient knowledge or evidence, evolutionists notwithstanding, to make heavy-handed declarations about what must be accepted as fact.

The knowledgeable person arguing for common descent views its evidential problems as reasons to reject marrying common descent to evolution, but not rejecting the concept of common descent altogether. But this person's view of common descent is different from the usual evolutionary view, which typically restricts common descent to be within the strictly naturalistic paradigm.

Clearly, it is crucial for people to establish unambiguous definitions for how they are viewing common descent. Most importantly, is their version restricted to naturalism, or not? For instance, those arguing against common descent may have the strict naturalism of evolution in view. In that case, they are not opposing those who, for instance, argue for common descent from an intelligent design perspective.

In my view, evolutionary thought has badly failed on today's science. And so with it the strictly naturalistic version of common descent likewise thus far fails. The only reason to think otherwise is if one carries a priori metaphysical prejudices, as evolutionists do, which color the interpretation of the evidence.

But given this correct understanding of today's science, the question of a broader version of common descent becomes, in my view, far more underdetermined and far more difficult to assess. Problems that are not amenable to methodological naturalism are above my paygrade.

129 comments:

  1. Having read the essay (which runs at nearly 500 words), this reader still cannot tell whether the author accepts or rejects common descent.

    ReplyDelete
  2. He must be paid by the word for this salad. This bit was particularly funny:

    "Hopefully we all acknowledge the broad outlines of the evidence. And hopefully we all understand the important role of metaphysics in interpreting that evidence."

    In the 500 words, there was no evidence that Dr. Hunter was acknowledging any of the evidence, much less its "broad outlines."

    The reality is that Dr. Hunter is strenuously avoiding the evidence, not interpreting it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. CH said...

    Problems that are not amenable to methodological naturalism are above my paygrade.


    LOL! So you can't even begin to tell us how to do science that doesn't rely on methodological naturalism, you just know all modern evolutionary biology that excludes the supernatural is wrong.

    Is that about it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. CH:

    "The scientific evidence does not favor evolution but that doesn't mean we know all the answers. In fact some people who agree evolution is unlikely, nonetheless argue for common descent."

    Again I gotta ask: what have you been smoking?

    First, the scientific evidence does, of course, favor evolution. Evolution is a totally done deal according to nearly all scientists. The current research is focused on (a) unraveling the history of evolution, and (b) the mechanisms of evolution.

    Second, how can there be common descent without evolution? That doesn't make any sense, unless perhaps you are using a very unusual definition of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  5. troy:

    ===========
    Me: It simply means that our current level of knowledge leaves us with a substantially underdetermined origins problem. We simply do not have sufficient knowledge or evidence, evolutionists notwithstanding, to make heavy-handed declarations about what must be accepted as fact.


    You and Evolutionists: First, the scientific evidence does, of course, favor evolution. Evolution is a totally done deal according to nearly all scientists. The current research is focused on (a) unraveling the history of evolution, and (b) the mechanisms of evolution.
    ============

    Indeed, it is a "totally done deal." According to evolutionists it is an undeniable *fact*.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cornelius Hunter said...

    Clearly, it is crucial for people to establish unambiguous definitions for how they are viewing common descent.


    Please give us your unambiguous definitions of the terms fact and evolution as you are using them. It is crucial for people to establish unambiguous definitions you know.

    You and Evolutionists: First, the scientific evidence does, of course, favor evolution. Evolution is a totally done deal according to nearly all scientists. The current research is focused on (a) unraveling the history of evolution, and (b) the mechanisms of evolution.
    ============

    Indeed, it is a "totally done deal." According to evolutionists it is an undeniable *fact*.


    Still equivocating over the definition of evolution I see, and still confusing abiogenesis with evolution. Seems like pretty much all of evolutionary theory is above your pay grade.

    ReplyDelete
  7. CH:

    "Indeed, it is a "totally done deal." According to evolutionists it is an undeniable *fact*."

    Yes. The fossil record shows that life on earth evolved. Comparative analysis of morphology supports a phylogeny of life that is corroborated by analysis of DNA sequences. What more evidence do you need to agree that evolution is a fact? We can reasonably disagree about the relative importance of different mechanisms (such as natural selection, mutation, genetic drift), but evolution is indeed a done deal.

    ReplyDelete
  8. troy:

    ===
    Yes. The fossil record shows that life on earth evolved.
    ===

    That is not even wrong but, of course, you already knew that. What is astonishing to me is the boldness with which evolutionist tell their lies. Tell me, what will be your next falsehood?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dr Hunter, who are these "some people"? Do you have anyone specific in mind, such as Michael Behe, or are you just mumbling out loud?

    ReplyDelete
  10. David vun Kannon:

    Yes, Michael Behe would be one (if his position on CD has not changed recently).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dr. Cornelius is arguing very dishonestly that common descent has not been proven. He's implying, indeed, that it's a scientific controversy. This is a lie.

    The data overwhelmingly support CD, especially genetic comparisons and the fossil record. But Dr. Cornelius tries to deceive the non-scientists in his audience into thinking there's some controversy:

    >> Some may favor common descent while others may not. That does not mean the former denies the evidence against common descent, or that the latter denies the evidence for it. It simply means that our current level of knowledge leaves us with a substantially underdetermined origins problem. <<

    I'll put this simply, no bells and whistles. We have the genomes of humans, chimps and neanderthals. The human and chimp are 98.4% identical. THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THE IDENTICAL NUCLEOTIDES ARE *NOT* CONSTRAINED BY BIOCHEMICAL FUNCTION. Most mutations are neutral. Most mutations would be in non-coding regions like pseudogenes. In coding regions, like genes, most mutations are neutral or have little effect on biochemical function.

    Let's just look at it in protein terms. In a typical protein, there are maybe 250 amino acids. You could mutate about two-thirds of those individually without changing function or shape. Yet, in comparing the typical human and chimp protein they differ by... ONE AMINO ACID.

    No functional requirement for so much identity.

    As for the fossil record, continuing with just the chimp-human case: Australopithecus Afarensis, Homo habilis, (Dmanisi fossils thereof), Homo Erectus, etc. etc. Cranial sizes increase gradually, one small increment at a time, from chimp-size to human-size. Watch the Futurama episode. It says it all.

    Well, maybe all those similarities beyond functional constraints are just big coincidences. Creationists and ID proponents have infinite faith in blind chance producing amazing coinky-dinkies.

    Common descent of humans and chimps explains that. There are no other, competing hypotheses that specifically predict similarity that goes beyond the constraints of biochemical function.

    Yes, OK, you want "design" by unpredictable, inconsistently behaving, irrational and invisible intelligences, interacting with matter in unspecified ways, included as a scientific theory.

    OK, fine, this is like Stephen Hawking demanding that he must be allowed to play in the NFL. Fine, we were trying to be nice...but if he's going to get insulting, let's put him in the game and kick his ass.

    Design by unpredictable, inconsistently behaving, irrational and invisible intelligences, interacting with matter in unspecified ways, does not SPECIFICALLY require that similarities between humans and chimps can far outstrip the constraints of biochemical function. It does not require that hominid fossils, immediately prior to the appearance of modern humans, must have properties that are intermediate between great apes and humans. Your theory can accommodate that result, sure, and all others-- 70% genetic identity, 60% identity, 80%, whatever. Because it accommodates everything, it predicts nothing. Only common descent specifically predicts these results.

    Scientific failure drives creationism, but it doesn't matter. No one thinks the DI are scientists anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Diogenes said, "The human and chimp are 98.4% identical."

    Me:

    Statistics can lie and in this case they are misleading.

    Following this chimp/human 99% nonsense (oops now it's 98.4%), we are one-third daffodils because our DNA matches that of a daffodil 33% of the time!

    There is no biological comparison you can make which will find us to be one-third daffodil, except by the DNA.

    Why? Using the base-pair mismatch to calculate this contrived % is misleading, because it ignores the complexity of genome structure.

    If humans and chimpanzees are over 98% identical base-for-base, how do you reconcile that chimpanzees have 10% more DNA than humans?

    Enron also showed it was making big profits. Statistics can lie.


    Yes, OK, you want "evolution" by unpredictable, inconsistently behaving, irrational and invisible natural forces, interacting with matter in unspecified ways, included as a scientific theory?

    As far as homind evolution, the operative phrase in nearly ever article is "there is still disagreement..." That's disagreement about how these hominds are to be classified and fit into a supposed lineage. Of course, since evolution is a fact, it is only in the actual details of just about everything that there is disagreement!

    Nice spin! Welcome to the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  13. COMMON DESIGNER makes COMMON DESIGNS. Such is observed real-time and all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Tedford:
    >> COMMON DESIGNER makes COMMON DESIGNS. Such is observed real-time and all the time. <<

    Ah, the Walter ReMine "Biotic Message" gambit! Where'd you get that "science"-- Answers in Genesis?

    You have forgotten the DIFFERENCES!

    The genome of humans and chimps are 1.6% different, measured by SNPs. Most of those changes are neutral mutations-- not required by biochemical or functional differences.

    Thus, the design is not common. If it were true, as you say, that "COMMON DESIGNER makes COMMON DESIGNS. Such is observed real-time and all the time."-- if that were true, then the DIFFERENCES between human and chimp disprove the existence of a Common Designer.

    It does leave open the possibility of a large number of invisible leprechauns who disagree with each other and act at cross-purposes; or some kind of pantheon with inscrutable, unknowable purposes; but theories of that sort-- while better than Walter ReMine's garbage-- still can accomodate all kinds of data.

    Your theory is disproven by neutral genetic DIFFERENCES.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Tedford:
    >>As far as homind evolution, the operative phrase in nearly ever article is "there is still disagreement..." That's disagreement about how these hominds are to be classified and fit into a supposed lineage. Of course, since evolution is a fact, it is only in the actual details of just about everything that there is disagreement!<<

    OK, so since this phrase is, you say, present in "nearly every article" on hominid evolution, that will make it easy for you to find three such articles. Dig up three.

    Let's see what, specifically, the authors disagree about. Whether humans evolved from Australopithecus? (Everybody living agrees) Or whether Habilis should be classified as Homo or Australo because it's so damn transitional no one can tell?

    Dig up three articles. If you're telling the truth, that should be easy. If it's not easy, you were lying.

    ReplyDelete
  16. And just for a laugh, I have to point out the similarity between Tedford's daffodil argument and the creepiness of Denyse O'Leary. Tedford says:

    >>Following this chimp/human 99% nonsense (oops now it's 98.4%), we are one-third daffodils because our DNA matches that of a daffodil 33% of the time!

    There is no biological comparison you can make which will find us to be one-third daffodil, except by the DNA. <<

    Now compare this with Denyse O'Leary, a Discovery Institute intellectual giant. She argues that because women are not 98% as attracted to chimps, as they are to men, that disproves GENETICS-- the whole science of genetics!

    >>If both [man and chimp] are more than 30 years old... how many people will believe that they are 98% identical?
    What woman...would marry the chimp if she didn’t get the man? After all, the chimp is supposedly 98% of a man.

    Actually, the chimp isn’t a man at all...Every woman in the world knows this. None are the least bit interested in the chimp...So, my question is, what is this 98% similarity thing based on, other than to discredit genetics? <<

    That's right-- the DI wants us to throw out the whole science of genetics because it produced data they don't like.

    You people freaking hate ALL the sciences. What next do you want us to throw out? Geology? Cosmology? Well, yeah.

    Tedford:
    >> Statistics can lie and in this case they are misleading.
    ...Statistics can lie.<<

    If you hate scientists using math to test/prove theories so much, you should dig up Isaac Newton and hit him with a shovel. He's your problem.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Neal Tedford said...

    COMMON DESIGNER makes COMMON DESIGNS. Such is observed real-time and all the time.


    So Tedford, since you're such an expert on the Designer, answer the question I asked on the other thread:

    Thorton: "I'd just like the IDC crowd here to explain the logic for why the Intelligent Designer set up predator/prey relationships at all. Why design certain species of animal (gazelles, antelopes) with great speed to avoid being eaten, then turn around and design other species (lions, crocodiles) with all the tools to kill and eat the first species every chance they get? Why would a designer create caterpillars, then design a species of parasitic wasp that burrows into the caterpillars and eats them alive from the inside out?

    Anyone? Are there multiple designers competing against each other? "

    How many designers are there Teedford, and how do you know?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thorton:
    >>Why would a designer create caterpillars, then design a species of parasitic wasp that burrows into the caterpillars and eats them alive from the inside out?<<

    Thorton! You have forgotten the spider orchid! An orchid which looks like a spider, in the hopes that the solitary wasp will be tricked into thinking it's a spider, and will try to plant the eggs of its parasitic larvae into the orchid (in the process, getting a dusting of pollen, and assisting in orchid reproduction.)

    Look, the answer's obvious. Seamus the green leprechaun designed the fly. Brendan the red leprechaun designed the spider to eat the fly because he hates Seamus. Patrick the orange leprechaun designed the parasitic wasp to eat their larvae alive because he hates Brendan. (Don't mess with Patrick.) Francis the red leprechaun designed the orchid that looks like a spider because he hates Patrick.

    Can you disprove that theory, Dr. Cornelius?

    Or are you METAPHYSICALLY BIASED against Uncommon Leprechaun theory? Discrimination against the Irish, Begorah!

    Hatred of Leprechauns drives creationism, and it matters.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Diogenes said...

    Thorton! You have forgotten the spider orchid! An orchid which looks like a spider, in the hopes that the solitary wasp will be tricked into thinking it's a spider, and will try to plant the eggs of its parasitic larvae into the orchid (in the process, getting a dusting of pollen, and assisting in orchid reproduction.)


    If we want to get really nasty, let's ask them to explain the Candiru fish that lives in the Amazon. This is a tiny parasitic fish that is attracted to human urine (from people relieving themselves while swimming or wading in the river) and swims up the victim's urethra where it embeds itself with painful razor sharp spikes. Once embedded, the fish is impossible to remove without surgery.

    Great job there Designer! Any of you IDiots want to explain the logic behind the design?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Oh, well they can explain the "why." Adam ate an apple, so we deserve to suffer.

    But they can't explain the "how." According to creationists, everyone was a vegetarian in the Garden of Eden. So T. Rex used his dozens of razor-sharp teeth just to eat a mango the size of a Volkswagen.

    But they need superfast evolution (or devolution) in 6,000 years to explain all this exquisitely well-adapted parasitism, predator structure and behavior, plus predator avoidance, plus adaptation to predation (e.g. spider orchid), and the superfast "devolution" cannot increase complexity while producing amazing, complex structures. And strangely, leaves no genetic markers and was observed by no human historians, not even the Bible writers.

    ReplyDelete
  21. How similar are the Human-Chimp Y DNA?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Diogenes said...


    But they need superfast evolution (or devolution) in 6,000 years to explain all this exquisitely well-adapted parasitism, predator structure and behavior, plus predator avoidance, plus adaptation to predation (e.g. spider orchid), and the superfast "devolution" cannot increase complexity while producing amazing, complex structures. And strangely, leaves no genetic markers and was observed by no human historians, not even the Bible writers.

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

    You're assuming that all creationists are young earth creationists. This is not the case!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Neal Tedford said:

    “A lot of inconsequential crap.”



    Diogenes said:

    “Dig up three articles. If you're telling the truth, that should be easy. If it's not easy, you were lying.”

    =======

    With Neal it’s more a combination of lying through his teeth for Jesus (some habits are unbreakable) and just plain ignorance. Last year on a SciAm thread he made a monumental doofus of himself for hundreds of posts. Which reminds me; where are those other “21 evidences for creation,” Neal? I only saw eight. Or was it nine? They were all so patently ridiculous that I lost interest and count. I haven’t seen them published in any of the literature yet. Did I miss them?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ambiorix said:

    “You're assuming that all creationists are young earth creationists. This is not the case!”

    ======

    I think what he really means is that creationists are generally science illiterate. Take a look around – this is the case! Deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Diogenes is doing what Dr. Hunter says evolutionists do all the time. They say that an intelligent designer wouldn't do things that way. That's a theological argument.

    And has it been demonstrated that the genetic differences between chimps and humans are in fact neutral, or is that conjecture. Maybe chimp proteins won't work in humans. I'm just asking.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Cornelius Hunter:

    "Clearly, it is crucial for people to establish unambiguous definitions for how they are viewing common descent. Most importantly, is their version restricted to naturalism, or not? "
    ======

    Actually, "Ambiguity" is an Evolutionist's best friend !!!
    ------

    Scott wondered:

    "I'm asking how you happen to know what God wants. I'm asking how you know what God will or will not do in the future.

    Apparently, you think "decent people" have the inside track on this, but it's unclear how or why. Nor is it clear how you define "decent people" or why fundies are not "decent people".

    For example, if you believe God really is the source of morality and decency, then how you define decency depends on how you think God defines decency. Which again, boils down to what you happen to believe God wants or what God will or will not do. Which apparently only decent people have knowledge of, etc.
    =======

    I'm even more intrigued about how an atheist/evolutionist claims to know the mind of God and what such a God would do or not do if he actually existed. So how do Atheists know the mind of God better than a theist ???

    For example, sometime back, Cornelius Hunter quoted from an article which made a major metaphysical statement by none other than the brilliant metaphysical genius of P.Z. Meyers.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oew-myers22-2009may22,0,1521283.story

    P.Z. Meyers - L.A. Times:
    "We go right to the central issue of whether there is a god or not. We're pretty certain that if there were an all-powerful being pulling the strings and shaping history for the benefit of human beings, the universe would look rather different than it does."

    Interestingly enough, Mr Meyers is correct. The Bible also says exactly that, but without listing scriptural references why (which of course would be ignored anyway), a more important question is this:

    How is it that most Atheists like P.Z. Meyers and other Evolutionists have the uncanny metaphysical ability to know the mind of God far above and beyond what someone who claims to believe would know about God ???

    "

    ReplyDelete
  27. natschuster: Diogenes is doing what Dr. Hunter says evolutionists do all the time. They say that an intelligent designer wouldn't do things that way. That's a theological argument.

    Cornelius Hunter fools you again, Nat. Thorton and Diogenes are simply pointing out that abundant evidence from the natural world shows widespread antagonism and waste, what we humans call cruelty.

    It just so happens that most 21st century American creationists come from a religious tradition that posits an all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing creator god. It's not the fault of Diogenes and Thorton (or Darwin or Asa Gray) that the facts of nature are not concordant with this bronze- and iron-age theology.

    These are observations from the natural world; you could say it's not a scientific argument because science has nothing to say about the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny, let alone Yahweh. But that doesn't keep it from being a good argument.

    This argument from the natural world, as Diogenes noted, does not lead strictly to atheism. It kills some (a lone hyper-intelligent benevolent designer) but not all (a pantheon of impish deities) of the supernatural possibilities behind curtain #1.

    ReplyDelete
  28. And has it been demonstrated that the genetic differences between chimps and humans are in fact neutral, or is that conjecture. Maybe chimp proteins won't work in humans. I'm just asking.

    30% of chimp proteins are spot on identical to the human version and would definitely work. Enough is known about proteins to say that one or two substitutions have no great impact on function unless they occur in a few critical sites. Some of the differences between humans and chimps are indeed due to natural selection, but most are likely due to drift (we do not need selection to explain them). You would probably be fine with chimp hemoglobin, which does just as good a job at glomming oxygen as the human form. You probably wouldn't want the chimp version of FOXP2, but it almost certainly wouldn't kill you.

    We can't prove the viability of chimp proteins in humans by direct experiment, of course, for ethical reasons. But work with model animals like the mouse, fruit fly, nematode, clawed frog, chicken, etc. have greatly improved our understanding of how genes work to build bodies and the effects of amino acid substitutions on protein function.

    ReplyDelete
  29. John:

    Maybe it isn't a question of a chimp protein killing us, just a question of whether it works in a human as well as a human protein. Sometimes changing one amino acid can have a significant effect.

    And how would humans, not being omniscient, know how an omniscient being would do things?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Nat said: "Diogenes is doing what Dr. Hunter says evolutionists do all the time. They say that an intelligent designer wouldn't do things that way. That's a theological argument."

    Nat, if one is positing an Intelligent Designer as a scientific hypothesis,, then it can not be called a theological argument to point out inconsistencies and irrational 'decisions' that the designer seems to have made. If one is putting forth a design hypothesis as an explanation, then that hypothesis needs to explain the things we see. You can't say "Design is the best explanation for what we see in nature," and when questioned about the seemingly irrational, malevolent, or arbitrary design decision the supposed designer would've had to have made, then turn around and say "Well, we're not positing anything about the designer, his identity, motives, mechanisms, or whatever."

    Again, if you're positing a design hypothesis as an alternative to evolution, it needs to explain things better than evolution does.

    Pointing out flaws in the design hypothesis has nothing do to do with theology, unless you're willing to concede that the design hypothesis isn't really scientific in the first place, but theological.

    ReplyDelete
  31. natschuster said...

    And how would humans, not being omniscient, know how an omniscient being would do things?


    B I N G O !!

    How do the IDCers know that an omniscient being wouldn't just create natural laws then let the natural processes of evolution form the life we see now?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Derick:

    Evolutionists have said that design is not a valid scientific explanation because it is not naturalistic, or it is not falsifiable, or it is not testable. But theological arguments against design are allowed, then theological explanation should be allowed as well.

    What exactly are the rules? And who gets to make them?

    ReplyDelete
  33. The "God wouldn't do it that way" argument seems to me to be sort of an evolution of the gaps argument. If we could think of a reason why a creator night do it that way, the argument is removed.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Eocene said: "I'm even more intrigued about how an atheist/evolutionist claims to know the mind of God and what such a God would do or not do if he actually existed. So how do Atheists know the mind of God better than a theist ???"

    There you go again with the atheist/evolutionist thing as if they're interchangeable. Surely you realize by now that that's a silly as saying "that darn athiest/astronomer," or "You silly atheist/gravitationalist!"

    Anyways.


    Now, obviously an atheist isn't claiming to know the mind of God, since they don't believe that God exists. They are simply pointing out inconsistencies in the creationist's own views.

    I've literally heard a creationist argue that there was no entropy before the fall. If I were to point out out one major problem with that statement, namely that if there were no entropy, then there would be no friction,(to name just one of thousands of problems with that statement) and therefore Adam and all the dinosaurs were incessantly sliding around, bumping into each other, would that be making a 'theological' argument to explain the correlation between entropy and friction, just because it happens to point out an absurdity of a theological belief? Of course not.

    When a creationist makes a claim about reality, pointing out logical contradictions with the claim, or how it doesn't correspond to observation, is not inherently making a 'metaphysical' argument.

    If someone claims that a communion wafer literally transforms into human flesh when it is swallowed, conducting an experiment showing that it doesn't does not mean the experiment is 'theological' in nature.

    "religion drives anti-transubstantiationism, and it matters."

    ReplyDelete
  35. Thorton said...

    How do the IDCers know that an omniscient being wouldn't just create natural laws then let the natural processes of evolution form the life we see now?

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

    That's a very good point!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Keelyn_87 said...

    I think what he really means is that creationists are generally science illiterate.

    ============================
    You know in old Soviet Russia they used try a similar humiliating tactic (of course it was political in this case) they would describe people of differing political persuasions has being mentally unstable.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Nat :"The "God wouldn't do it that way" argument seems to me to be sort of an evolution of the gaps argument. If we could think of a reason why a creator night do it that way, the argument is removed."

    Nat, I can easily think of a reason why a creator might do it that way: He wanted to make it look just like those features evolved, in order to test our faith. Attributing that motivation to the designer explains absolutely any and every observation you could possibly ever make. If you don't understand why that lack of falsifiability alone disqualifies it as a legitimate, scientific hypothesis, I don't know what else to say.

    On the flip side, one could make an endless list of observations or discoveries that falsify evolution, or at least take it all the way back to the drawing board: precambrian rabbits, feathered fish, croco-ducks, new animals appearing out of thin air, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Cornelius Hunter: Why Some People Favor Common Descent

    Because the scientific evidence strongly support Common Descent, in particular, the nested hierarchy of morphology, genetics, embryonic development, biogeography and fossils in time.

    ReplyDelete
  39. natschuster: Maybe it isn't a question of a chimp protein killing us, just a question of whether it works in a human as well as a human protein. Sometimes changing one amino acid can have a significant effect.


    Again, about one-third of the proteins are identical, so just as good. One amino acid difference can be important, but generally only if it's at a critical site associated with it's function; for many proteins, this is less than 10 percent of all sites. However, yes there would be cases where the chimp version of distinct proteins would be less helpful to us. It's called natural selection.

    But for many proteins, such as opsins, variability is well tolerated and there is considerable polymorphism within a single species (such as humans).


    And how would humans, not being omniscient, know how an omniscient being would do things?

    Any designer that is omniscient would by definition be at least as intelligent as a human. Do you think a sperm whale without gills, feeding hundreds of meters below the surface and facing considerable peril (especially the young) rising to breathe, is something an intelligent designer would create? This would be a good test to see if your religious beliefs delude you into a worldview in which the gill-less whale makes sense (other than as descent from terrestrial ancestors). Again, shooting down Panglossians is a side show in evolutionary evidence. The main event is the consilience of evidence Zach cites in the above post.

    ReplyDelete
  40. CH:

    "That [the fossil record shows that life on earth evolved] is not even wrong but, of course, you already knew that. What is astonishing to me is the boldness with which evolutionist tell their lies. Tell me, what will be your next falsehood?"

    What a pathetic response. Way before Darwin it was already accepted (except by the usual fundamentalist loons of course) that the fossil record shows that live on earth evolved. Evolved as in changed over time, as in hey those big reptiles from the fossils aren't among us anymore what's going on. What is astonishing to me is that you think that's a lie. It just goes to show how religion can rot people's brains.

    ReplyDelete
  41. But if there is considerable variation in proteins within species, then why is the difference between chimp and human protein significant?

    And the sperm whales seem to be doing just fine with lungs. So may be it is good enough design.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Natschuster wrote:

    Diogenes is doing what Dr. Hunter says evolutionists do all the time. They say that an intelligent designer wouldn't do things that way. That's a theological argument.

    Nat,

    If God actually is omnipotent, anyone could claim that God caused anything to occur. Should somone make any claim about any phenomena, it would became a theological argument post-hoc. Clearly, this is problematic.

    For example, take last Thursday-ism, which is a claim that God created the universe, and everything in it, last Thursday. This includes implanting us with false memories of lives we never lived, creating mountains and other geological formations fully formed, etc.

    A claim that God would not create the universe last Thursday is a claim that an "intelligent designer wouldn't do things that way." Under Hunters' definition, this would necessitate absolutely everything a theological argument.

    So, why Hunter is singling out biological complexity, when it would appear that even geology, astrology and even the existence of modern day technology built before last Tuesday would be "theological" using his definition?

    ReplyDelete
  43. It is worth noting that Cornelius Hunter does accept common descent. In a long exchange of comments here (in the thread in July on "Evolution is a Scientific Fact: Day 74") he accepted common descent of diatoms.

    I immediately asked him why he didn't accept similar evidence for common descent of chordates. He said that the evidence for that depended on adaptive scenarios such as those for Darwin's Finches that were not convincing.

    I responded that the evidence for common descent in chordates was the same kind of morphological and molecular evidence used for diatoms, and did not depend on those particular cases of adaptation. Mysteriously, there was no answer to this.

    (If people want to find this exchange see the comments in that thread by me on July 18 10:54pm, Cornelius's agreement with common descent on July 18 11:22pm, and our further exchange July 19 1pm and 2:57pm, July 20 2:36pm, July 22 10:05am, and July 29 6:17am).

    ReplyDelete
  44. troy:

    ===
    What a pathetic response. Way before Darwin it was already accepted (except by the usual fundamentalist loons of course) that the fossil record shows that live on earth evolved. Evolved as in changed over time, as in hey those big reptiles from the fossils aren't among us anymore what's going on. What is astonishing to me is that you think that's a lie. It just goes to show how religion can rot people's brains.
    ===

    So let's see, I said the scientific evidence does not favor evolution, you disagreed making the usual claim that the evidence makes evolution a done deal, and that "The fossil record shows that life on earth evolved." I responded saying this is obviously false, and now you say that when you said "life on earth evolved" all you really meant was that there has been a change, over time, to Earth's species on earth, and it was pathetic not for me to divine that.

    Well I'm glad we have that cleared up, but now your point moves from obviously false to obviously pointless and confusing. So what? That fact that there has been a change over time to the Earth's complement of speces is not in question.

    Evolutionists say that evolution (all of biology arose by random chance) is an undeniable fact, and when questioned state that the fossils prove that "life on earth evolved," and when further questioned explain that, gee, all they meant was change over time. Do they not understand that this is an equivocation on evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Scott:

    ===
    For example, take last Thursday-ism, which is a claim that God created the universe, and everything in it, last Thursday. This includes implanting us with false memories of lives we never lived, creating mountains and other geological formations fully formed, etc.

    A claim that God would not create the universe last Thursday is a claim that an "intelligent designer wouldn't do things that way." Under Hunters' definition, this would necessitate absolutely everything a theological argument.
    ===

    If you claim god did not create the universe last Thursday with the appearance of age, then any science you do which incorporates this premise, entails a metaphysical premise. Fortunately, scientific theories do not incorporate this premise. They can go either way. Regardless of whether or not god created the universe last Thursday with the appearance of age, my Theory X predicts Y. And so according to Occam's razor, we don't worry about the last Thursday-ism. Your argument that the last Thursday-ism renders all of science metaphysical is false.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Cornelius Hunter said...

    Evolutionists say that evolution (all of biology arose by random chance) is an undeniable fact, and when questioned state that the fossils prove that "life on earth evolved," and when further questioned explain that, gee, all they meant was change over time. Do they not understand that this is an equivocation on evolution?


    The equivocation is all on your part CH. Nowhere does the scientific community define evolution as "all of biology arose by random chance." That's your own custom non-scientific definition.

    Do making these frankly infantile strawman arguments make you feel better about yourself? Because they sure make you look bad to almost everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  47. natschuster:

    ===
    Diogenes is doing what Dr. Hunter says evolutionists do all the time. They say that an intelligent designer wouldn't do things that way. That's a theological argument.
    ===

    In Diogenes defense, and in the defense of evolutionists everywhere, their arguments are 100% valid. Also, they may be right. The problem arises when they claim their idea to be a scientific fact.

    And why would evolutionists make such an obviously fallacious claim? It is because they are so convinced of their metaphysics. To an evolutionist, their metaphysics are so obvious and so compelling that the metaphysics, in a sense, aren't really metaphysics at all. They are merely obvious truths that can be taken as premises in any scientific endeavor. This runs through all of Darwin's book, through so much of Christian and other religious thought before (and after) Darwin, and of course through post Darwin evolutionary thought.

    As Alfred North Whitehead once wrote, it is precisely the assumptions and premises that are most crucial to a movement which are deemed to be so obvious and in no need of justification. And so evolutionists are free to toss out all manner of weak and equivocal evidence, as Diogenes and the others do here, with unbridled confidence and passion that this evidence absolutely seals the case for them. They literally cannot objectively evaluate the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Thorton:

    ===
    The equivocation is all on your part CH. Nowhere does the scientific community define evolution as "all of biology arose by random chance."
    ===

    Sounds pretty silly doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  49. CH wrote:
    "Sounds pretty silly doesn't it?"

    That's why you employ the lie, isn't it?

    That's why you don't present any evidence, isn't it?

    That's why the closest you get to evidence is what people write about it, isn't it?

    That's why you've produced exactly zero new evidence as an independent scientist, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Cornelius Hunter said...

    Thorton:

    ===
    The equivocation is all on your part CH. Nowhere does the scientific community define evolution as "all of biology arose by random chance."
    ===

    Sounds pretty silly doesn't it?


    It makes you sound pretty silly for making such a ridiculous claim.

    Unless you're really Poeing us and are secretly trying to make all creationists look like idiots, in which case you're doing a great job.

    Go on CH, 'fess up. All this creationist anti-science stupidity been a running gag on your part, right? Right?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Joe:

    ===
    I responded that the evidence for common descent in chordates was the same kind of morphological and molecular evidence used for diatoms, and did not depend on those particular cases of adaptation. Mysteriously, there was no answer to this.
    ===

    I don't agree, but then again, perhaps I'm not understanding your question. You are asking about common descent which, by itself, doesn't specify mechanism. So there can be some ambiguity which perhaps is clouding things. Perhaps I can better understand if I ask you some general questions about adaptation.

    As we know, in previous decades many different mechanisms were discovered that produce responses to environmental factors and challenges. These are not merely intra lifetime physiological responses, but inter lifetime adaptation as well. These mechanisms produce rapid, and sometimes significant, biological variations that help the population deal with the environment.

    These findings were not predicted by neo Darwinism, and have been resisted by evolutionists. With evolution we must believe that such mechanisms somehow evolved so that they then could produce such adaptations. My questions are:

    1. Do these findings count as evidence against evolution?
    2. Do these findings count as evidence against common descent?
    3. Are these types of mechanisms sufficient to explain pretty much all of macro evolution?
    4. Are these types of mechanisms sufficient to explain the diatom changes observed in the fossil record?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Scientists have identified 2 million species out of the purported yet-to-be-discovered 10 million species. Apart from "species" being an ill-defined concept altogether along with the rest of Darwinian evolutionary biology, and so I expect that number to be far less, the number is still vast, (atleast in the 10 ^ 6 range) and given that great of a "species" sample, I have no reason to object to the fact that a vast number of common ancestors can be cooked up on the fly soley on physiological resemblence and not one of them could be descendents of the other. Perhaps this explains why the fossil record is the most charished Darwinian "evidence". Darwinian evolutionary science is more of a n piece puzzle, where upon each completion time t will have a completely different making, thereby commiting suicidal scientific investigation (SSI?). Its no secret; a brick house can't reach the moon, so too can't Darwinian theory explain irreducible and complex specified functional information. Your house has collapsed several times, you added steel enforcement, what's next inline after this pile up?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Joe Felsenstein observed about Cornelius:

    "It is worth noting that Cornelius Hunter does accept common descent. In a long exchange of comments here (in the thread in July on "Evolution is a Scientific Fact: Day 74") he accepted common descent of diatoms."
    =======

    I believe, but Cornelius may correct me here, what he believes in is a vast orchard as opposed to a singular disease ridden tree. Also this orchard is attented to by the same caretaker for it's continued and healthfull existance. Each of the trees in this orchard represent a kind/species and all variations of these kinds/species are nothing more than sub-kind/species whether they number in the hundreds, thousands or millions.

    It's the outside pests (evolutionists) and diseases (religious idealogy/philosophy) which are a constant threat to this orchard globally and a menace to this beautiful ecological balance for which Cornelius and others could very well be considered the pest control componant.

    ReplyDelete
  54. natschuster: But if there is considerable variation in proteins within species, then why is the difference between chimp and human protein significant?

    Most of the protein differences are not significant (in terms of having dramatic effect). That was my point. What makes a human a human and a chimp a chimp is primarily regulation of the genes that produce those proteins.

    And the sperm whales seem to be doing just fine with lungs. So may be it is good enough design.

    You are also agreeing with me on this point now. Good enough, yes. Intelligent, no. In a world with better technology, if a contractor came to the navy with plans for a submarine that had to rise every hour to take on oxygen, he would be laughed out of the building.

    Honest analysis of the living world precludes intelligent design by an omniscient deity. You could never rule out design by an indifferent or whimsical deity and that's why that interpretation is not available to science. But it could be right. Since God was over 13 billion years old when he made the whale, maybe it's a sign of Alzheimer's.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Hunter wrote in reply to a post by Joe Felsenstein:

    As we know, in previous decades many different mechanisms were discovered that produce responses to environmental factors and challenges. These are not merely intra lifetime physiological responses, but inter lifetime adaptation as well. These mechanisms produce rapid, and sometimes significant, biological variations that help the population deal with the environment.

    It’s fine for you, Dr Hunter, to have a private chat with Joe, but given the public nature of your blog, it would be a kindness if you would provide some references to those “many different mechanisms,” so the rest of us could follow along.

    ReplyDelete
  56. computerist29: Scientists have identified 2 million species out of the purported yet-to-be-discovered 10 million species.

    Good point. Let's make a prediction: Newly discovered species, extinct or extant, will support the predicted nested hierarchy, except insofar as closely related species may occasionally hybridize. See Origin of Species for details.

    ReplyDelete
  57. John:

    "You are also agreeing with me on this point now. Good enough, yes. Intelligent, no. In a world with better technology, if a contractor came to the navy with plans for a submarine that had to rise every hour to take on oxygen, he would be laughed out of the building."
    =======

    So an intelligent real world designer/contractor with a technological plan that doesn't meet any criteria for an underwater sub that would meet the important needs of a Navy (which is bent on destruction anyway) gets laughed at, but blind undirected forces (which can never be scientiically experimented for EVER) motivated by no purpose, goal or intent gets a pass for it's supposed brilliance and intelligence??? Anyone else see the irony here ???
    ------

    John:

    "Honest analysis of the living world precludes intelligent design by an omniscient deity. You could never rule out design by an indifferent or whimsical deity and that's why that interpretation is not available to science. But it could be right. Since God was over 13 billion years old when he made the whale, maybe it's a sign of Alzheimer's."
    =======

    Off hand I'd say your omnipresent blind animist god doesn't fair much better. Somebody's been playing you for a sap in indoctrinating you into believe in putting blind faith in a god with a Capitol "C".

    Here's a scripture from the bible which beautifully illustrates this very point. Just a few translations to give the full flavour.

    Proverbs 14:15 (Amplified Bible)

    15 "The simpleton believes every word he hears, but the prudent man looks and considers well where he is going."

    Proverbs 14:15 (GOD’S WORD Translation)

    15 "A gullible person believes anything,
    but a sensible person watches his step."

    Proverbs 14:15 (New Living Translation)

    15 "Only simpletons believe everything they’re told!
    The prudent carefully consider their steps."

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm??? Gullible ??? Simpleton??? Kinda like the rogue wolf jumping into the ocean and morphing into that mythological whale. Shaman (Paleaontologist) storytelling around a Kampfire to guillible ignorant tribesmen (most modern day College students).

    BTW, really loved and enjoyed your metaphysical reasonings here.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Dr Hunter wrote:

    If you claim god did not create the universe last Thursday with the appearance of age, then any science you do which incorporates this premise, entails a metaphysical premise.

    If I were making that claim, then yes. But I'm not.

    However, just because someone else claims that phenomena X was or was not caused by God does not necessitate than any science I do incorporates a metaphysical premise.

    Nor do I think anyone is suggesting that it would be logically impossible for an omnipotent being to have guided the formation of biological complexity we observe - any more that it would be logically impossible for an omnipotent being having created the universe last Thursday.

    Fortunately, scientific theories do not incorporate this premise.

    Which premise are you referring to?

    - Scientific theories do not incorporate intelligent designers?
    - Scientific theories do not incorporate intelligent designers that design things which have the appearance of having formed naturally?
    - Scientific theories do not incorporate intelligent designers that design entire universes with the appearance of having formed naturally?

    Regardless of whether or not god created the universe last Thursday with the appearance of age, my Theory X predicts Y. And so according to Occam's razor, we don't worry about the last Thursday-ism.

    But why Occams' razor apply intelligent designers who entire design universes with the appearance of having formed naturally, but not intelligent designers that design biological complexity that appeared to have formed naturally?

    In fact, ID appears to be a convolution elaboration of evolutionary theory as, depending on how one defends it, it's just like evolution except an intelligence designer intentionally steps in to a change to the genome rather than a random mutation, duplication, etc.

    That you appear to vaguely support common decent seems to suggest this is the particular form of ID you accept.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I wrote:

    In fact, ID appears to be a convolution elaboration of evolutionary theory as, depending on how one [defines] it, it's just like evolution except an intelligence designer intentionally steps in to a change to the genome rather than a random mutation, duplication, etc.

    To head off any possible confusion, I'm not suggesting that evolution consists merely of random events.

    I'm suggesting that natural selection would select features expressed regardless if the change in the genome was caused by a random mutation, duplication, etc. or by a intentional mutation caused by an intelligent designer.

    This means that specific variants of ID and evolution would predict the same empirical observations. Yet, ID introduces an intelligent agent into the mix. [Apply Occam's razor here]

    Furthermore, ID invalidates the explanation of concrete biological complexity provided by evolution without providing one of it's own. As such, it appears to be a concluded elaboration of evolution.

    ID does not explain why 95% of the species that were supposedly intelligently designer go extinct. Nor does common design explain why the designer would route the laryngeal nerve in vertebrates around the aorta. That's just what the designer must have wanted.

    ReplyDelete
  60. D'S SUMMARY OF ID PROPONENTS' LIES JUST IN THIS THREAD (SO FAR)

    ID proponents are constantly claiming that they have experimental evidence proving X is incompatible with evolution, thus disproving evolution. (X may be information theory, population genetics, etc.) But when they're asked to cough up the evidence they cite, they never produce evidence.

    To save time, let's keep a running tally of how often it's used by IDists in each thread.

    Lie 1. (Cornelius) "And so evolutionists are free to toss out all manner of weak and equivocal evidence, as Diogenes and the others do here..."

    Here Cornelius is lying about how the genetic evidence I cited (genetic similarity between chimps and humans, very specifically described by me) is "weak and equivocal." He'll never explain why it's weak and equivocal. He simply asserts it.

    There is no point asking Cornelius for a scientific publication or experiment showing that. IDists don't need no stinkin' data.

    Lie 2. (Neal Tedford): "As far as homind evolution, the operative phrase in nearly ever article is "there is still disagreement..." "

    I asked Tedford to show that "nearly every article" has disagreement about humans descending from Australopithecus, or what they disagreed about. I asked him for three, just three, articles so which could see what they disagree about.

    There is no point asking Tedford for a scientific publication. IDists don't need no stinkin' data.

    Lie 3. (Cornelius again) "Evolutionists say that evolution (all of biology arose by random chance) is an undeniable fact"

    Here Cornelius says evolutionists define evolution as "all of biology arose by random chance." (Leaves out natural selection, right in the title of Darwin's book).

    There is no point asking Cornelius for a scientific publication defining evolution that way. IDists don't need no stinkin' data.

    Lie 4. Computerist29: "...a brick house can't reach the moon, so too can't Darwinian theory explain irreducible and complex specified functional information."

    Lie 4.a. Computerist29 says there is such a thing as "complex specified functional information", which has never been given a single mathematical definition, and which has never been computed for any biological system.

    Lie 4.b. Computerist29 says "complex specified functional information" cannot be produced by evolution. IDists have never even attempted to prove that, and can't, because they've never computed FCSII (or BSCSI or whatever it is) for any biological system, neither before a random mutation, nor after. For all they know, evolution could create a billion bits of BSCSI. How could they know without applying an equation to an experimental result? They just lie, and pretend they know.

    IDists don't need no stinkin' data.

    Lie 5. (Eocene) "...blind undirected forces (which can never be scientiically experimented for EVER) motivated by no purpose, goal or intent gets a pass..."

    Scientists have experimented on the "force" of mutation (point mutations, gene duplications) and the "force" of natural selection. They have observed speciation in the wild and induced it in the lab, and observed increases in biochemical complexity (including new "irreducibly complex" biochemical pathways, "irreducible" by Behe's first definition.)

    As for "blind undirected forces motivated by no purpose, goal or intent", evolution isn't "undirected." The argument here is about long-term vs. short-term goals.

    IDists don't need no stinkin' data.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Cornelius Hunter responded when I pressed the question: why does he accept common descent for diatoms when, with very similar evidence, he does not accept it for chordates?


    [Cornelius:]
    =====================
    I don't agree, but then again, perhaps I'm not understanding your question. You are asking about common descent which, by itself, doesn't specify mechanism. So there can be some ambiguity which perhaps is clouding things. Perhaps I can better understand if I ask you some general questions about adaptation.
    =====================

    You are right: common descent doesn't specify a mechanism. So we don't need to discuss details of mechanisms to discuss whether chordates have common descent.

    So Cornelius Why do you accept common descent for diatoms, but not for chordates, when the evidence used for both is very similar?

    ReplyDelete
  62. „Favor Common Descent“ sounds like you were talking about ice cream flavors. I like chocolate what about you? I favor strawberry. To me that question is equally silly as to say: Why some people favor quantum mechanics. The theory of common descent made and makes a number of specific predictions most of which turned out to be correct. Thus this is not an expendable asset. Since you have been claiming that there are many cases where common descent is wrong I have been asking you and repeat it hereby to quantify how many predictions turned out to be correct compared to how many did not. Until than this is just empty rhetoric. To dismiss a theory that makes accurate predictions in favor of no theory is not science.

    I also would like to know what you mean by a “broader version of common descent“.

    Just as a comment: It is obvious why some people have problems with common descent but I will leave that for later.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I wrote...

    As such, it appears to be a concluded elaboration of evolution.

    When I should have wrote...

    As such, it appears to be a convoluted elaboration of evolution.

    What do I mean by this?

    When the Inquisition demeaned Galileo denounce Heliocentrism, it was not because it denied there was some definitive state of affairs that caused planetary movement. Both Galileo and The Inquisition were realists in that respect. What they objected to was the principle that we could understand the world in terms of universal, mathematical laws, which were accessible to human beings when rigorously applied.

    However, since predicting the motions of the planets was quite useful, the use of Heliocentrism's mathematical formulas to predict planetary movement was allowed.

    Since The Inquisition was perfectly willing to accept Galileo's predictions, further argument appeared meaningless. They could always point out that no-amount of observable evidence could ever prove one particular state of affairs was true or false. As they put it, God could produce the same observed effects in an infinite number of different ways. Who was Galileo to claim knowledge of how God did it?

    But in accepting Heliocentrism predictions, The Inquisition presented an implicit theory of their own: the earth is actually at rest, with the sun and planets in motion about it. These bodies move in a complex way that, when viewed from the earth, is also consistent with the sun being at rest and the earth and planets in motion. If this implicit theory was true, we should still expect Heliocentrism to predict planetary motion, yet still be false. This would also imply that observations that supported Heliocentrism supported The Inquisition's theory as well.

    ReplyDelete
  64. [continued]

    The Inquisition's implicit theory explains the appearance of a stationary earth by saying it actually is stationary, which appeals to out intuitions; while Galileo had to employ complex mathematics and contradict the ideas of force and inertia we commonly associate with a body in motion. But what about the motions of the planets in the sky? Heliocentrism explains them by saying the planets are observed to move in complicated loops in the sky because they are actually moving in simple circles in space in conduction with the earth's motion. This is in contrast to the Inquisition's explanation that the planets appear to move in completed loops because they actually are moving in complicated loops in space; but this complicated motion just so happens to be governed by a simple premise - when observed from the earth, they appear just as they would as if moving in simple orbits around the sun.

    In other words, to understand planetary motions via the Inquisition's implied theory it's essential to reference Heliocentrism. It's a cosmology that can be only understood in terms of a different cosmology which it contradicts but faithfully mimics. The result is that Inquisition's theory does not actually explain planetary motion without having to introduce the complication of Heliocentrism first. As such, we can rightfully say that the Inquisition's implied theory is a convoluted elaboration of Heliocentrism.

    Note that I did not reach this conclusion via appealing to observations of modern cosmology, but by taking the The Inquisition's implicit theory seriously, on it's own terms, as an explanation of what we observe.

    So, in this context, I'd ask you to take the theory of Intelligent Design seriously and actually use it to explain what we observe. When I say 'seriously', I'm not referring to the use of a somber tone or without resorting to jest, I'm asking you to actually explain what we observe using the implicit theory ID constantly presents when making it's claims.

    ReplyDelete
  65. John:

    The point was made that the differences between chimp and human proteins is something that a designer wouldn't do. But if the designer has allows intra-species protein variation, what's the big deal about inter-species protein variation?


    Why does an omniscient deity have to make everything perfect? Omniscience includes knowing how to make things that are imperfect, as well.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Scott:
    >> So, in this context, I'd ask you to take the theory of Intelligent Design seriously and actually use it to explain what we observe. <<

    No. We will never take ID seriously, because Intelligent Design is an affirmative action program for pathological liars, incompetents, shyster lawyers and armchair philosophers.

    In particular, Dembski, Wells, and Berlinski are pathological liars. Dembksi lied about his probability calculations at the NCSE debate and elsewhere, and he lied about Axe's work on protein sequences being isolated in "islands of functionailty." Berlinski lied multiple times about John von Neumann. Wells lied about... everything basically, but the peppered moth studies annoy me most.

    The only good thing I can say about the DI is that Meyer is a very nice man.

    Politically, the Discovery Institute is a right-wing hit machine aiming to take out all scientists. They're "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth" or "Hillary: the Movie" or "The Real Anita Hill", except that instead of slandering presidential candidates and innocent victims of right-wing perverts, the DI is a smear machine aimed at all scientists. Berlinski, especially, is clear on this point. He smears all scientists, including physicists. He burns with envy for smart people. He will not rest until he has smeared and insulted every living person smarter than himself.

    Their funding comes from Howard Ahmanson, a Reconstructionist (christofascist) whose theology explicitly states that democracy is heresy and must be overthrown, replaced with the totalitarianim of right-wing Christians who institute the laws in the Book of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which is worse than Sharia law.

    I'm not saying all ID proponents are fascists or Reconstructionists/Dominionists. Most are not. But the funding comes from christofascists. That should scare you. Ahmanson wants all homosexuals killed, all women who aren't virgins on their wedding night, all rebellious children killed. Read Leviticus and Deuteronomy-- it's in there.

    And scientifically, "complex specified information" is a joke. The math is a joke, all fakery, and biologically irrelevant. No ID proponents understand Dembski's math, and they don't care. Only evolutionists understand Dembski's math, like Shallit and some others, and it's horrifying pseudomath.

    Maybe scientists will someday discover that the first living cell was created by magic leprechauns. I dunno. But Dembski's math will be horrible until the end of time. No future experiment can every make Dembski's math anything but a lie. Bad math is forever.

    In this thread, above, I listed five (5) outright lies from the ID side. See my post above. No IDist cares. IDiots don't need no stinkin' data.

    ReplyDelete
  67. natschuster: The point was made that the differences between chimp and human proteins is something that a designer wouldn't do. But if the designer has allows intra-species protein variation, what's the big deal about inter-species protein variation?

    Exactly. Inter-species protein variation is of the same nature as that within species. We know how this variation arises: through mutation, selection, and drift. We don't need to bring in gods to explain the natural world.

    But the pattern of variation in proteins confirms the nested hierarchy based on morphology, giving every appearance of descent from common ancestry. So, if there was conscious design of proteins in species that do not share common descent, it appears as if it was all done to fool scientists into inferring evolution.

    Why does an omniscient deity have to make everything perfect? Omniscience includes knowing how to make things that are imperfect, as well.

    An omniscient designer that cared enough to turn in optimal work everytime would be a testable hypothesis. One whom could not be relied upon to do a quality job yields no testable hypotheses; it could explain literally anything.

    ReplyDelete
  68. John knowing the mind of God:

    "An omniscient designer that cared enough to turn in optimal work everytime would be a testable hypothesis. One whom could not be relied upon to do a quality job yields no testable hypotheses; it could explain literally anything."
    ====

    Interesting, so you know for a fact what God would and wouldn't do, do you ??? Metaphysicals running all over the page on this one.

    Actually the system was perfect, but YOUR Diety resented the use of freewill and demanded the Court's permission to prove his side of the issue of Universal Sovereignty. So you got it. Now that you and your side have completely botched the natural world, you now want to blame the God of the Bible for your side's inept custodialship which has brought our planet to the brink of ruin ???

    Don't worry, it'll be corrected very soon.

    Revelation 11:18 (New Century Version)


    18 "The people of the world were angry,
    but your anger has come.
    The time has come to judge the dead,
    and to reward your servants the prophets
    and your holy people,
    all who respect you, great and small.
    The time has come to destroy those who destroy the earth!"

    You see ??? An environmental sollution is just around the corner. It's just a matter of how far along such an ill-equipped inept Defense Team for your side will be allowed to prove it's point without total anihilation of life on Earth.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Diogenes,

    There is such a thing as a bad explanation. And ID meets this definition. It's only when one attempts to take ID seriously that we see it actually is a convoluted elaboration of evolution.

    Solipsism is another example. We reject it because it fails to explain why object-like facets of ourselves would follow laws of physics-like facets of ourselves. Again, It's a bad explanation because it's a convoluted elaboration of realism.

    Of course, Hunter and most IDists refuse to take their own theory seriously to avoid this particular issue.

    However, by accepting the predictions and observations of evolution, such as common decent, presenting a implied theory is unavoidable - just as The Inquisition did when they excepted the predictions of Heliocentrism.

    As a convoluted elaboration of evolution, we can discard ID until such time that it actually provides an explanation for the concrete biological complexity we observe. However, if IDists think God is the designer, such explanation are unlikely for reasons that are obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Eocene wrote:

    Interesting, so you know for a fact what God would and wouldn't do, do you ??? Metaphysicals running all over the page on this one.

    But then wrote…

    Actually the system was perfect,…

    And

    Don't worry, it'll be corrected very soon.

    Just because you think YOU know the mind of God doesn't mean that anyone who does not accept your claim is practicing metaphysics.

    For example, someone could claim that transistors only function due to the fact that God bestows some kind of supernatural spirit during the manufacturing process. (similar to how human beings supposedly receive souls at conception) Therefore, computers are supernatural.

    Does this mean that anyone who thinks transistors operate using natural processes are practicing metaphysics? Of course not. So why is your claim any different?

    Because it's socially accepted in some circles? Because it's written in some holy text?

    Again, without any reason to prefer your particular claims of supernatural intervention over any other, singling out evolution appears illogical.

    ReplyDelete
  71. John said: "An omniscient designer that cared enough to turn in optimal work everytime would be a testable hypothesis. One whom could not be relied upon to do a quality job yields no testable hypotheses; it could explain literally anything."

    To which Eocene smirked: "Interesting, so you know for a fact what God would and wouldn't do, do you ??? Metaphysicals running all over the page on this one."


    Eocene: There weren't any metaphysics in that statement, you blabbering moron. John was saying that positing a supernatural force that acts arbitrarily and inconsistently yields no testable scientific hypotheses. It would be the same thing as noting that "positing bipolar leprechauns as the originators magnetic fields yields no testable scientific hypotheses." In that statement, he wasn't even saying that it was incorrect or untrue, just that it is not testable even if it were.

    Eocene spasmed: "Actually the system was perfect..."

    Can you back that up in any way, shape or form? What does 'perfect' even mean? Does it mean there was no predation before the 'Fall'? Does it mean there were no diseases or environmental disasters before humans came on the scene? Can you provide event the tiniest shred of evidence to back up that moronic clam?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Derick Childish:

    "Eocene spasmed: "Actually the system was perfect..."

    Can you back that up in any way, shape or form? What does 'perfect' even mean? Does it mean there was no predation before the 'Fall'? Does it mean there were no diseases or environmental disasters before humans came on the scene? Can you provide event the tiniest shred of evidence to back up that moronic clam?
    =======

    This is so entertaining. With one paragraph you expose your biligerent big mouthed atheism through and through. So you don't think your god Jesus made things perfect and you actually laugh and spit in his face. How pathetic. There's a scripture which describes back boneless fence sitters such as yourself.

    1 Kings 18:21 (American Standard Version)

    21 "And Elijah came near unto all the people, and said, How long go ye limping between the two sides [opinions]? if Jehovah be God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word."

    Bottomline is you can't have it both ways. It's either the Creator or Darwinian Evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Scott had yet another metaphysical vision:

    "Just because you think YOU know the mind of God doesn't mean that anyone who does not accept your claim is practicing metaphysics."
    ========

    Really ???

    Seriously ???

    Scott, I've always found that a person who believes in the Biblical account of creation to view scientific observations from a true material standpoint as compare to an evolutionist who dumps massive amounts of metaphysics into the same EXACT observation. Here are some examples.

    The so-called proof of Darwin's Finches. A person who believes in creation sees the finches and their interesting ability to adapt to environmental stresses with various sizes in beaks as nothing more than selective changes oscillating back and forth with climatic events. Yet the the Finch is still a finch. But not to an evolutionist, who speculates wildly far beyond the material observation and sees proof of "Mud to Man".

    Then there's the Stickleback anomalie of pelvic changes of armor, lack of armor, spines, lack of spines. A person who believes in the biblical creation account sees it exactly for what it is, an genetic oscillation back and forth with reference to habitat changes and the same genes effected, just like the finch. The Stickleback is still the same creature. Yet the same observation to an Evolutionist sees proof for "Goo to You".

    The phony antibiotics evolutionary wonder, which in reality has absolutely nothing to do with evolution in the first place. A person who believes in Biblical creation account sees the brilliance of the informational system at work in it's DNA , then even along comes plasmids with perhaps necessary informational genetic instructions in one gene for it's preservation and nothing more. Again, the information already existed. But the Evolutionist speculates wildly about the same EXACT observation that this is proof of the mechanism by which a Kit Fox jumps into the primitive ocean and evolves into a huge massive Blue Whale.

    So who really is on the side of a material view of an observation and who dumps loads of unproven metaphysical religious speculative crap into the whole thing. Certainly isn't the creation believer who believes just what he sees the true materialist ???

    SO WHO'S MORE MATERIALIST AND WHO'S ACTUALLY MORE RELIGIOUS ??? LOL

    ReplyDelete
  74. Eocene said "This is so entertaining. With one paragraph you expose your biligerent big mouthed atheism through and through. So you don't think your god Jesus made things perfect and you actually laugh and spit in his face. How pathetic. There's a scripture which describes back boneless fence sitters such as yourself.

    1 Kings 18:21 (American Standard Version)

    21 "And Elijah came near unto all the people, and said, How long go ye limping between the two sides [opinions]? if Jehovah be God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word."


    Uh, thanks for not answering the question at all.

    I'll try again: Can you back up in any way, shape or form the assertion that the "system used to be perfect"? What does 'perfect' even mean? Does it mean there was no predation before the 'Fall'? Does it mean there were no diseases or environmental disasters before humans came on the scene? Can you provide event the tiniest shred of evidence to back up that moronic clam?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Eocene wrote:

    Scott, I've always found that a person who believes in the Biblical account of creation […]

    Wait right there…

    Why is this the "the Biblical account of creation" the 'standard' by which other explanations are compared? Why does it swallow up any fields of science it might address and make them metaphysical?

    It's as if you think your perspective and beliefs define a metric by which everything else is judged. While you might operate under this assumption, this in now way necessitates everyone else does as well.

    Since you're the one making the theological claim, you're the one practicing metaphysics.

    But not to an evolutionist, who speculates wildly far beyond the material observation and sees proof of "Mud to Man".

    I see evidence that collaborates a scientific theory that explains the biological complexity we observe. Just as I see geological evidence that collaborate a scientific theory of how mountains formed, etc.

    You're the one comparing it to your 'standard' and assuming it's metaphysical.

    Science does not revolve around your religious beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  76. I wrote:

    Does this mean that anyone who thinks transistors operate using natural processes are practicing metaphysics?

    Eocene, I'm still waiting on your answer.

    Could it be that, since the Biblical creation account has noting to say about transistors, anyone who claims they can be explained naturally isn't practicing metaphysics?

    ReplyDelete
  77. Cornelius, the wording of the title of this post is misleading, I'll assume unintentionally so. I've got a suggestion for a revision:

    "Why Almost Every Single Trained Scientist Favors Common Descent"

    ReplyDelete
  78. Scott:

    "Eocene, I'm still waiting on your answer."
    =====

    Well your in for a bit of a wait. I've gotten 6 posts over the past two days deleted.

    I have no idea what is wrong. I don't even know if this will make it through.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Childish:

    "
    Uh, thanks for not answering the question at all.

    I'll try again: Can you back up in any way, shape or form the assertion that the "system used to be perfect"? What does 'perfect' even mean? Does it mean there was no predation before the 'Fall'? Does it mean there were no diseases or environmental disasters before humans came on the scene? Can you provide event the tiniest shred of evidence to back up that moronic clam? "
    ====

    Nice try!

    Your question was diliberately Bible bashing to begin with and nothing more than stupid bait laying. Try someone else.

    ReplyDelete
  80. "And why would evolutionists make such an obviously fallacious claim? It is because they are so convinced of their metaphysics. To an evolutionist, their metaphysics are so obvious and so compelling that the metaphysics, in a sense, aren't really metaphysics at all…"

    Cornelius:

    Yes, they speak like true believers in LMC (luck,magic,chance) god!





    "finches and their interesting ability to adapt to environmental stresses with various sizes in beaks as nothing more than selective changes oscillating back and forth with climatic events. Yet the the Finch is still a finch."

    Eocene

    I was wandering why some finches would not evolve into hawks and eat other finches. Looking at all the finches around him hawkfinch would be saying yum yum..

    ReplyDelete
  81. Eugen:

    "Eocene

    I was wandering why some finches would not evolve into hawks and eat other finches. Looking at all the finches around him hawkfinch would be saying yum yum.."
    =======

    EXACTLY, but of course my point with the so-called evolutionary proofs are nothing of the kind. As I stated, it's actually a person who believes in creation that would actually look at the observation for what it is.

    It's the evolutionist who looks at those same observations and applies metaphysical visioning above and beyond what actually took place.

    Again, who is the more religious one ???

    In the Finch example, tho many Evos will play dumb on this, the NAS brochure knew EXACTLY what the implications would have been had they not diliberately left out the oscillation back and forth adaptation to climatic change. So they only mentioned the first beak size and left it as is. The resident Evos here also know the truth on this but will never publically admit it. The consensus doesn't allow for this.

    It could mean excommunication from their Church.

    ReplyDelete
  82. I said: "Uh, thanks for not answering the question at all. I'll try again: Can you back up in any way, shape or form the assertion that the "system used to be perfect"? What does 'perfect' even mean? Does it mean there was no predation before the 'Fall'? Does it mean there were no diseases or environmental disasters before humans came on the scene? Can you provide event the tiniest shred of evidence to back up that moronic clam?"

    Eocene said: "Nice try! Your question was diliberately Bible bashing to begin with and nothing more than stupid bait laying. Try someone else.

    A second swing-and-a-miss. I'll ask the question in a simpler way:
    Can you back up the assertion that the earth was perfect before humans came along, (by your apparent definition, no suffering, disease, environmental disasters) with Either a solid biblical reference or a scientific one? Either one. Take your pick.

    You ask me all the time what I believe. That's all I'm asking of you. What does 'perfect' mean, and why do you think the world was that way before humans?

    ReplyDelete
  83. The people who accept universal common descent need to come up with a way to objectively test that claim.

    Until they do it just isn't science.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Joe G said:

    =================
    The people who accept universal common descent need to come up with a way to objectively test that claim.

    Until they do it just isn't science.
    =================

    There are of course exceptions to a everything being in a single tree (one known for a long time is cases of hybridization). But the incredible strong informal evidence for universal common ancestry has in fact been supplemented in recent years by formal statistical tests including these (which have been discussed at Panda's Thumb and here). Guess you missed them:

    Theobald DL.
    A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry.
    Nature. 2010 May 13;465(7295):219-22.

    Penny, D., Foulds, L. R. & Hendy, M. D. Testing the theory of evolution by comparing phylogenetic trees constructed from five different protein sequences. Nature 297, 197–200 (1982)

    Sober, E. & Steel, M. Testing the hypothesis of common ancestry. J. Theor. Biol. 218, 395–408 (2002)

    Penny, D., Hendy, M. D. & Poole, A. M. Testing fundamental evolutionary hypotheses. J. Theor. Biol. 223, 377–385 (2003)


    I guess that in accumulating his wide knowledge of what formal tests of common descent have been done, JG just missed these. Darn.

    JG also missed Cornelius Hunter's statement that he accepts evidence for common descent (of diatoms, but for some unknown reason not similar evidence for chrodates).

    ReplyDelete
  85. Not a Freudian slip, just a hilarious typo. I of course meant "incredibly strong" not "incredible strong".

    ReplyDelete
  86. Geez the same type of "tests" for universal common descent can be used to support a common design!

    Ya see Joe Felsenstein, you don't have any scientific data that demonstrates that the transformations required are even possible.

    As for Theobald- he is a joke.

    I read his paper and his "29+ evidences for macroevolution" and it is nonsense.

    All you chumps have is to throw deep time at slight changes.

    That ain't science.

    ReplyDelete
  87. "common design" isn't even a scientific hypothesis -- it can explain not only everything we see, but (alas) everything we don't see as well. It explains perfectly why rabbits are the same size as whales. Why the hemoglobin beta molecule of humans and chimps is vastly different in sequence. Why birds can't fly.

    If you think "common design is science, and also don't understand Doug Theobald's papers, and think that substitutions of (say) alanine for glycine in a protein are "transformations" that "aren't even possible" then you aren't in enough contact with science to have any credibility when you make sweeping conclusions.

    And you aren't even interested -- at alll -- in why Cornelius Hunter accepts common descent of the different species of diatoms. You aren't bringing up the nontheory of "common design" with him!

    ReplyDelete
  88. Joe F:
    "common design" isn't even a scientific hypothesis --

    Sure it is.

    We see it in technology- we see it in many designs.

    Joe F:
    it can explain not only everything we see, but (alas) everything we don't see as well.

    You are totally clueless.

    Joe F:
    If you think "common design is science, and also don't understand Doug Theobald's papers

    I understand Theobald's papers.

    You don't seem to understand that there isn't any way to test universal common descent.

    Joe F:
    and think that substitutions of (say) alanine for glycine in a protein are "transformations" that "aren't even possible"

    Nope, never said nor implied that.

    As for scientific hypotheses why don't you present one for universal common descent.

    Why is it that no one even knows what genes/ DNA sequences are involved with the transformations?

    Heck only about 10% of the genes are involved with development, it should be easy to take a fish embryo (for example) and mutate it until it develops into something not like a fish.

    Again ALL you have is to throw deep time at the issue- you don't know anything about science.

    ReplyDelete
  89. So Joe F perhaps you can provide a testable hypothesis for universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents- what the theory of evolution proposes.

    If you can't then you will prove my point...

    ReplyDelete
  90. Derick Childress:
    Cornelius, the wording of the title of this post is misleading, I'll assume unintentionally so. I've got a suggestion for a revision:

    "Why Almost Every Single Trained Scientist Favors Common Descent"


    I've got a revision suggestion:

    "Why Almost Every Single Trained Scientist Favors Common Descent but still don't have any idea if the transformations required are even possible."

    ReplyDelete
  91. Is anyone else having the problem of comment postings here repeatedly disappearing immediately after being posted, even though the comments do appear at first and you are told that "The comment has been posted"?

    ReplyDelete
  92. Correction: what it actually says is "Your comment has been published". These two seem to have "taken" but ones somewhat longer don't. What is going on?

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

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  96. Sorry for all the chaos above, and thanks to JoeG for responding about mysterious comment-disappearance. It is still happening, alas.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Joe G keeps wanting to avoid the original question he himself asked: whether there was "a way to objectively test th[e] claim" of common descent.

    The "claim" of common descent has been supported by the vast majority of biologists since the mid-1800s because they saw closely similar genealogies using morphological and developmental characters from many different parts of the organism. Molecular data has massively confirmed that. This concordance involves features major and minor -- it does not insist on having a total understanding of the genetic basis of all these changes, which is what JoeG insists we have to provide.

    He also claims to understand the statistical test of this concordance carried out by Doug Theobald:

    "I understand Theobald's papers".

    OK, JoeG, I call your bluff. Tell us what Theobald's 2010 Nature paper argues, and tell us exactly why you don't agree.

    ReplyDelete
  98. (This is the remaining part of the above comment, but if I make it that long the comment disappears after a bit, so ... I continue ... )

    For that matter, tell us what the similar earlier 1982 paper by Penny et al. argued and why you don't agree.

    For that matter explain why Cornelius Hunter is wrong to say that there is evidence for common descent of the different species of diatoms. You've avoided that issue like the plague so far.

    Able to?

    ReplyDelete
  99. Joe F:
    Joe G keeps wanting to avoid the original question he himself asked: whether there was "a way to objectively test th[e] claim" of common descent.

    A way to objectively test universal common descent.

    You don't have one.

    JeF:
    The "claim" of common descent has been supported by the vast majority of biologists since the mid-1800s because they saw closely similar genealogies using morphological and developmental characters from many different parts of the organism.

    Comon desgn explas that aso.

    Joe F:
    Molecular data has massively confirmed that.

    Common design.

    Joe F:
    This concordance involves features major and minor -- it does not insist on having a total understanding of the genetic basis of all these changes, which is what JoeG insists we have to provide.

    Without that evidence all you have is speculation based on the assumption.

    That ain't objective.

    Joe F:
    Tell us what Theobald's 2010 Nature paper argues, and tell us exactly why you don't agree.

    I don't agree that his "evidence" is exclusive to universal common descent.

    For that matter explain why Cornelius Hunter is wrong to say that there is evidence for common descent of the different species of diatoms.

    I don't know if he is wrong.


    BTW I am STILL waiting for you to provide a testable hypothesis pertaining to an accumulation of genetic accidents- ie the proposed mechanism of the theory of evolution.

    Without that yo don't have anything...

    ReplyDelete
  100. And Joe F- if you think Theobald's paper supports UCD it is up to YOU to make the case.

    ReplyDelete
  101. JoeG declared that there was no way to test common descent. So I cited some important formal tests -- three papers from the scientific literature, one 28 years ago -- which he didn't know about, or didn't mention. What was wrong with their argument?

    He declares it is up to me to explain them!

    La-la-la, he has his fingers in his ears and is Not Listening!

    And what about Cornelius Hunter's acceptance of common descent in some cases (diatoms)? All he can say is he doesn't know whether Cornelius is wrong.

    I'll give JoeG credit for two things: it was nice of him to respond and confirm that he too has had the disappearing-comment problem here. And he is, like many creationists, just great at declaring victory.

    This would be sad if it weren't so silly.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Joe F:
    JoeG declared that there was no way to test common descent.

    Nope- I said there isn't any way to objectively test universal common descent- especially UCD via an accumulation of genetic accidents.

    The fact that you cannot provide a testable hypothesis for such a thing strengthens my claim.

    Joe f:
    So I cited some important formal tests...

    By that "logic" common design is also confirmed as it uses the same evidence and the same type of tests.

    Joe F:
    three papers from the scientific literature, one 28 years ago -- which he didn't know about, or didn't mention. What was wrong with their argument?

    Their "arguments" assume UCD and try to make the data fit.

    He declares it is up to me to explain them!

    If you are going to use them you have to show an understanding of them.

    And BTW I didn't declare victory.

    I can declare that no one knows if the transformations required are even possible.

    And how about that testable hypothesis?

    ReplyDelete
  103. Penny, D., Foulds, L. R. & Hendy, M. D. Testing the theory of evolution by comparing phylogenetic trees constructed from five different protein sequences. Nature 297, 197–200 (1982)

    The phylogenetic tree has been toppled.

    ReplyDelete
  104. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
    John A. Davison

    However, the question of Common Descent remains unresolved. There is no a priori reason to assume a single origin of life or a single mechanism for its subsequent evolution. The monophyletic premise of neoDarwinism is without foundation and is a perfect example of Bertrand Russell's warning -

    "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it to be true."

    Leo Berg, the great Russian biologist and zoogeographer claimed -

    "Organisms have developed from tens of thousands of primary forms, i.e, polyphyletically."
    Nomogenesis, page 406

    There is nothing fatal to that proposition and much in favor of it. Until reproductive continuity can be proven to have existed between various taxa, they must be regarded as possibly having had separate origins. In short, there may be an element of truth in the Genesis account.

    There is now no question, however, that for the Order Primates to which we belong, that we are all related and share a common origin. That claim cannot be justified for separate Orders, Classes or Phyla whose origins remain shrouded in mystery. The same can be said for the Plant Kingdom and for any other higher taxonomic category.

    Evolution demands proven reproductive continuity which is not something which can simply be assumed as the Darwinists have always blindly believed.

    "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

    jadavison.wordpress.com

    ReplyDelete
  105. JoeG concludes, after citing the 1982 Penny et al. paper (the one I pointed out to him) that

    ======================
    The phylogenetic tree has been toppled.
    ======================

    As the paper states "Clearly we can reject any idea that the trees from the different sequences are independent. The different protein sequences give trees that are markedly similar, showing a relationship between them that is consistent with the theory of evolution."

    Care to say why this shows that the phylogenetic tree "is toppled"?

    ReplyDelete
  106. jadavison (John A. Davison) said...

    =============================
    However, the question of Common Descent remains unresolved.
    =============================

    You don't think that phylogenies derived from different parts of the genome show similar trees? I cited three papers from the literature showing that the trees are notably similar, indicating common descent. What arguments do you have against that?

    ================================
    The monophyletic premise of neoDarwinism is without foundation
    ================================

    Those papers, and the less mathematically formal conclusions of many generations of morphologists and developmental biologists, support common ancestry. That is a "foundation". There is simply no basis for declaring that common ancestry is "without foundation".

    ==============================
    Leo Berg, the great Russian biologist and zoogeographer claimed -
    ==============================

    As fine a biologists as Lev Berg may have been, he died in 1950 and never saw a molecular phylogeny.

    ===============================
    There is now no question, however, that for the Order Primates to which we belong, that we are all related and share a common origin.
    ===============================

    The evidence for that is very similar to the evidence for common ancestry more broadly in the metazoa, and beyond. So why do you accept the evidence in the one case and not in all the others?

    =================================
    "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."
    =================================

    Which of us is the fool?

    ReplyDelete
  107. Joe F-
    JoeG concludes, after citing the 1982 Penny et al. paper (the one I pointed out to him) that

    Lynn Margulis, "The Phylogenetic Tree Topples," American Scientist, Vol 94 (3) (May-June, 2006).

    ReplyDelete
  108. And Joe F-

    What about that testable hypothesis?

    ReplyDelete
  109. JoeG has several interesting ways of analyzing the three papers that I cited that statistically support common descent. None of these ways work:

    1. He cites one of the papers and says the "tree is toppled". (But the paper does support common descent, actually).
    2. When I ask about that he cites a couple of other papers. These argue that the pattern of common descent is not treelike (particularly in bacteria where there is a lot of horizontal gene transfer). But it is still common descent!
    3. He demands a "testable hypothesis" from me. Now the hypothesis of a common pattern of descent is precisely what papers like Penny et al.'s 1982 paper are testing. But JoeG isn't talking about that -- see, what he is demanding is a complete account, down to the gene level, of how the genealogy of life and all the phenotypes have changed. Otherwise he will hold his breath until he turns blue, or rather, actually, he will refuse to acknowledge that there is common descent.

    Poor guy. We don't need that level of total understanding to know that there is common descent. Anatomists even in Darwin's day, who never heard of a gene, we persuaded by the patterns of shared traits that they saw. They were thoughtful and wise and didn't wait for the organisms to provide them with a sworn legally-binding statement. Today we can go them one better and use molecules and statistics, but JoeG won't discuss that.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Joe F:
    1. He cites one of the papers and says the "tree is toppled". (But the paper does support common descent, actually).

    The scientist- Margulis- is OK with UCD.

    And she has no idea how it happened.

    2. When I ask about that he cites a couple of other papers. These argue that the pattern of common descent is not treelike (particularly in bacteria where there is a lot of horizontal gene transfer). But it is still common descent!

    It refutes your pape that says "tree-like"!

    IOW yo can't use that as evidence yet you do.

    Go figure.

    3. He demands a "testable hypothesis" from me. Now the hypothesis of a common pattern of descent is precisely what papers like Penny et al.'s 1982 paper are testing.

    I asked for a testable hypothesis pertaining to the proposed evoltionary mechanism of an accumulation of genetic accidents.

    You have failed to provide one. Penny et al didn't provide one. Theobald didn't provide one.

    And again the "tests" for universal common descent are the same type of tests for universal common design!

    So by your "logic" universal common design is scientific.

    Joe F:
    But JoeG isn't talking about that -- see, what he is demanding is a complete account, down to the gene level, of how the genealogy of life and all the phenotypes have changed.

    Nope- that is a lie.

    What you do need is some eviodence that changes to the genomes can account for the morphological and physiological changes required.

    To date no one knows.

    And all you clowns can do is throw deep time at the issue- meaning you ain't doing science.

    Anatomists even in Darwin's day, who never heard of a gene, we persuaded by the patterns of shared traits that they saw.

    Common design.

    Today we can go them one better and use molecules and statistics, but JoeG won't discuss that.

    Common design explains the similar molecules.

    And those similar molecules do not explain the morphological nor physiological differences observed.

    Again 90% of the genes go to supporting everyday cellular life.

    10% are for development.

    That means scientists should be able to focus on that 10%, mutate those genes and see what changes.

    So far all they have managed to do is create deformities that wouldn't have any chance in the wild.

    IOW Joe F- you don't have anything but speculations based on the assumption.

    And you can hold your breath until you turn blue but that ain't going to change those facts.

    ReplyDelete
  111. And why is it that EVERY TIME that I ask for a testable hypothesis pertaining to the proposed evoltionary mechanism of an accumulation of genetic accidents I either get the "that isn't the proposed evolutionary mechanism" to which I post all the evidence that says it is or I get a "hypothesis" that has nothing to do with any mechanism?

    Are all evolutionists intellectual cowards?

    ReplyDelete
  112. Joe G said...

    And why is it that EVERY TIME that I ask for a testable hypothesis pertaining to the proposed evoltionary mechanism of an accumulation of genetic accidents I either get the "that isn't the proposed evolutionary mechanism" to which I post all the evidence that says it is or I get a "hypothesis" that has nothing to do with any mechanism?


    Mainly it's because you're a willfully ignorant jerkoff who doesn't understand the first thing about evolutionary biology and are vastly unqualified to assess the evidence you've been given.

    ReplyDelete
  113. And why is it that EVERY TIME that I ask for a testable hypothesis pertaining to the proposed evoltionary mechanism of an accumulation of genetic accidents I either get the "that isn't the proposed evolutionary mechanism" to which I post all the evidence that says it is or I get a "hypothesis" that has nothing to do with any mechanism?

    thortard:
    Mainly it's because you're a willfully ignorant jerkoff who doesn't understand the first thing about evolutionary biology

    That's funny seeing that I have exposed your ignorance of evolutionary biology on several occasions.

    and are vastly unqualified to assess the evidence you've been given.

    Apparently I am more qualified than you will ever be.

    And it is clear that you cannot provide the testable hypothesis that I have been requesting.

    Go figure...

    ReplyDelete
  114. Let's see- I ask for a testable hypothesis pertaining to the proposed evoltionary mechanism of an accumulation of genetic accidents and thorton the evotard sez he cannot produce one because he sez I am ignorant.

    Geez you would think that to expose my ignorance would be to actually produce what I say doesn't exist.

    But that is not how evotard cowards go about their business.

    No they have to insult their opponents and then cry when their opponents hit back.

    No wonder the vast majority of people think the theory of evolution is nonsense...

    ReplyDelete
  115. JoeTard said...

    Apparently I am more qualified than you will ever be.


    More qualified to fix toasters that is.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Yes I am sure I am more qualified than you to fix toatsters- even though I have never fixed one.

    But that is beside the point- I am definitely more qualified than you to assess the evidence for the theory of evolution and Universal Common Descent.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Joe G said...

    Yes I am sure I am more qualified than you to fix toatsters- even though I have never fixed one.


    HAHAHAHA!

    Hey JoeTard, tell us the one again about how you're a scientist because your degree says "Bachelor of Science Electronics Engineering"

    ReplyDelete
  118. So thortard can only produce lies-

    I ask for a testable hypothesis, throtard is too stupid to provide one, so he produces lies instead.

    I have never said I am a scientist because of my degrees- never.

    You are a liar and a loser.

    Now I understand why you are too chicken-shit to meet me.

    What a low-life coward you are...

    ReplyDelete
  119. It seems some people favor UCD because they desperartely want to be related to chimps...

    ReplyDelete
  120. Joe G said...

    It seems some people favor UCD because they desperartely want to be related to chimps...


    So you deny decades of solid scientific research only because you desperately don't want to be related to chimps. Got it.

    ReplyDelete
  121. thortard:
    So you deny decades of solid scientific research

    And another false accusation!

    Geez thorton the evotard is having an evotardgasm of false accusations.

    Unfortunately for thortard there isn't any solid scientific research that demonstrates that chimps and humans are related in any way except via a common design.

    BTW I used to accept that I was related to chimps until I had the courage to take a good look at the alleged "evidence"- that is when I realized I was being lied to.

    OTOH you are a coward and couldn't understand the evidence if your life depended on it.

    ReplyDelete
  122. LOL!

    We know you think you're a "special' created masterpiece JoeTard, and you are - in the "Special Ed." kind of way.

    Saying chimps and humans have a 'common design' implies both were created as is and didn't share a common ancestor. But on the other thread you said life was front-loaded 3.3 billion years ago just to produce biodiversity with no discernible direction.

    You just can't keep your fantasies straight to save your life.

    Let's try a few easy questions JoeTard:

    How old is the earth?

    How long has life been on the earth?

    How long has multi-cellular life been on the earth?

    ReplyDelete
  123. thorton:
    Saying chimps and humans have a 'common design' implies both were created as is and didn't share a common ancestor.

    That is false.

    All it means is that both were based on a common design and what we observe today are the ancestors of that design- and yes descent with modification still comes into play.

    But on the other thread you said life was front-loaded 3.3 billion years ago just to produce biodiversity with no discernible direction.

    I didn't say that.

    I don't know when and I don't know what were the starting populations.

    Also I said there would be a discernable dirction.

    IOW once again you expose your lying ways.

    How old is the earth?

    No one knows

    How long has life been on the earth?

    No one knows

    How long has multi-cellular life been on the earth?

    No one knows

    and anyone who says otherwise is just blowing smoke.

    The age of the Earth depends on HOW it was formed.

    Using old materials to make something new would skew the dating process.

    ReplyDelete
  124. And I am STILL waiting for you to produce a testable hypothesis for your position.

    It is very telling that you have refused to do so even going as far as running away from my blog like the little coward you are.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Joe G said...

    thorton:Saying chimps and humans have a 'common design' implies both were created as is and didn't share a common ancestor.

    That is false


    So now you think chimps and humans did share a common ancestor. Got it. Since like all creationists you make up stuff as you go, it's no wonder you contradict yourself so often.

    T: How old is the earth?

    No one knows

    T: How long has life been on the earth?

    No one knows

    T: How long has multi-cellular life been on the earth?

    No one knows


    What you mean is you're too ignorant to know. The scientific community knows with an extremely high degree of confidence

    The age of the Earth depends on HOW it was formed.

    How was the Earth formed JoeTard? Mainstream science knows that also. Is that another one you're too ignorant to know?

    Using old materials to make something new would skew the dating process.

    The layers of the Grand Canyon date in a linear progression with depth from approx 270 million years old for the topmost Kaibab limestone to 1.7 billion years old for the lowest Vishnu schist. Go on JoeTard, tell us with a straight face your Magic Designer built the Earth much more recently but deliberately used progressively older materials for each level just to prank us.

    It's when you dream up mega-stupid things like that which are worth the price of admission to the JoeTard Gallien Traveling Clown Show.

    ReplyDelete
  126. thorton:Saying chimps and humans have a 'common design' implies both were created as is and didn't share a common ancestor.

    That is false

    thortard:
    So now you think chimps and humans did share a common ancestor.

    There isn't any evidence for that.

    What was false about your statement is that both need not have been designed "as is".

    Since like all creationists you make up stuff as you go, it's no wonder you contradict yourself so often.

    And another false accusation.

    thortard:
    The scientific community knows with an extremely high degree of confidence.

    Just because you say-so that doesn't make it so.

    The age of the Earth depends on HOW it was formed.

    How was the Earth formed Joe? Mainstream science knows that also.

    No one knows how the Earth was formed.

    Mainstream science thinks it was via mutple cosmic collisions, yet that premise cannot be tested.

    Using old materials to make something new would skew the dating process.

    The layers of the Grand Canyon date in a linear progression with depth from approx 270 million years old for the topmost Kaibab limestone to 1.7 billion years old for the lowest Vishnu schist.

    That is just a guess based on a materialistic assumption.

    We have direct observation of canyons forming.

    It doesn't take millions of years.

    And your "dates" all depend on the age of the earth, yet the earth could be made of old material and still be very young.

    Ya see throtard YOU cannot produce a testable hypothesis for your position so everything you say is "science" is really nonsense.

    ReplyDelete