Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Hominin Fossils Yield Uncooperative DNA Data

“Now we have to rethink the whole story.”

Scientists continue to improve their amazing ability to recover microscopic DNA molecules from ancient fossils and this new source of old data is causing problems for evolution. The latest finding, published earlier this month, comes from hominin fossils found in caves in northern Spain. In recent decades fossils from a few dozen individuals have been found in these caves. According to evolution these fossils should have been ancestors of the Neanderthals but the recovered DNA have falsified this expectation. Instead the DNA is more closely related to the Denisovans, so named after the Siberian cave where their bones were discovered. This is not a minor problem and, once again, evolutionists struggle to reconcile their theory with the evidence as these quotes reveal:

“Right now, we’ve basically generated a big question mark.”

“Everybody had a hard time believing it at first.”

“Now we have to rethink the whole story.”

“It’s extremely hard to make sense of. We still are a bit lost here.”

As science writer Carl Zimmer put it, “The new finding is hard to reconcile with the picture of human evolution that has been emerging based on fossils and ancient DNA.” In other words, the data do not fit the theory.

Once again evolution must be patched up, and once again it takes on increasing levels of complexity to accommodate the uncooperative data.  As one evolutionist admitted, “The more we learn from the DNA extracted from these fossils, the more complicated the story becomes.”

In fact evolutionists are now considering several new stories. Perhaps the fossil species from the Spanish caves are not true Neanderthals, but belonged to the ancestors of both Denisovans and Neanderthals.

Or perhaps the newly discovered DNA was passed to both Neanderthals and Denisovans, but eventually disappeared from Neanderthals. On the other hand, perhaps the Spanish fossils belong to yet another branch of humans altogether—Homo erectus.

Scientific theories are supposed to be parsimonious. Geocentrism required dozens and dozens of epicycles, but with heliocentrism the data fell neatly into place according to the simple idea that the planets revolve about the Sun.

Evolution is far beyond geocentrism in its level of complexity. As new findings stream in evolutionary theory must be modified with so many of its own epicycles. Rather than explain the natural world, evolution is more often surprised by nature. Its predictions are routinely false and evolution appears to be more of an after-the-fact tautology than an insightful description of reality.

16 comments:

  1. "Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant to the question of whether evolution could take place on the molecular level. So is the fossil record. It no longer matters whether there are huge gaps in the fossil record or whether the record is as continuous as that of U.S. presidents. And if there are gaps, it does not matter whether they can be explained plausibly. ", Behe, Darwin's Black Box.

    ReplyDelete
  2. While the DNA in question might be uncooperative to a particular posited evolutionary history, it is not uncooperative to evolutionary theory, in general.

    Again, if we start with the idea that all of our theories are incomplete and contain errors to some degree, then why would you expect evolutionary theory not to contain errors, such as exactly which species came next? Why wouldn't be be surprised if theories start out as guesses, which become more accurate over time?

    IOW, evolution is only a "failure" based on your particular theory of human knowledge. That's something you continually fail to address, yet forms the very foundation of your objection.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Scott:

    While the DNA in question might be uncooperative to a particular posited evolutionary history, it is not uncooperative to evolutionary theory, in general.

    Yes, it is uncooperative t evolutionary theory, in general. The theory's prediction is false, and the theory needs to be modified in unlikely ways.

    Again, if we start with the idea that all of our theories are incomplete and contain errors to some degree, then why would you expect evolutionary theory not to contain errors, such as exactly which species came next?

    But the data do not fit the theory very well. Imagine you have data that form a nice curve (say y = x^2). But you are using a straight line model to fit the data (y = x). It won't work very well, and your response should not be, well all models have *some* errors.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Scott: While the DNA in question might be uncooperative to a particular posited evolutionary history, it is not uncooperative to evolutionary theory, in general.

    CH: The theory's prediction is false…

    There is no difference between a particular posited evolutionary history and the underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory?

    Just because you might hold a theological commitment that no explanatory theory of biological complexity is possible, this doesn’t mean that any theory of biological complexity consists of only predictions that can be modified independently from its formalism and interpretation.

    CH: …and the theory needs to be modified in unlikely ways.

    At which point, you’re objection is based on underlying assumptions about the role of probability in science, such as the frequency interpretation or subjective belief interoperation. Please point out which specific philosophy of science you are referring to when you say evolutionary theory is scientifically unlikely.

    Scott: Again, if we start with the idea that all of our theories are incomplete and contain errors to some degree, then why would you expect evolutionary theory not to contain errors, such as exactly which species came next?

    CH: But the data do not fit the theory very well.

    “The theory”, as you’re using it in this case, is a particular evolutionary history.

    Sure, if you assume scientific theories consist merely of predictions to be found true or false, then yes. But that’s an assumption you’re making about science. There are infinite number of interpolations of phenomena that suggest very different, conflicting ideas about how the world actually works, but are are empirically indistinguishable. But this dons not mean we cannot make progress. Popper has addressed this at length, so this sort of argument is parochial (narrow in scope.)

    For example, why don’t you start out by disclosing exactly which specific variation of empiricism do you hold. Please be specific.

    But I suspect you will not because you know your target audience holds the same theory of human knowledge as you do. Why bother exposing your assumptions as just that, assumptions, when you gain nothing by doing so? Why expose them to criticism when doing so would explicitly acknowledge them as parochial?

    CH: It won't work very well, and your response should not be, well all models have *some* errors.

    The very idea that there is such a thing of an model that can have errors, if taken seriously, implies that truth exists and can we can make progress toward it. IOW, we conjecture specific histories for the explicit purpose of being found in error by testing them. That’s how we make progress.

    So, in that sense, it does work.

    Again, evolution is only a "failure" based on your particular theory of human knowledge, which you have yet to clarify or argue for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott:

      Just because you might hold a theological commitment that no explanatory theory of biological complexity is possible, ...

      I don't hold that commitment.

      Delete
    2. Scott doesn't any version of evolution, be it Darwin's, Lamarck's, or whomever's, predict that the DNA should match the morphology and geolgraphy? Any theory of evolution hold's common descent. The exact mechanism is irrellevant in thsi case.

      Delete
    3. Scott: Just because you might hold a theological commitment that no explanatory theory of biological complexity is possible...

      CH: I don't hold that commitment.

      Again, if I got it wrong, then please explain how you view differers, rather than just issue a vague denial. Please be specific.

      Ok, if I got it wrong, then

      Delete
    4. Furthermore, what of the rest of the questions I asked? Why respond to just that one?

      Delete
    5. Nat: Scott doesn't any version of evolution, be it Darwin's, Lamarck's, or whomever's, predict that the DNA should match the morphology and geolgraphy?

      Imagine you've never heard of or seen an El Camino. Now imagine the data indicates a particular set of vehicle tracks were actually made by an El Camino, rather than a car or a truck as previously predicted.

      Would you be surprised? Yes. Of course, you've never seen or heard of an El Camino. Would your prediction have been wrong? Yes. But does that mean the data was uncooperative to a theory of a gas powered vehicle with two wheels? No, it doesn't.

      Again, Cornelis keeps wielding the word "science" without explicitly disclosing a great number of assumptions he smuggles into his argument.

      For example, he completely failed to disclose exactly what kind of empiricist he is, despite being asked directly to do so. And this is far from being the first time I've asked.

      What else are we supposed to expect when he failed to even acknowledge simple, straight forward questions over and over again?

      Delete
    6. Scott:

      The data is uncooperative to a theory of common descent, that is, any theory of evolution.

      Delete
    7. Again, a specific history is posited and designed to be found in error. That's not the same as the underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory.

      So, how is it uncooperative to the underlying explanation. Please be specific.

      Delete
  5. Hi Cornelius, I read your blog and think you are right. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  6. oleg: Comments should not be rehashes of strawmen that have already been addressed several times.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cornelius Hunter:
    Hello from north Spain.
    I agree with you in everything except when you use the analogy evolution/epicicles.
    You often claim something wrong like
    "Geocentrism required dozens and dozens of epicycles, but with heliocentrism the data fell neatly into place according to the simple idea that the planets revolve about the Sun."

    (http://www.personal.psu.edu/t20/fom/postings/0202/msg00165.html)

    "This is not true! The Copernican hypothesis is not simpler (is worse than Ptolomaeus')! The orbits should stay circular (accordingly to Neoplatonic
    and Aristotelic philosophy). Using circles the movement of a heavenly body
    could be expanded in Fourier Series in two dimensions having the Sun at the
    center or the earth. Each circle is an epicicle. Copernicus' theory has more
    epicicles than Ptolomeus'. Fred Hoyle did this calculation several years
    ago. The number of circles in the Revolutionibus is over 50.

    Essais where all these calculations are made are Westerman, Hoyle and mainly
    the great Naugebaur.

    Finaly he argument of Copernicus is not simplicity. It is metaphysical.

    See in the Revolutionibus, introduction, and in Kuhn".

    Our "friend" R.Dawkins makes simiar critic to creationim (like mistaken heliocentrists) when he consideres evolution "elegant" (something metaphysical)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Juan and thank you for your note. I agree with your points. My comments regarding heliocentrism are meant to be in reference not strictly to Copernicus' version where the planets orbit the Sun in circles, but where they can travel, more generally, in conic sections (such as ellipses), which naturally result from Newtonion physics. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll try to make that more clear.

      Delete