Evolution questions from my creationist friend

[Xamonas Chegwé]

PS. Can you actually militate for something? I thought it was only possible to militate against?

[Seth]

PS. Can you actually militate for something? I thought it was only possible to militate against?

Would you say that the Nazis militated "for" Hitler?

"Militate" is "To have force or influence; bring about an effect or a change; to have influence or effect"

[Seth]

None of which disproves the notion that some intelligence meddled in "natural" evolution from time to time.

Nothing could disprove such a theory. Just like nothing could disprove the theory that we have only existed for 17 seconds and that all of our memories were planted fresh into our heads at that time. Just like nothing can disprove the theory that there is a planet in orbit about a distant star that is made entirely of cheese. Just like nothing can disprove the theory that you are simply a figment of my solipsist imagination.

Just because a theory is flawed beyond belief, doesn't mean it can be disproved! Not if ones suspension of disbelief is strong enough, that is.

Seems to militate for an open mind, doesn't it?

No. Not really. Not in the sense that your statement seemingly implies in any case. If one is to seek to understand the universe in any meaningful way, a selectively open mind is called for - one in which Occam's famous razor prunes the complete bollocks from ones consideration unless those extraordinary proposals happen to provide the extraordinary evidence which they require.

Crop circles could be made by extraterrestrials - and I still accept that as a remote possibility, despite my having met someone that makes them! But I am not going to waste my time considering that as a realistic theory without some serious corroboration - likewise with ID. Natural Selection describes, predicts and satisfies EVERY example in the fossil record - why go looking for help from some provincial, Hebrew deity?

Who said anything about a provincial Hebrew deity? Not me. This amounts to a red herring fallacy.

I was positing the possibility of intelligent intervention and design in Earth's deep history. Why do you insist on injecting theism into the discussion? You're beginning to sound like Dawkins...and not in a good way. You're skating on the margins of the Atheist's Fallacy here.

What, in science, precludes the existence of intelligence capable of manipulating genes on this planet sometime in the last 4.5 billion years, pray tell?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

PS. Can you actually militate for something? I thought it was only possible to militate against?

Would you say that the Nazis militated "for" Hitler?

"Militate" is "To have force or influence; bring about an effect or a change; to have influence or effect"

The original meaning of the word was to take up arms or serve as a soldier. The implication is that one fact/opinion is striving (in a military fashion) against another. I just looked it up in the Shorter Oxford and it does say "militate against (rarely for)" - so I guess you were correct (if a little eccentric) to use it.

Who said anything about a provincial Hebrew deity? Not me. This amounts to a red herring fallacy.

I was positing the possibility of intelligent intervention and design in Earth's deep history. Why do you insist on injecting theism into the discussion? You're beginning to sound like Dawkins...and not in a good way. You're skating on the margins of the Atheist's Fallacy here.

What, in science, precludes the existence of intelligence capable of manipulating genes on this planet sometime in the last 4.5 billion years, pray tell?

I already addressed that point. My comments apply equally to any intelligence, be it theistic, deistic, extraterrestrial or nano-technological. There simply is no need for ANY external influence to describe the path of evolution on this planet. All of the available evidence fits perfectly with the currently accepted theories. When something doesn't fit, perhaps we will need to look for a more outlandish and bizarre theory (perhaps including intervention by Jurassic, dinosaur bio-technicians, maybe involving lesbian vampires from outer space) but until then, 'tain't broke, so why fix it?

[Seth]

Who said anything about a provincial Hebrew deity? Not me. This amounts to a red herring fallacy.

I was positing the possibility of intelligent intervention and design in Earth's deep history. Why do you insist on injecting theism into the discussion? You're beginning to sound like Dawkins...and not in a good way. You're skating on the margins of the Atheist's Fallacy here.

What, in science, precludes the existence of intelligence capable of manipulating genes on this planet sometime in the last 4.5 billion years, pray tell?

I already addressed that point.

No you didn't, you evaded it with hyperbole and obfuscation bordering on pettifoggery.

My comments apply equally to any intelligence, be it theistic, deistic, extraterrestrial or nano-technological. There simply is no need for ANY external influence to describe the path of evolution on this planet.

Five hundred million years from today, a cockroach-derived paleobiologist is examining the genetic structure of corn when he discovers a mutation that makes the organism resistant to N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine. "Interesting adaptation to the presence of an odd chemical on ancient Earth," he chirps to his cockroach students at Cockroach University, "but not evidence of intelligent design because there is simply no need for ANY external influence to describe the path of evolution on this planet..."

Is he correct, or is he demonstrating a poverty of imagination?

All of the available evidence fits perfectly with the currently accepted theories. When something doesn't fit, perhaps we will need to look for a more outlandish and bizarre theory (perhaps including intervention by Jurassic, dinosaur bio-technicians, maybe involving lesbian vampires from outer space) but until then, 'tain't broke, so why fix it?

"Ug," blurted Og, "Pretty." as he pointed to the paintings on the inside of the cave, never thinking to look outside...

Your evasions demonstrate the same sort of "don't bother me with reason or logic" close-mindedness that you accuse theists of engaging in. I'm afraid it's just not rational.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Fine. Accuse me of irrationality while you keep on looking for the entrance to the cave. Call me if you get lost.

The cockroach scientists, assuming they had sufficient evidence, could deduce a definite guiding hand behind the GM crops because there would have been one! There would be a distinct break in the genotype of the plants (possibly involving the introduction of genes from completely different organisms - I am not sure about this particular example without doing research that I really can't be bothered with for the sake of an online argument against a known devil's advocate ) with a cluster of mutations occurring simultaneously and with no intermediate examples.

There really isn't any equivalent example in the fossil record. Show me an example of a species suddenly acquiring the characteristics of another species from a completely different family of organisms and I will concede that you have a point. But there aren't any. For all the alleged close-mindedness of science, any scientist that could provide such an example would make their name overnight.

A ridiculous amount of time, money and effort has gone into bearing out the theory of evolution by natural selection (a theory that was sound by any recognised scientific standards decades ago.) Compared with general relativity, for example, which is far too abstract to worry the creationists much. There is a continuous gradation of hominid skulls - from ape to man - yet still there are cries to 'fill in the gaps' and deliberate attempts to obscure just how detailed a fossil record exists from the desperate new-Earthers.

I can't be arsed to argue the point with you further. There are plenty of books out there, citing source papers that are also available for perusal. Go read them if you have doubts. I have read my share - but, without far more time this deserves, all I can do is paraphrase.

[egbert]

"Show me an example of a species suddenly acquiring the characteristics of another species from a completely different family of organisms and I will concede that you have a point. But there aren't any"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus

[Pappa]

Seth, I think you're misunderstanding XC's point. The way I understand what he's written is that he's not dismissing ID due to closed-mindedness on his part, but because it is unnecessary to explain the current facts as we understand them. Using ID to explain the natural world is like saying you have a theory that bananas are bent because some alien didn't like straight bananas so they fiddled with them to give them a more pleasing curve. We know why bananas are bent. We don't need to look for alternatives to explain their wonderful yellow curves.

Perhaps there is an Intelligent Controller making the Earth stay in orbit round the sun, but lots of people have done the maths and worked out why it does it all on it's own.

Yes, maybe aliens did come to Earth and meddle with some genetic code. But as there is no evidence for that ever happening or any gap in our knowledge that the alien hypothesis would seem to fill, why bother considering it as a possibility. You might as well invoke Santa.

[hackenslash]

Is Darwinian Evolution Falsifiable?

As a field, no. However, specific hypotheses arising from evolutionary theory are most certainly falsifiable, and the circumstances for falsifiability were provided some time ago. Fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian, anyone?

It should be noted that Darwinian evolution has long been superceded by the marriage of E&NS with Mendelian genetics. Perhaps the author, along with the fuckwit Behe, should try to bring his understanding a little more up to date. One would think that a biochemist would appreciate this better than anyone, since nothing in biochemistry makes any sense without evolution, except of course that Behe, while qualified as a biochemist, is a cretinist, thus doctrinally bound to argue against the principles upon which his qualification is founded.

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Ah, straight out of the department of most appropriate names, I see.

I have long suspected that it is not. I was listening to another Unbelievable? podcast the other day which featured a debate between ID proponent Michael Behe and ID opponent Keith Fox – both are biochemists. During the discussion Behe talked about the longest running lab experiment to test the effects of Darwinian evolution on E. coli. Professor Richard Lenski has been growing trillions of E. coli over more than a decade and he has produced tens of thousands of generations.

According to Behe, the net effect of natural selection and random mutation on the E. coli has been mostly to break biological systems that were already in place. No new complex systems have been formed by Darwinian evolution in the experiment.

Well, according to Behe, the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, and that there were zero papers in the scientific literature explaining how RM and NS could build a complex system, and when presented with papers, handwaved them away, so we all know the worth of Behe's testimony in this regard. Indeed, the court summation of the case at Dover is quite enlightening with regard to the value of Behe's thoughts:

Professor Behe's testimony and his book Darwin's Black Box is really one extended insult to hard-working scientists and the scientific enterprise. For example, Professor Behe asserts in Darwin's Black Box that, quote, The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system, close quote, and, quote, The complexity of the system dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustration.

I showed Professor Behe more than 50 articles, as well as books, on the evolution of the immune system. He had not read most of them, but he confidently, contemptuously dismissed them as inadequate. He testified that it's a waste of time to look for answers about how the immune system evolved.

Keith Fox agreed with Behe’s assessment of the experiment, but claimed that it did not prove anything about the limits of Darwinian evolution to produce complex new biological systems (which is a central claim of Darwinists). Behe asked Fox, “If this experiment doesn’t prove anything about Darwinian evolution, then what kind of lab experiment could falsify Darwinian evolution?” Fox’s answer: none.

According to Fox, lab experiments can never replicate the natural selection pressures that E. coli or any other organism face in the natural world. These pressures can not be simulated in a lab. It seems that the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection must be assumed – they cannot be falsified by experimental biology.

What we have here is an unfalsifiable theory. No matter what experiments are run to test Darwinian evolution, the results can never, according to Fox, disprove its ability to generate new biological systems. Aren’t scientific theories supposed to be falsifiable? Am I missing something?

Well, you can't falsify a fact, and nor should you try. This is not what popper's principle of falsifiability deals with, which is the falsifiability of hypotheses. In this instance, it has been demonstrated that RM & NS does generate new biological systems, so that is a fact, not a hypothesis. As such, it cannot be falsified. It may be that that isn't the whole picture, and indeed that is not the whole of evolutionary theory (or theories, to be more accurate), but simply a part of it.

Once again, the ability of the cretinist to keep up to date with what evolutionary theory postulates is severely lacking.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'd point out that "Darwinian Evolution" has been replaced by a much more refined image of how evolution works. It's rather like trying to debunk electricity by looking only at the works of Luigi Galvani or Alessandro Volta. He needs to stop the ad homs and get on with the subject at hand. Darwin doesn't care anymore.

[Seth]

Fine. Accuse me of irrationality while you keep on looking for the entrance to the cave. Call me if you get lost.

The cockroach scientists, assuming they had sufficient evidence, could deduce a definite guiding hand behind the GM crops because there would have been one! There would be a distinct break in the genotype of the plants (possibly involving the introduction of genes from completely different organisms - I am not sure about this particular example without doing research that I really can't be bothered with for the sake of an online argument against a known devil's advocate ) with a cluster of mutations occurring simultaneously and with no intermediate examples.

Assuming that the cockroach scientists weren't so wrapped up in their own anti-intelligent design "naturalism" that they would be open to the idea of an intelligence capable of manipulating genes.

The point, of course, is that we have insufficient data in the fossil or biological record upon which to infer that no such intelligence exists, or has ever existed, in this universe or any other. It's entirely possible that the various branches of homonids are each experimental lines with slightly different manipulations of DNA by an intelligence. We don't know because we don't have the DNA, all we have are fossils and "naturalistic" inferences.

And the "particular example" is Roundup-Read corn by Monsanto. It could just as easily be BT corn or any other manipulated organism. How would a researcher a half-million years from now be able to identify the point at which ordinary corn diverged from Roundup Ready corn? All he would be looking at is corn and the DNA that makes it resistant to a particular chemical.

There really isn't any equivalent example in the fossil record. Show me an example of a species suddenly acquiring the characteristics of another species from a completely different family of organisms and I will concede that you have a point. But there aren't any. For all the alleged close-mindedness of science, any scientist that could provide such an example would make their name overnight.

Isn't there? How do you know? The number of hominid fossils is very few, and large inferences are drawn from very little actual data, and absolutely NO actual DNA analysis. It's purely morphological at this point, and nobody has explained how or why several different forms of hominids coexisted for at least some period of time.

A ridiculous amount of time, money and effort has gone into bearing out the theory of evolution by natural selection (a theory that was sound by any recognised scientific standards decades ago.) Compared with general relativity, for example, which is far too abstract to worry the creationists much. There is a continuous gradation of hominid skulls - from ape to man - yet still there are cries to 'fill in the gaps' and deliberate attempts to obscure just how detailed a fossil record exists from the desperate new-Earthers.

No, there is not a "continuous gradation of hominid sculls - from ape to man," there are a very few examples of supposed transitional forms that say absolutely NOTHING about how they were transformed, whether by "naturalistic" evolution or deliberate intelligent manipulation. Nor does the theory of evolution explain with much precision why some forms have remained essentially the same for hundreds of millions of years. Why, for example, are sharks still sharks? Why haven't they evolved large brains, or arms, or swim bladders for that matter? The evolution of mankind from ape to homo sapien took place with astonishing rapidity compared to the amount of time that sharks have been sharks. Is that a naturalistic process, or did some intelligence decide to experiment with hominids and not sharks? Did some intelligence decide that 65 million years ago the dinosaurs were a failed experiment and chucked an asteroid into the Yucatan?

However unlikely, those are all perfectly valid scientific questions that have nothing whatever to do with theism.

I can't be arsed to argue the point with you further. There are plenty of books out there, citing source papers that are also available for perusal. Go read them if you have doubts. I have read my share - but, without far more time this deserves, all I can do is paraphrase.

"Run away, run away!" King Arthur to his knights in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail."

[hackenslash]

and absolutely NO actual DNA analysis. It's purely morphological at this point,

Errr...

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=D ... =en&tab=ws

and nobody has explained how or why several different forms of hominids coexisted for at least some period of time.

This is the 'why are there still monkeys?' argument. Seriously, dude. This is not your standard of argument. Very poor.

[Seth]

and absolutely NO actual DNA analysis. It's purely morphological at this point,

Errr...

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=D ... =en&tab=ws

Sorry, you are correct, we now have ONE DNA data point other than our own.

and nobody has explained how or why several different forms of hominids coexisted for at least some period of time.

This is the 'why are there still monkeys?' argument. Seriously, dude. This is not your standard of argument. Very poor.

Well, why don't you explain to us why there are still monkeys?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

and absolutely NO actual DNA analysis. It's purely morphological at this point,

Errr...

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=D ... =en&tab=ws

Sorry, you are correct, we now have ONE DNA data point other than our own.

and nobody has explained how or why several different forms of hominids coexisted for at least some period of time.

This is the 'why are there still monkeys?' argument. Seriously, dude. This is not your standard of argument. Very poor.

Well, why don't you explain to us why there are still monkeys?

Why wouldn't there be? I am a descendant of my mother and father but they are still around. Why are there still parents?

And we did not evolve from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys. just like I share a common ancestor with you. So why are you still here?

[Azathoth]

and absolutely NO actual DNA analysis. It's purely morphological at this point,

Errr...

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=D ... =en&tab=ws

Sorry, you are correct, we now have ONE DNA data point other than our own.

and nobody has explained how or why several different forms of hominids coexisted for at least some period of time.

This is the 'why are there still monkeys?' argument. Seriously, dude. This is not your standard of argument. Very poor.

Well, why don't you explain to us why there are still monkeys?