Ball Don't Lie
Jerry Coyne, having supplied the world with yet another tome proving that evolution is true—and by true Coyne and the evolutionists mean as true as the existence of gravity or the computer screen sitting in front of you, in other words there is not much nuance there—has now moved on to the next target: religion. In his new book Faith Versus Fact, Coyne rides the mythical Warfare Thesis (which holds that religion, except for in its anti realism form where it merely is the keeper of some vague set of values we might want to think about, opposes science and the two are incompatible) to take the battle to the believers. You can read a polite review in The Atlantic by Jeffrey Taylor. Taylor’s review is polite because, like Coyne, he also is an evolutionist and atheist. Unfortunately, that means that Taylor misses the key point that readers must understand if they are to make sense of Coyne’s new book, and evolutionary thought in general.Coyne’s earlier book on why evolution is true did not add any new arguments or evidences to the evolution apologetic. The book was an excellent contribution to the genre, with its unique arrangement of the evidence and Coyne’s good writing style. And it gathered more evidence in one place than most treatments. But conceptually, it pounded the same themes that date back to Darwin, Hume, Wolfe, Malebranche, Lucretius, and many more.
And those themes are deeply metaphysical. The most obvious of them is the problem of evil and how evolutionists view it as requiring a distant god. The world must have arisen spontaneously, on its own, so to speak, because their god never would have intended for this gritty world. (You can read more about how Coyne handles the POE here, here, here and here, for example).
The key point to understand when reading the evolution genre is that it is motivated by, and relies on, this sort of religious belief. I call it a key point not only because the religious assumptions are fundamental and essential to evolutionary thought, but because they often are misunderstood. After all, isn’t the argument against an active Creator motivated by science, not religion?
No, science makes no such mandate, or provides no such evidence.
But what about evolution?
Evolution is founded on theological and philosophical claims about God and creation. From a scientific perspective it is not plausible. But from a religious perspective it is a fact.
So when Coyne rails on those of faith, and argues that religious beliefs are no longer tenable, he is making a hypocritical argument. He is a religious person, no less so than any high priest ever was, driven by deeply held metaphysical convictions.
Like evolution, atheism is also grounded in metaphysics. A typical example comes from atheist PZ Myers’ opinion piece in the LA Times where he made the case for atheism from the problem of evil:
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.
That is a religious argument. Myers, who comes from a Lutheran background, draws a conclusion that depends on what he believes about God. God wouldn’t create this world, so there must be no God.
Aside from the hypocrisy, atheism is founded on a fallacy. For its conclusion, that matter and motion are all that exist, does not support religious beliefs about God. If materialism is all there is, then Myers cannot know anything about God. Myers could not know what God would or wouldn’t do. Atheism is vacuous and collapses on itself. Nor is this problem anything new for atheism. Historian Alan Charles Kors, for example, found that eighteenth century French atheism had come from the church and its culture. Kors wrote:
[My] inquiry led not to a prior history of free thought ... but to the orthodox culture of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries in France. It was, above all, within the deeply Christian learned culture of those years that there occurred inquiries and debates that generated the components of atheistic thought. It was, to say the least, not what I had expected; it indeed was what I found. … Before one can understand the heterodoxy of early-modern atheism, one first must understand the orthodox sources of disbelief.
Atheism is a referendum on religious belief and specifically, in most cases, a referendum on Christian religious belief. That referendum is based not on some logical fallacy or historical failure of Scripture, but rather on our rejection of the Creator. God wouldn’t do it that way.
Elsewhere Taylor makes this point repeatedly. He is concerned there is a lack of understanding about atheism. Taylor argues that people need to understand and appreciate the reasoning behind atheism rather than cast atheists simply as failed theists. We must understand the underlying rationale:
Nowhere does Taunton posit the most obvious conclusion one may reach about the growing prevalence of atheism today: namely, that the tenets in which the Christian tradition demands faith may have ultimately appeared to young people to be untenable. Christianity requires that we, in the twenty-first century, after having mapped the human genome, sent probes to Mars, and discovered the Higgs Boson, believe in human parthenogenesis and tales of a man turning water into wine, calming raging seas, curing lepers, and raising the dead. It requires that we believe that God chose to redeem humankind by means of a human sacrifice.
This monumental failure called atheism is all the more striking when it appeals to scientific findings, as though somehow those findings mandate the atheist’s religious convictions. As per the quote above, Taylor somehow sees molecular biology and other advances of science as mitigating against the virgin birth, crucifixion, and atonement of Christ? We’ve discovered genetics and space travel, so therefore miracles aren’t possible? You’re kidding, right?
Unfortunately, no. The atheists are quite serious in their sophism.
As they say in science, this isn’t even wrong. Such a critique would be too generous. These atheist arguments are the stuff of late-night dorm room sessions where freshman argue strenuously about that which they do not understand. The heat of the argument is exceeded only by the ignorance.
Most people eventually grow up. Not so with the atheists and evolutionists.
It’s not that Coyne, Myers, Dawkins, Taylor and the rest are not smart people. They certainly are. But their religious convictions have them stuck in a fool’s game. After two thousand years, they continue to repeat the absurdities of their Epicurean forefathers.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
What is smart? Its relative. Error can not be forever be held by smart people. They need to show why evolution is accurate by biological scientific evidence.
ReplyDeleteHow hard can it be to see its not there or see its there/!
The smarts stakes are raised on these matters. Somebody is failing here.
I think its the evos.
What is smart? Its relative. Error can not be forever be held by smart people. They need to show why evolution is accurate by biological scientific evidence.
ReplyDeleteHow hard can it be to see its not there or see its there/!
The smarts stakes are raised on these matters. Somebody is failing here.
I think its the evos.
Your heading proclaims "How religion drives science and why it matters." This piece proclaims "...atheism is founded on a fallacy. For its conclusion, that matter and motion are all that exist, does not support religious beliefs about God…."
ReplyDeleteReligion does not drive my fields of science: physics and astronomy. We are all "a"theists, because we have yet to find a need for "theistic" hypotheses. I know my colleagues in chemistry and geology would agree. Our current conclusion is that "matter and motion are all that exist" (properly explained). Is biology somehow different?
Further along, it seems that "miracles" are the events offered to disprove "materialism". So where are these current day "miracles"? If miracles really happen, shouldn't you be publishing detailed scientific investigations?
Religion does not drive my fields of science: physics and astronomy. We are all "a"theists, because we have yet to find a need for "theistic" hypotheses. I know my colleagues in chemistry and geology would agree. Our current conclusion is that "matter and motion are all that exist" (properly explained). Is biology somehow different?
DeleteI wondered about that too. As far as I know the science of geology has nothing to do with religion. It's merely the study of how the geologically active Earth has changed over time.
The science of radiometric dating has nothing to do with religion. It merely uses well understood principles of physics to date the Earth to over 4.5 billion years and to date the various strata found in geology.
The science of paleontology has nothing to do with religion. It merely studies the patterns and distribution of animal fossils and describes how they changed over time as they are found in the various strata.
The science of genetics has nothing to do with religion. It merely describes the patterns seen in the DNA of existing species and tells us how those species are related.
All those sciences have nothing to do with religion but somehow when you put all their results into one big picture which shows how life on the planets has evolved over hundreds of millions of years the science suddenly turns into religion?
Someone needs to come up with a good reason why that should be so.
Warren:
DeleteReligion does not drive my fields of science: physics and astronomy.
Actually astronomy rests on a deep metaphysical foundation. Kant, for example, made several powerful theological arguments that mandated strictly naturalistic explanations for the origins of the cosmos. For example, one of his arguments was that the solar system must have evolved naturalistically because otherwise God would have had to have directly created it, and that was not feasible because God would not have capriciously created the ecliptic:
“Thus, God's choice, not having the slightest motive for tying [the planets] to one single arrangement, would reveal itself with a greater freedom in all sorts of deviations and differences” –Immanuel Kant, 1755
This is the metaphysical reasoning behind Buffon's, Kant's and Laplace's arguments (and calculations) that their theories of solar system evolution must be correct. God wouldn't have created this solar system.
Of course, from quasars and galaxies to the solar system and planetary systems, there are substantial problems with theories of cosmological evolution, which I'm sure you are quite aware of. But cosmological evolution is taken as a given, regardless, as per the metaphysics.
gr:
DeleteThe science of paleontology has nothing to do with religion.
Quote: "The evidence of fossils shows clearly that the eventual end of most evolutionary lines is extinction. Organisms now living are successful descendants of only a minority of the species that lived in the past and of smaller and smaller minorities the farther back you look. Nevertheless, the number of living species has not dwindled; indeed, it has probably grown with time. All this is understandable in the light of evolution theory; but what a senseless operation it would have been, on God's part, to fabricate a multitude of species ex nihilo and then let most of them die out!" --Theodosius Dobzhansky
Warren:
DeleteI know my colleagues in chemistry and geology would agree. Our current conclusion is that "matter and motion are all that exist" (properly explained).
How do you and your colleagues come to that conclusion?
Cornelius Hunter
Deletegr: The science of paleontology has nothing to do with religion.
Quote: "The evidence of fossils shows clearly that the eventual end of most evolutionary lines is extinction.
The Dobzhansky quote has nothing to do with the actual science of paleontology. It's one man's personal opinion on how the record doesn't support Biblical special creation, which it doesn't.
I notice you also ignored the fact that geology, and radiometric dating, and genetics also have nothing to do with religion.
Seems your claim that evolution is religion is not supported.
gr:
DeleteThe Dobzhansky quote has nothing to do with the actual science of paleontology.
It has everything to do with the "actual science," which, as philosopher Del Ratsch once pointed out, is done by people. Until you understand that, you won't understand the influence of metaphysics.
ghostrider,
Delete"All those sciences have nothing to do with religion but somehow when you put all their results into one big picture which shows how life on the planets has evolved over hundreds of millions of years the science suddenly turns into religion?"
Do you really not see the problem with that statement?
Nic
Deletegr: "All those sciences have nothing to do with religion but somehow when you put all their results into one big picture which shows how life on the planets has evolved over hundreds of millions of years the science suddenly turns into religion?"
Do you really not see the problem with that statement?
There is no problem with the statement. Are you going to claim also that geology, radiometric dating, paleontology, and genetics are not sciences but really religions?
ghostrider,
Delete"Are you going to claim also that geology, radiometric dating, paleontology, and genetics are not sciences but really religions?"
You couldn't get that meaning out of what I said if you spent a lifetime trying.
As an apparent evolutionist you would appear to function under the mistaken belief the only way to interpret scientific evidence is your way. Sure Paleontology, genetics etc., are scientific disciplines but they are not the sole purview of evolutionary thought.
Keeping that in mind, do you want to try again to understand the problem with your comment?
Nic
DeleteAs an apparent evolutionist you would appear to function under the mistaken belief the only way to interpret scientific evidence is your way.
There is only one intellectually honest way to interpret the scientific evidence. The one way that explains the data from all those scientific fields in a logically consistent and coherent manner. The one that doesn't require special pleading, or miracles, or imagined supernatural intervention. It's the way virtually every scientist who works on the data has been convinced by. I'm sure you've heard of it by now. It's been around being refined and strengthened for over 150 years.
Keeping that in mind, do you want to try again to understand the problem with your comment?
There's no problem with my statement. :)
ghostrider,
Delete"There is only one intellectually honest way to interpret the scientific evidence. The one way that explains the data from all those scientific fields in a logically consistent and coherent manner."
You're certainly entertaining.
So, anyone who does not agree with your interpretation of the evidence is intellectually dishonest?
"The one that doesn't require special pleading, or miracles,..."
Evolution is nothing but special pleading and miracles. Everything we observe tells us canines always remain canines, equines always remain equines, they never become anything other than what they are. Yet evolution claims just the opposite. That is the very definition of miracles and special pleading.
"It's the way virtually every scientist who works on the data has been convinced by. I'm sure you've heard of it by now. It's been around being refined and strengthened for over 150 years."
You mean evolution? That way which explains why we are selfish, except when we are altruistic; why we are promiscuous except when we are faithful; why we are aggressive except when we are co-operative. The way which sees similarities as the result of common ancestry except when it's the result of convergence? That way which is true regardless of the evidence?
This statement suffers from the same problem as the first one. Want to try one more time?
Nic
DeleteSo, anyone who does not agree with your interpretation of the evidence is intellectually dishonest?
Anyone who ignores 99.9% of the evidence that fits together in one consilient manner in favor of cherry-picking individual pieces is certainly intellectually dishonest.
Everything we observe tells us canines always remain canines, equines always remain equines, they never become anything other than what they are.
We have multicellular fossils going back 650 million years. Yet the oldest proto-canine fossils and proto-feline fossils ever found date to less than 50 million years ago. Why don't we find modern dog, cat, or horse fossils among the dinosaurs fossils? Or among the earlier synapsids? Or with the Cambrian biota? Dinosaurs existed on the planet for over 135 million years but we never find fossils of any extant animals mixed with them. Why is that? Give me your "better than evolution" explanation and I'll listen.
You mean evolution? That way which explains why we are selfish, except when we are altruistic
All life on the planet didn't evolve the exact same features.at the exact same time. How can you accept the science of meteorology that explains why it is dry except when it is rainy, that explains why it is hot except for when it is cold? It's takes someone exceptionally scientifically ignorant to think the history of life on the planet is "one size fits all".
This statement suffers from the same problem as the first one.
The only problem seems to be someone quite ignorant of the life sciences is trying in vain to hand wave away the evidence.
Here is a good write up for laymen with an overview of what we know about canidae evolution over the last 40 million years. There are links and descriptions to oven a dozen extinct canid species that were ancestral to modern foxes, wolves, and dogs.
DeletePrehistoric Dogs
Anyone reading this please feel free to give the non-evolutionary explanation for all these animals, including the timelines in which they lived.
ghostrider,
Delete"Anyone who ignores 99.9% of the evidence,..."
This is pure rhetoric and you know it. How about you produce solid evidence in support of this claim?
"We have multicellular fossils going back 650 million years. Yet the oldest proto-canine fossils and proto-feline fossils ever found date to less than 50 million years ago."
And this supports your argument how?
"How can you accept the science of meteorology that explains why it is dry except when it is rainy, that explains why it is hot except for when it is cold?"
Are you serious? You really think this is analogous?
Wet and dry are opposite ends of the same spectrum as are hot and cold. They are explained by meteorology, but meteorology is not the source. Evolution clams to be the source as well as the explanation of the dichotomy of altruism and selfishness.
"trying in vain to hand wave,..."
I'm not the one hand waving, that would most certainly be you.
It's obvious you have no clue of the problems inherent in your comments. Why am I not surprised?
As with the vast majority of evolutionists on the internet you simply spout tired old rhetoric while having no clue at all about what the evidence actually demonstrates.
Nic
Delete"Anyone who ignores 99.9% of the evidence,..."
This is pure rhetoric and you know it. How about you produce solid evidence in support of this claim
You ignored the questions about why no dog and cat fossils mixed with the dinosaurs and earlier species. You ignored the link with the outline of canidae evolution. Ignoring data you can't explain is intellectually dishonest. Q.E.D.
And this supports your argument how?
If "canines were always canines" as you claim then why no canine fossils for the first 600 million years of multicellular life? Where did the canines come from? Were they hiding for 600 million years? The first creature recognizable as modern dogs didn't appear until around 30K years ago. What is your explanation for the data?
Evolution clams to be the source as well as the explanation of the dichotomy of altruism and selfishness.
Evolution is a process, not a "source". The process will produce different outputs with different inputs. Why are you surprised that social animals like humans can have different emotional reactions to different sets of circumstances? Pretty much all animals do so.
It's obvious you have no clue of the problems inherent in your comments.
The problem is a scientifically ignorant someone trying to hand wave away scientific findings.
ghostrider,
Delete"then why no canine fossils for the first 600 million years of multicellular life?"
You just don't get it, do you? This is just another answer based on your presupposition that life evolved from a common ancestor.That a canine has not been found in a particular layer of mud is not evidence that they did not exist, nor is it evidence life arose spontaneously and evolved from a common ancestor. This is just more rhetoric.
"Evolution is a process, not a "source"."
It claims to be both, except in the minds of theistic evolutionists.
"Why are you surprised that social animals like humans can have different emotional reactions to different sets of circumstances?"
Who said anything about being surprised by humans having different emotional responses? I was asking how evolution can explain the existence of those responses. It can't.
"The problem is a scientifically ignorant someone,..."
I think you're more than adequately demonstrating the ignorance lies on your part. You have not been able to answer any question put to you. All you provide is rhetoric and insults.
Warren:
DeleteI know my colleagues in chemistry and geology would agree. Our current conclusion is that "matter and motion are all that exist" (properly explained).
"How do you and your colleagues come to that conclusion?"
I wish Warren would share with the class his answer to your question. I'm really interested to understand as I've heard his comment many times before.
"All this is understandable in the light of evolution theory; but what a senseless operation it would have been, on God's part, to fabricate a multitude of species ex nihilo and then let most of them die out!" --Theodosius Dobzhansky
ReplyDeleteCornelius, I may be a little thick, but I am having a hard time equating a quote that criticizes the idea of god being responsible for evolution with the claim that science would not exist without religion.
AT:
DeleteMore specifically, the quote criticizes the idea that God directly created (or more specifically yet, intended for) what we find in this world.
Imagine if you believed that. That would leave evolution, in one form or another, as your only origins explanation.
The point is that evolutionary "science" is driven by religion. From a strictly scientific perspective, it is a non starter.
The point is that evolutionary "science" is driven by religion.
DeleteFour major sciences that support evolutionary theory - geology, radiometric dating, paleontology, and genetics - have nothing to do with religion. The Dobzhansky quote doesn't change those facts.
Four major sciences that support evolutionary theory - geology, radiometric dating, paleontology, and genetics
DeleteBy the way, those don't "support" evolutionary theory. That's an aside here, but an important aside.
"By the way, those don't "support" evolutionary theory. That's an aside here, but an important aside."
DeletePlease elaborate. This should be interesting
Cornelius Hunter
DeleteBy the way, those don't "support" evolutionary theory. That's an aside here, but an important aside.
What a bizarre thing to claim. The science of geology has identified numerous geologic epochs - Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, all of the Cenozoic - - each with its own unique flora and fauna. The science of radiometric dating has accurately determined an age for each epoch. The science of paleontology has identified a distinct branching hierarchy from the morphologies and location of the fossils in those epochs. The science of genetics has confirmed the fossil phylogenies to an amazing degree of concurrence. All that and yet you claim none of it is science and none of it supports that evolution has occurred? There’s not much point in arguing with such a rather silly denial of the facts except to say tens of thousands of professional scientist in those fields, virtually every one who actually studies the topics, completely disagrees with your assessment.
gr:
DeleteWhat a bizarre thing to claim. The science of geology has identified numerous geologic epochs - Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, all of the Cenozoic - - each with its own unique flora and fauna. ... All that and yet you claim none of it is science and none of it supports that evolution has occurred? There’s not much point in arguing with such a rather silly denial of the facts except to say tens of thousands of professional scientist in those fields, virtually every one who actually studies the topics, completely disagrees with your assessment.
Actually I did not say "none of it is science." In fact, I didn't say any of it is not science. What I said is that it doesn't support evolution. That tells you what was there, not how it got there.
Actually I did not say "none of it is science." In fact, I didn't say any of it is not science.
DeleteThen you admit they are all sciences that have nothing to do with religion. Now we're back to the original question: how can four sciences that have nothing to do with religion suddenly become a religion when considered together?
What I said is that it doesn't support evolution.
Virtually the entire scientific community says you're wrong.
That tells you what was there, not how it got there.
The evidence does conclusively show "how it got there" to the satisfaction of those who research and work with the findings for a living. Unless you're going to claim the Devil planted all the fake evidence just to fool us. Denying the clear patterns in the fossil and genetic data won't make the patterns go away.
gr:
DeleteThen you admit ...
Anytime someone says "Then you admit ... blah, blah, blah," something that you never said in the first place, then you know there is a problem.
The evidence does conclusively show "how it got there" to the satisfaction of those who research and work with the findings for a living.
Can you explain why?
Cornelius Hunter
DeleteAnytime someone says
Anytime someone tries to change the topic and avoid the tough questions they have no answer for you know there is a problem.
Can you explain why?
Yes. It's due to the overwhelming consilience of the evidence from so many different and diverse scientific fields. I've already outlined some from four sciences for which there exists no other plausible alternate explanation. The following are scientific facts:
Earth is 4.5 billion years old
Life on the planet is at least 3 billion years old
Multicellular life on the planet is at least 650 million years old
The fossil record shows a very clear branching, nested hierarchical pattern of morphological change in animal lineages over the last 500+ million years.
There have been at least five major mass extinction events in the last 500 million years in which a majority of all species on the planet went extinct. After each extinction event there was a re-radiation of life that created many never existed before new species to fill empty ecological niches.
The genetic record of extant animals shows the virtually identical branching nested hierarchical pattern and common descent relationships as the fossil record.
Science has one good explanation for the facts. The explanation doesn't require special pleading, or miracles, or any supernatural intervention. Of course the scientific explanation has nothing to do with any religion.
gs:
DeleteEarth is 4.5 billion years old.
Life on the planet is at least 3 billion years old
Multicellular life on the planet is at least 650 million years old
These don’t help evolution.
The fossil record shows a very clear branching, nested hierarchical pattern of morphological change in animal lineages over the last 500+ million years.
No, actually that is how evolutionists describe it. The actual fossil record is quite different. It is not at all a “very clear branching, nested hierarchical pattern.” That is what the evolutionary expectation was, which turned out to be clearly false. In fact the fossil record shows abrupt appearance of new forms and a whole lot of stasis.
The genetic record of extant animals shows the virtually identical branching nested hierarchical pattern and common descent relationships as the fossil record.
Again, you are simply rehearsing the evolutionary expectations, which have been falsified.
There have been at least five major mass extinction events in the last 500 million years in which a majority of all species on the planet went extinct. After each extinction event there was a re-radiation of life that created many never existed before new species to fill empty ecological niches.
Again, these don’t help evolution.
What you have provided for us is a good example of how non scientific evolutionary thought is. This isn’t about following the evidence wherever it leads without regard to theory. This is about defending a theory, in spite of the evidence.
Science indicates that evolution is not a very good theory. It tells us that the spontaneous origins of the world is not likely. That’s not an opinion. It’s not me trying to make a point. That is simply what science has shown us. You may deny it all you want, and memorize false evolutionary claims, or you can acknowledge the science. Your choice.
These don’t help evolution.
DeleteI see you've given up all pretense of rational discussion in favor of the usual Creationist hot air. Deny, obfuscate, hand wave. Wash, rinse, repeat.
I notice you didn't even attempt an alternate explanation for the scientific facts I described. That goes right along with your failure to back up the silly claim that the sciences which support evolution are somehow a religion.
Science indicates that evolution is not a very good theory.
I guess science will just have to muddle through somehow with the best supported scientific theory of all time. Meanwhile we'll keep an eye on all those brilliant Creationist scientists who continue winning all the Nobel prizes for their groundbreaking work in the biological sciences. Oh wait... :D
gs:
Deletenotice you didn't even attempt an alternate explanation for the scientific facts I described.
You claimed those scientific findings supported evolution and I pointed out they do not. I realize these are popular evolutionary arguments, but they are contradictory to the science. It really is nowhere close. Take, for example, this claim you made:
The genetic record of extant animals shows the virtually identical branching nested hierarchical pattern and common descent relationships as the fossil record.
There is so much literature on this, and so much contradictory evidence, there isn’t any question that the molecular data do not support this pattern as you state. But this is a very common and popular evolutionary argument. You can read more about this, and other scientific failures of evolution here:
https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/
Cornelius Hunter
DeleteYou claimed those scientific findings supported evolution and I pointed out they do not.
No, you asserted they do not without one shred of support for your denial of reality. Virtually the entire scientific community says you're wrong. I'll go with the folks who know what they're talking about, thank you.
You're entitled to believe any nonsense you want when hand-waving away the scientific evidence. The scientific community is entitled to laugh at you then ignore you.
If evolution is as wrong as you say then it should be easy for you to come up with an alternate, better explanation for the patterns seen in the fossil and genetic records. That's not going to happen though, is it?
gs:
DeleteSo far you have made a series of attacks without substance. You have made various false accusations, and you have misrepresented the science. And when I provided a link that would help with your misunderstanding of the science, you then accused me of making assertions “without one shred of support.”
So let’s try one more time. I explained to you that the geological strata and fossil record do not support evolution. The fossils tell you what was there, not how it got there. Your response was an argument from authority. I asked you to provide a better explanation and you claim that the “fossil record shows a very clear branching, nested hierarchical pattern of morphological change in animal lineages over the last 500+ million years.” You also referred to extinctions, as though those somehow help evolution: “There have been at least five major mass extinction events in the last 500 million years in which a majority of all species on the planet went extinct. After each extinction event there was a re-radiation of life that created many never existed before new species to fill empty ecological niches.”
I explained that the fossil record do *not* show a very clear branching, nested hierarchical pattern of morphological change. But in fact the fossil record shows abrupt appearance of new forms and a whole lot of stasis. I also explained that extinctions do not help evolutionary theory.
At that point you simply made more accusations: “I see you've given up all pretense of rational discussion …”
You had also made the claim that “genetics” supports evolution, and that it is consistent with the fossil record. I explained that these are both false, and I provided a link to help you understand the science. You ignored the link and accused me of not presenting “one shred of evidence.”
If you want to participate in the discussions, you’ll have to stop the trolling. We’ll give you one more chance here. One of your false claims was that the fossils and molecular data are consistent, from an evolutionary perspective. While evolutionists have expected this to be true, and high school textbooks often assert that it is true, the fact is this has been disproven many times over. One interesting aspect of these findings is that, while there are unexplained inconsistencies between the molecular and fossil data that contradict evolutionary expectations, evolutionists expected these contradiction to at least be worse with the more ancient, lower, parts of the evolutionary tree. But the opposite pattern is observed. As one study explained, “discord between molecular divergence estimates and the fossil record is pervasive across clades and of consistently higher magnitude for younger clades.” (Ksepka, D. T., J. L. Ware, K. S. Lamm. 2014. “Flying rocks and flying clocks: disparity in fossil and molecular dates for birds.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 281: 20140677.)
There is plenty more in the literature about molecular inconsistencies, and your insistence to the contrary indicates you are arguing about something you do not understand.
So here is a question for you. You have appealed to extinctions as evidence for evolution. Please explain this. Why and how are extinctions evidence for evolution?
So let’s try one more time. I explained to you that the geological strata and fossil record do not support evolution. The fossils tell you what was there, not how it got there.
DeleteYou haven't explained anything in this thread. You asserted all sorts of nonsense without any support whatsoever. Then you provided a link to more of your own writings as your "evidence".
Your response was an argument from authority.
There was no argument from authority. I didn't say evolution is correct because most scientists accept it. I said most scientists accept it because of the overwhelming amount of consilient evidence it has. That's the consilient evidence you refuse to address and for which you have no explanation.
As expected you still ignore all requests to provide your better explanation for the scientific data. Here's another example. The following is a brief overview of what is known about the evolutionary history of sauropod dinosaurs. From the first proto-sauropods in the middle Triassic 230 MYA the lineages diverged into at least four major subgroups with over 120 different known species by the late Cretaceous extinction 66 MYA.
Sauropod Phylogeny
I'd love to hear your non-evolutionary explanation for this empirically observed branching pattern over 160 MY. Do you have one?
Bottom line is - you can whine and moan all day about how terrible and wrong evolutionary theory is, how it gives you bad breath and cooties, makes taxes go up, etc. But unless you can offer something better evolution is going to remain the paradigm overwhelmingly accepted and used by the scientific community.
As one study explained, “discord between molecular divergence estimates and the fossil record is pervasive across clades and of consistently higher magnitude for younger clades.” (Ksepka, D. T., J. L. Ware, K. S. Lamm. 2014. “Flying rocks and flying clocks: disparity in fossil and molecular dates for birds.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 281: 20140677.)
DeleteHere's the whole paper.
Flying rocks and flying clocks: disparity in fossil and molecular dates for birds
The paper doesn't show the phylogenies of the fossil and genetic records are different as you claim. The paper shows the same branching, nested hierarchical pattern in both with only the times of the lineage divergences being in question. Since the fossil record is ground truth (literally) the most likely explanation is the molecular clock method for calculating divergence times is inaccurate. How you think this is evidence against evolution is beyond comprehension.
So here is a question for you. You have appealed to extinctions as evidence for evolution. Please explain this. Why and how are extinctions evidence for evolution?
The extinctions themselves aren't the evidence. It's the empirically observed major re-radiations of life after the extinctions that fit the evolutionary pattern. I'd love to hear your non-evolutionary explanation for the re-radiation and appearance of so many new species after each major extinction. Do you have one?
Here's another recent paper (2012) from Nature on the re-radiation of life after the major Permian extinction 252 MYA.
DeleteThe timing and pattern of biotic recovery following the end-Permian mass extinction
Abstract: The aftermath of the great end-Permian period mass extinction 252 Myr ago shows how life can recover from the loss of >90% species globally. The crisis was triggered by a number of physical environmental shocks (global warming, acid rain, ocean acidification and ocean anoxia), and some of these were repeated over the next 5–6 Myr. Ammonoids and some other groups diversified rapidly, within 1–3 Myr, but extinctions continued through the Early Triassic period. Triassic ecosystems were rebuilt stepwise from low to high trophic levels through the Early to Middle Triassic, and a stable, complex ecosystem did not re-emerge until the beginning of the Middle Triassic, 8–9 Myr after the crisis. A positive aspect of the recovery was the emergence of entirely new groups, such as marine reptiles and decapod crustaceans, as well as new tetrapods on land, including — eventually — dinosaurs. The stepwise recovery of life in the Triassic could have been delayed either by biotic drivers (complex multispecies interactions) or physical perturbations, or a combination of both. This is an example of the wider debate about the relative roles of intrinsic and extrinsic drivers of large-scale evolution.
Once again I'd love to hear the non-evolutionary explanation for this recovery of life and the emergence of new groups of animals after the extinction event. Do you have one? Anyone else out there have one?
gs:
DeleteThe extinctions themselves aren't the evidence. It's the empirically observed major re-radiations of life after the extinctions that fit the evolutionary pattern.
OK, good, I'm glad we established that extinctions are not evidence for evolution. And no, the abrupt appearance of entirely new species, euphemistically called “re-radiations,” aren't either.
Evolutionists have never provided any scientific explanations for these, aside from the Darwinian fallback that all the needed intermediates just happen to be missing from the fossil record.
Cornelius Hunter
DeleteAnd no, the abrupt appearance of entirely new species, euphemistically called “re-radiations,” aren't either.
Another knee-jerk denial of the scientific evidence offered with zero support. Not sure who you expect to convince with that tactic but it sure won't be anyone with the slightest knowledge of the biological sciences.
I see you have no explanation for the canidae evolutionary patterns and history documented above. No explanation for the branching hierarchical pattern in the avian fossil and genetic records documented above. No explanation for the sauropod radiation documented above. No explanation for the massive re-radiation of life after the end-Permian extinction documented above.
Do you have any non-evolutionary explanations for anything in the fossil and genetic records?
Evolutionists have never provided any scientific explanations for these,
You seem to be quite unfamiliar with the scientific literature on the topic. I know it's often difficult to keep up because there's so much of it.
Recovery after mass extinction: evolutionary assembly in large–scale biosphere dynamics
aside from the Darwinian fallback that all the needed intermediates just happen to be missing from the fossil record.
HA! Did you really just stoop to the Ken Ham / Kent Hovind quality "no transitional fossils" claim?
gs:
DeleteSince the fossil record is ground truth (literally) the most likely explanation is the molecular clock method for calculating divergence times is inaccurate.
The molecular clock “method” is to compare the molecular sequences. It does not work, that has been shown repeatedly. You insisted the fossil and molecular data are consistent and confirm evolution. I pointed out that is a false claim. You ignored the evidence I provided and accused me of being in denial and not providing a shred of evidence. So I gave you a single, specific example, and your response is that the fossil and molecular are not consistent, but it doesn’t count. Classic. Well, at least you agreed the data are not consistent.
This is what discoursing with an evolution is like.
How you think this is evidence against evolution is beyond comprehension.
This is the false dichotomy that Darwin set up. Evidence is either (i) beyond comprehension, or else it (ii) supports evolution. The fact that you can contrive an explanation (if you can call “the molecular clock method for calculating divergence times is inaccurate” an explanation—I’m being incredibly generous here) means it’s all good. Nothing counts against evolution because the bar is always a little bit higher. This is how Darwin argued in *Origins*, and how evolutionists have been arguing ever since. The world arose spontaneously, and that is a fact regardless of the science.
gs:
DeleteAnother knee-jerk denial of the scientific evidence offered with zero support. Not sure who you expect to convince with that tactic but it sure won't be anyone with the slightest knowledge of the biological sciences.
This will be the final troll comment allowed from you.
You seem to be quite unfamiliar with the scientific literature on the topic. I know it's often difficult to keep up because there's so much of it.
Recovery after mass extinction: evolutionary assembly in large–scale biosphere dynamics
Actually you are the one who is unfamiliar with the literature. You have demonstrated that repeatedly, and now you accuse me of it. You have now cited several papers or sites which disprove the point you are trying to make. You don’t explain the point, but merely provide a link. In each case it is directly contradictory to your argument. This Erwin paper goes against you right in the Abstract. The paper is not an examination of how such massive evolution could possibly occur. It has no explanation, as you claimed it did. Instead, it agrees that fossil record reveals “innovative patterns,” and provides a simplistic evolutionary model with three trophic levels, comparing it to ecological succession. There is nothing here at all about how such evolution could occur.
This will be the final troll comment allowed from you.
DeleteThe Creationist admits his arguments have lost.
Creationists always accuse those who present scientific evidence they can't explain of being trolls. It's their last line of defense against scientific reality.
Don't worry, I'm getting tired of exposing the creationist scientific ignorance being offered here anyway. You'll keep posting the same evidence-free denials with no explanation for the empirical data. The scientific community will keep on successfully using evolutionary theory.
Life goes on.
Cornelius, although GhostRider's comments may have been a little high on invective, I think that he made some valid points. Specifically the issue with the fossil record and the "molecular clock". Yes, molecular examination does not correspond with the fossil; record with regard to timing. But there is remarkable agreement, although there are some differences, in the relationships that are identified by both techniques.
DeleteThe dating of fossils has been well researched and the physics behind it is well understood and accepted. I think that we both agree on that. The molecular clock, however, is based on the extrapolation from current mutation rates and several other assumptions, some of which are probably not correct. The research showing that the molecular clock does not correspond to fossil dates simply means that the molecular clock as a tool is not as precise as we would have hoped.
But the fact that there is very good agreement with regard to observed patters amongst the different tools (e.g., comparative anatomy, fossil record, DNA comparisons, etc.) is definitely highly supportive of evolutionary theory. To say that it is not simply ignores the evidence.
WS:
DeleteTo say that it is not simply ignores the evidence.
Actually, to say that there is ignores the evidence. I realize you see these claims in the textbooks, and popular books and other literature, but you need to go to the evidence itself. Evolutionists are not arguing from the evidence, they are arguing from ideas. It's empiricism vs rationalism, once again.
But there is remarkable agreement
No, there is not remarkable agreement. What is remarkable is that this continues to be the claim. What we have is a plethora of disagreements between the different evidences. There is no "consilience."
But the fact that there is very good agreement with regard to observed patters amongst the different tools (e.g., comparative anatomy, fossil record, DNA comparisons, etc.)
No, there is no such "very good agreement" in the data. You see, when you are a proponent of a theory, then contrary evidence is classified as "outliers" and "anomalies" and not acknowledged as normative or as legitimately bearing on the problem. Proponents continue to strenuously defend their theory as strongly supported by the evidence, when there is nothing of the kind.
"You see, when you are a proponent of a theory, then contrary evidence is classified as "outliers" and "anomalies" and not acknowledged as normative or as legitimately bearing on the problem."
DeleteOutliers are identified as such because they are not consistent with the bulk of the data, not because they do not correspond to your theory.
Based on comparative anatomy, we see similarities and differences. From this, and the fossil record, we proposed the most likely scenario for descent over time and where the different lineages diverged. When genetics and molecular biology matured, we hypothesized that we would see a similar pattern when we compare DNA amongst the different extant groups. And, for the most part, we see the same patterns. For certain, there are some interesting differences which bear further investigation, but to say that there is no consistency at all is simply not correct.
WS:
DeleteAnd, for the most part, we see the same patterns.
No, we do not. The comparisons between the species, extant and extinct, molecular and morphological, do not show the same patterns. The differences are many and at all levels. The “observation” that we predominantly see the same patterns is theory-laden.
Outliers are identified as such because they are not consistent with the bulk of the data.
Bulk of the data, that’s an interesting argument even if it were true, which it is not in this case. But imagine, would we ignore clinical evidence of a disease, even though it was accurate only some of the time? Would we ignore rocks that float rather than fall because they float only some of the time? Newtonian physics would never have survived such findings. Science is not about ignoring contradictory evidence because, after all, we only find it some of the time.
ghostrider,
Delete"I guess science will just have to muddle through somehow with the best supported scientific theory of all time."
Do you ever plan to support your claims or is rhetoric all you've got?
In what way is evolution the best supported scientific theory of all time? This sounds like 'most scientists believe it, so it must be true'.
Tell me how evolution explains the origin of the eye without a massive string of 'just-so' stories?
ghostrider,
Delete"Don't worry, I'm getting tired of exposing the creationist scientific ignorance being offered here anyway."
Oh my, talk about delusions of grandeur. Maybe you should seek help.
The truth be told, I, and those who agree with me, would be happy if we received from you something simply approaching the level of rational. To believe you have refuted anything or anyone is simply delusional.
In case you are not aware, spouting rhetoric is not a cogent form of debate.
Nic
DeleteDo you ever plan to support your claims or is rhetoric all you've got?
I'm not allowed to post evidence for evolution. Every time I do the post is deleted.
ghostrider,
Delete"I'm not allowed to post evidence for evolution. Every time I do the post is deleted."
Really, that is the most pathetic excuse I have ever heard in my life! You can't post any evidence because you have none, just rhetoric.
Sorry. I still don't get it. Why would it leave evolution as the only origins explanation (ignoring the fact that evolution says nothing about origin)?
ReplyDeleteAT:
DeleteWhat was the title of Darwin's book?
Origin of species. Not origin of life. Two very different things, as I am sure you know.
DeleteDid you think Dobzhansky was referring to OOL?
DeleteBy the way, evolutionary thought is by no means restricted to the origin of species. That merely was Darwin's focus.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deletech:
DeleteBy the way, evolutionary thought is by no means restricted to the origin of species. That merely was Darwin's focus.
The Theory of Evolution is. What is this scientific theory of evolutionary thought's hypothesis? Is there a scientific theory of non evolutionary thought too?
Coyne doesn't seem to know the difference between faith and religion, which tells me that he must be the man to write the book on the theme......
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read the introduction to the book and some pages available on amazon.com I thought that his statements must have been out of context. Unfortunately, when I got the whole book, my suspicions were confirmed....
Coyne is a moron who can't tell the difference between religion and faith.....
I'm not sure if I should laugh and celebrate or cry and wonder that a moron like Coyne is influencing a small but significant part of society.....
What else is this moron going to do next? I kinda don't want to know.......
What is the difference between religion and faith? What is your definition of a moron?
Deletevelikovskys
Delete"What is the difference between religion and faith?"
One can have faith in many things which are not religious in nature. You practice faith every time you set foot on an elevator. It is not a religious faith but it is faith none-the-less.
Do you understand the difference?
So all religion is faith,but not all faith is religion. So you could have faith in science without it being religious. Sounds reasonable. Thanks Nic.
DeleteWarren Johnson: Religion does not drive my fields of science: physics and astronomy. We are all "a"theists, because we have yet to find a need for "theistic" hypotheses.
ReplyDeleteIt takes a commitment to a faith to oppose other people's faith. In other words you likely have faith that nature created itself. School children can see logical problems with that faith, the one that is required to believe such about nature. I have been around this type of debate long enough, and seen materialists backed into the logical corner plenty of times and witness how they behave and it ain't pretty even as it is instructive. And you know on certain occasions materialists might maintain that they don't care what others believe, but when they slip up it always comes out that they despise theistic belief among the majority on this planet. We've had some really crazy ones come on this thread, like the famous Thornton, Ph.D, atheist, who would be watching for my posts even on holidays. His nasty insults towards yours truly could only be due to one whose faith was threatened and he got banned by our host.
MSEE said: "It takes a commitment to a faith to oppose other people's faith. In other words you likely have faith that nature created itself."
DeleteI will wager that you have never participated seriously in any of the natural sciences. How the natural world was created is about the last thing a natural scientist investigates. Our main activities are strictly "materialist", meaning concerned with observing the behavior of natural objects in all the situations they can be found. The material world, to us, is the world that can be observed. So neutrinos are real to us, and the human soul is out of bounds, except when someone claims it can move a material object.
How do we have "faith" that our observations are true? We demand that they be agreed upon by essentially all competent observers. The observations need to be reproducible, then they become the facts on which we can build our theories. The critical fact which makes science very different from religion, is that the large army of scientists has always eventually come to an *unforced* consensus on many major features of the world. Essentially all competent scientists now have full confidence in the "atomic theory of matter". It was just a theory in Darwin's day, and now we are confident that all the materials that make up our present world are elements from the periodic table, and those elements are made up of electrons, protons, and neutrons and nothing else. (All these particles were discovered long after Darwin.)
In contrast, the spiritual side of human life is always intensely personal, and not something anyone else can really observe. When Mother Teresa says that God called here to minister to the poorest of the poor, I believe she is sincere, and also an admirable person, but no one else overheard God speak to her. Religious experiences do not follow the behavior of universal observability. So they lay beyond scientific investigation.
For the record, I do NOT hate the religious who are good persons, but often admire them; and I DO hate the religious who are bad persons, such as the killers of infidels and the pedophiles.
Msee:
ReplyDeleteWe've had some really crazy ones come on this thread, like the famous Thornton, Ph.D, atheist,
Sorry if you find this disappointing but that was not Thornton, it was Thorton, different guy.
who would be watching for my posts even on holidays. His nasty insults towards yours truly could only be due to one whose faith was threatened
I can think of other reasons he might insult you, but I agree he used a blunt tool.
and he got banned by our host.
Yep, he crossed the line and made it too personal.
Again this "miracle thing". If you want to believe in virgin birth in humans, you can. But every scientist will tell you that by the law of nature that we observe this is not possible.
ReplyDeleteYou can claim a miracle, but miracle are not science.
It's not just a problem for evolutionnary biology but for all science.
vel I can think of other reasons he might insult you, but I agree he used a blunt tool.
ReplyDeleteOh now that's cute, like you can think of reasons to hurl insults in a sincere debate. You guys are amazing in your thinking how to defend a worldview.
BTW I didn't say he insulted this writer, I intimated there were insults "towards yours truly" in the sense that attempted insults in educated discourse and pointing them out as such is one of the better indicators of who is arguing from an emotional and shaky foundation. I love it when I'm called a dip___t like I was a few weeks ago on a different blog, it provides such interesting material to bring to the attention of young people, kind of like your smart remark.
But thanks for pointing out the spelling anomaly. THORTON did mention students in his lab. If you google Thorton laboratory you get laboratory services in Tampa. If you google Thornton laboratory the results are two academic laboratories. maybe you can tell us more.
MSEE, let's face it. There is bad behaviour on both sides. I was called a "pathetic snivelling coward" by Barry Arrington simply for refusing to answer an obviously loaded question. And Gordon Mullings is an arrogant condescending individual who accuses anyone who disagrees with him of cyber stalking. And then there is Joe.
ReplyDeleteAll any of us can do is refuse to rise to the bait when we are insulted and take the high road.
Msee:
ReplyDeleteOh now that's cute, like you can think of reasons to hurl insults in a sincere debate.
Yes, I can think of others reasons other than it "
could only be due to one whose faith was threatened". I am surprised you can't.
You guys are amazing in your thinking how to defend a worldview.
I doubt Thorton and I have the same worldview and we certainly do not have the same style, it seems you are using a blunt tool as well.
BTW I didn't say he insulted this writer, I intimated there were insults "towards yours truly" in the sense that attempted insults in educated discourse and pointing them out as such is one of the better indicators of who is arguing from an emotional and shaky foundation.
Ok, usually "yours truly" means who ever is writing " yours truly". I agree with you, calling someone a moron rarely enhances dialog and is boring.
I love it when I'm called a dip___t like I was a few weeks ago on a different blog, it provides such interesting material to bring to the attention of young people, kind of like your smart remark.
Perhaps they will have a better appreciation of the context.
But thanks for pointing out the spelling anomaly. THORTON did mention students in his lab. If you google Thorton laboratory you get laboratory services in Tampa
No problem, it is an easy mistake to make, Thorton, I believe resides in the Bay Area ,played minor league hockey at one time.
If you google Thornton laboratory the results are two academic laboratories. maybe you can tell us more.
Not that interested one way or the other, just thought I would supply the info. You wouldn't want to erroneously accuse the wrong PhD and atheist of bad behavior ,I am sure.