 ![[Header]](../XuShared2/Line3.jpeg)
Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page) Not Even WrongEntry 1668, on 2014-07-19 at 16:15:11 (Rating 5, Religion) There's an expression "not even wrong", which is generally attributed to theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, and which I have heard used to describe many ideas of doubtful validity and even some of the more speculative ideas in science such as string theory.
But I think there are degrees of "not even wrong-ness". String theory is a genuine attempt at describing reality and there are ways to decide whether it's right or wrong even if we can't really perform the experiments right now. So describing string theory as not even wrong is too harsh I think, although I do agree we should be careful about attaching too much significance to it until experiments supporting it can be performed.
The same could be said concerning other speculative scientific theories, such as multiverse theories. But again, these are genuine efforts at understanding the universe and they can be proved and disproved even though we don't really have the experiments to do that yet, so I don't think they can be described as not even wrong either.
So at this point you might be wondering what does deserve that label? Well you probably won't be surprised to hear that I would apply it to "theories" espoused by people who are motivated by worldviews other than rational science. And yes, I mean people like my friend Richard who is clearly motivated by supporting his own particular interpretation of the Christian religion.
Recently I have been shocked to realise that he is, by any reasonable definition, a creationist! And creationism is obviously something that really is "not even wrong". So let's go through a few attributes of creationism which show this...
First, what community does the "theory" (I will use that word even though creationism isn't really a theory at all) come from? Well it's clearly not from the science community because there are just no scientific papers which support creationism. Clearly it comes from the religious community, in fact from certain religions within that community, and even then from only certain groups within that community with particularly irrational views.
So creationism fails on that count. It isn't a genuine attempt at establishing the truth because it only exists within a population with fixed views which are based on ideology rather than an honest attempt at understanding.
Second, is creationism a well documented theory with specific, clearly defined attributes? Absolutely not. There are old Earth creationists, young Earth creationists, those who reject evolution completely and others who think God guides it, some who think the Bible is literal truth, others who think it's a metaphor, and still others who pick and choose based on nothing more than convenience.
So any time evidence is found against creationism the supporter just switches things around a bit and says something like "no, that's not what creationism is, serious creationists think this..." and how can you debate that because in reality creationism says both everything and nothing
Third, creationism has its own terminology which it uses to obfuscate its obvious weaknesses. For example, micro- and macro-evolution aren't well defined scientific terms which have any specific meaning. And referring to "kinds" instead of species leaves a gap where false beliefs can escape. Specific branches of science also have their own jargon, of course, but they are well defined scientific terms which could be explained to a non-specialist if necessary.
Fourth, creationism has a very emotional appeal. What is more likely to make its followers feel good: the idea that we are the product of a caring and all powerful creator, or the idea that we are just the product of chance and natural physical processes? For someone seeking reassurance instead of truth creationism has an obvious attraction.
Fifth, what is the source for the "knowledge" behind creationism? Religious beliefs are "revealed truths" rather than scientific ideas which are the result of careful theory and experimentation. Creationism is a theory derived from an old book with absolutely no scientific credibility. Science is derived from observation of the real world, formulation of theories, careful testing of those ideas, revision of them, and in some cases completely discarding them and starting again.
Sixth, creationism is basically a "gaps" theory. Most of the arguments for creationism are arguments (almost completely without merit) against evolution, abiogenesis, and the Big Bang. Creationists seem to think that the fact that they personally find evolution hard to accept means that God (usually their specific interpretation of the many gods out there) did it instead.
Finally, creationism has no detail. Basically it can be entirely specified in one sentence: "God did it." But when, how, why? Are there any details at all? Apart from a few contradictory personal opinions, no. It's almost completely without any real structure, which is how it must be of course because details make theories testable.
So without even looking at any of the specific claims of creationism it can be consigned to the pile of other useless nonsense that most modern, intelligent people have already consigned to the scrap heap of superstition.
I know that some creationists (and I have debated some fairly well known ones) know they're wrong and are just constantly lying to maintain something which they benefit from in some ways. Others are just too ignorant to understand that creationism is nonsense. And others still are the saddest cases of all: they are lying to themselves. They have genuinely convinced themselves that creationism has some merit. How can it? It's not even wrong!
 Comment 1 (4093) by richard on 2014-07-25 at 00:33:33: (view recent only)
Ok - you got my attention. LOL! Wow, I must really have struck a nerve lately. This is quite an article. Firstly, yes, I am pleased to be labelled a friend! Unfortunately though friend, there are way too many mis-leading and downright false (not to mention pretty silly) statements in here, with many mis-representations of my views. I think it's only fair I have the right to respond and clarify, just in case any one else actually is interested in truth. I'll will try to be as brief as possible, but there are just so many flaws to deal with...
1 - Why on earth is it a surprise (no a shock) to you that any Christian (or indeed any religious person) including myself is a 'creationist'? That's a remarkable lack of insight about the topic don't ya think?! Of course you are attempting to use even the word creationist as an insult, which in itself is somewhat unfair and manipulative. This is a common name calling (ad-hominem) tactic. The term has been warped to suit this use by including all sorts of more 'odd beliefs' within its definition, but it should be treated in its most raw form, simply to describe one who holds a belief that there is actually more to the Universe itself and all the 'stuff' that it contains that simply matter, motion and chance. That's ALL.
At it's simplest form, this comes from the universal scientific experience that nothing that began to exist, came into existence without a cause. We have 0 scientific evidence to the contrary, so it's perfectly rational to assume the same holds true for the universe, which science has now shown clearly had a beginning. So there are quite simply only two possible options: 1 - the universe had an intelligent cause (it was 'created' by something with enough explanatory power for all the various components we find, like life, love, laughter, consciousness etc). This is a notion which does not cause any problem for all the known evidence we have to date btw. OR 2 - we must abandon all scientific observation to the contrary, and claim it popped into existence from absolutely 'nothing' (therefore by definition with absolutely no CAUSE at all - as 'nothing' cannot have ANY causal power according to all the science we know of to date). I personally have no problem that these are the 2 'rational options' but I must insist that if you wish to use the term 'creationists' for me, I am prepared to happily accept it simply because I find the alternative forces me to abandon too much previously known science! Leave all the additional nonsense used to discredit the term out of it, at least if you are using the label on me.
An intelligent cause is in itself is actually not a controversial idea at all. There is absolutely nothing 'illogical' or irrational about that as an option. It is perfectly within the realm of possible rational explanations for the universe we experience. You claim there is no evidence for such a view, yet it is clear that there are millions of rational and very intelligent people all over the globe including well respected scientists who disagree, and provide numerous evidences for their view. There are also many athiests who don't have a problem accepting and acknowledging that it is a perfectly rational option either I might add. Only those like yourself with a philosophical bias against the idea do so. it must be a philosophical bias simply because there is no scientific justification for the distinction in the views.
Want proof (of your irrational bias)? I am frankly 'shocked' you are quite prepared in the post above to acknowledge that multi-verses (for example) are another such possible explanation to explain the universe we exist in, (no ridicule there) yet simply cannot accept an 'Intelligent agent' outside our known universe as another possible creative source?!
An unbiased observer of the multi-verse theory, would readily acknowledge that there is not a SHRED of actual scientific evidence to support such a notion. It is 100% a theoretical 'creation' by scientists, created ONLY to meet a specific need. That is, to push back on the very real scientific evidence for the powerful fine-tuning argument for the creationist view. Even the multi-verse notion fails miserably, as they forget that the multi-verse ITSELF requires an even more powerful 'multi-verse' generator as a first cause. The completely scientifically documented universal constants and their staggering precision requirements are one thing, but imagine the (theoretical of course) fine-tuning required to 'get' a multi-verse generator! - So both notions are equally bound by such a 'first cause' requirement yes true - but compared to the actual observable evidence provided for a multi-verse (i.e. none at all!), the wide range of evidences reasonably and rationally postulated to support the 'creator' view is staggeringly overwhelming (and that is true whether you choose to agree with the evidence for it or not).
So by all means make your personal choice (and I am happy to respect either one anyone chooses to make) but there is clearly no explanation other than irrationality and philosophical bias to treat them with any different level of respect. Both ideas appeal to a cause which is simply (by current definition) 'outside the realm of scientific observation', so neither is any more or less 'rational'.
2 - In this post, I have repeatedly rejected the idea that I am motivated purely by (quote) 'supporting my own particular interpretation of the Christian religion', when I respond to these types of posts. It is simply dishonest of you not to take me at my word and grant me that. It is simply not my fault that there may be religious implications to a creationist view, when (according to you remember) there are not equally religious implications for the alternative view. I am perfectly happy to acknowledge in your blog Owen that you have often claimed that atheism (the rejection of the creator influence) is NOT a religious view. OK, that's fine, but in this context you must agree that it's quite fair of me to note that the 'chance creation' view has exactly the same level of 'religious implication', simply because if actually true, it quite rightly spells the death toll to ALL religious views!
Thus my friend, it is no more reasonable when pondering in posts like this, the purely SCIENTIFIC inferences that might come to bear on the question of which of these equally rational ideas might explain the same universe we both have turned up in somehow, for you to claim I am motivated by the religious implications of my interpretation of the evidence, but you are somehow not motivated by the very real religious implication of your interpretation. I could equally be arguing for some extra universal ALIEN seeding for all the relevance to Christianity that I bring up in these posts about 'creationism'. A read back thru previous posts will show clearly that any relevance to Christianity specifically only EVER happens specifically when YOU choose to initiate it! So get over that tired old red-herring eh.
You make a complaint about all sorts of varied creationism terms, like micro and macro evolution, (which actually are perfectly acceptable terms used in non academic circles to try and describe very real definitions of different types of evolution that must be discussed. This is a very petty complaint - even those in academic circles also understand these terms perfectly well. They only try to dispute they are valid terms because they don't accept the difference being suggested by the terms. That is simply dumb on their part. They forget that even if their view is true, the actual concept under debate still must be able to be described with clarity for goodness sake. Mate, with respect your complaints are pretty tiresome and unreasoned sometimes.
Even worse, you then even try to bring in different biblical interpretations as a relevant topic?! Seriously, no wonder we are confused trying to follow your complaints. The bible has nothing to do with whether someone thinks the universe is a cosmic accident or not? Neither does ones view on evolution. This merely points out that the same problem occurs for an atheist when discussing different aspects of science. Atheism is not a belief in multi-verses for example? Of course a 'creationist' may have different views on these topics, but they are not a 'part' of creationism, they are different topics entirely, and can be scientifically assessed individually according to a creationist or atheist world-view.
An appeal to some emotional comfort in creationism?! - #oldground #redherring #notourfault #sticktothefacts .
Same applies to that old God of the gaps nonsense, and Creationism has no detail - yet a universe popping into existence out of nothing - that's detail?! Come on, LOL. The idea that creationism has no detail is of course a simply incredible mis-representation.
Especially when we then read in the very next paragraph (quote) 'without looking at any of the specific claims of creationism'... Whoops! That sums up the entire post really.
In all - sadly a rather non helpful article if the intent is to provide a truthful representation of... anything! Sorry, your own personal bias is somewhat blindingly obvious...  Comment 2 (4096) by OJB on 2014-07-25 at 10:50:21:
1. Actually no it isn't. The official position of the biggest Christian denomination (Catholicism) is that evolution is true, so clearly you don't have to be a creationist just because you are a Christian. Whether you think the term "creationist" is an insult or not is up to you. It's a simple description of a particular worldview. Actually I have a t-shirt with a slogan appropriate here: "I'm not insulting you, I'm describing you". If a true description of your views is insulting I would suggest there is something wrong with your views!
You're totally wrong about things existing without a cause and I have pointed this out before. Also this has nothing to do with evolution anyway. Also there is an increasingly popular idea that the Big Bang was only a local event and that the Universe might be infinite in time. There are many unknowns at this point, I agree, but that is no justification to resorting to "God did it".
I agree an intelligent cause makes some sense but as I have pointed out many times, that just pushes the problem back one step. What caused the intelligence? Also, when we examine the evidence there is none supporting this idea. That's why ID has been thrown out as a scientific theory.
In fact there is some evidence starting to accumulate regarding the multiverse theory. Maybe your "science" is a bit out of date. I agree it is preliminary and speculative but the trend is becoming clear: multiverses are being taken far more seriously.
We have some evidence (again I admit it is preliminary) supporting multiverses. When we study ID we find the evidence rejects it. So which is more the more rational to believe?
2. Of course you have rejected the idea but you are clearly wrong! I cannot take you at your word because I guess you honestly believe what you say, but taht doesn't mean it's true. When you live in a world of self-delusion you might not see what an unbiased person can.
So these "academic circles" which use the terms micro- and macro-evolution would be creationism forums or something similar? I'm not aware of any other area where they are used.
The Bible has everything to do with people's worldviews regarding the origins of life and the universe. Do you deny that there is a correlation between evolution denial and religious belief? The stats are fairly clear on this.
Do you also deny a religious interpretation of life, etc has a certain emotional appeal?
My personal bias is against dishonest, irrational, superstitious beliefs being disguised as science or philosophy. Creationism is a ridiculous, primitive belief and an insult to all thinking people. An intelligent person like yourself should be ashamed to be taking it seriously. Comment 3 (4101) by richard on 2014-07-30 at 17:37:53:
OK - that narrows your definition of creationist to something relating only to evolution, where I was thinking both in terms of that and the origin of the universe. Either way, I don't think the term is insulting, as long as it is properly defined.
You have said I was wrong about things existing without a cause before, but I don't recall any solid evidence for that opinion.
As for this 'problem' of pushing the problem back one step, of course you have to see that this problem works both ways. You cannot demand for the cause of an 'infinite' mind (in order to reject the idea), and then remain quite happy to 'blindly' accept an infinite universe without a cause. The very same question must apply! What caused the infinite universe? In the end (or 'beginning'?!) 'something' has to be an original (uncaused) infinite cause. So that old argument completely fails as a rejection for the intelligent hypothesis.
And by the way, if anyone tries to suggest that they have 'evidence' for material events or causes 'outside' our universe, then you know immediately that that person is irrational/delusional wrt to that evidence. It is quite simply a logical impossibility. ALL 'evidence' must be by scientific definition part of this universe. No problem with speculations of multi verses, but it must always be recognised that this is ALL it is. I already explained the 'emotional attachment' (LOL) to the multi-verse idea above.
You keep saying that evidence rejects ID, but what evidence? Opinions are not evidence, no matter who holds them.
Of course I don't deny a correlation between evolution denial and religious belief. As I already stated, the philosophical/religious implications of the empirical evidence against evolution and for intelligent design means that one is open to the alternative if you overcome any prior physicalist bias. But my hashtag (#notourfault) works here too wrt to trying to suggest the correlation both ways.
As for ID being non scientific - do you deny that even in in principle, one can use scientific method and 'physical' evidence to make a determination between natural causation (cracks & lines in a mountain caused by erosion) and interlligent causation (Mt Rushmore)? What about forsenics? Did this person die of natural causes when given physical evidence like a knife in the back and multiple gunshot wounds, or was an intelligent agent involved in the event that occurred in the past? Nothing non scientific about these endeavours - that is all that ID is - nothing more. Comment 4 (4102) by OJB on 2014-07-30 at 23:30:10:
Yes I realise that creationism can be defined in different ways. Evolution does seem to be the science they dislike most, closely followed by the Big Bang in most cases. Unfortunately for them they refuse to accept two of the most interesting and well tested theories in science!
According to quantum theory events can and do occur with no cause (this is not just a cause we dont know, there genuinely isn't one) and mass/energy can be created form nothing as long as it exists for a short time.
No it doesn't work both ways. According to science the universe might exist without a cause or might have existed forever but at least we are only explaining the universe in terms of itself. In religion another whole new totally unjustified element is introduced (god) which exhibits exactly the same problems. Occam's Razor states we should prefer the explanation with the least new, arbitrary assumptions.
If you define the universe as "everything there is" then sure, using events or objects outside of it to explain it is illogical. But it now seems that there is more so that definition is no longer adequate. It might help if we called the universe a "sub-universe" and called the multiverse the "universe".
When the initial ID papers were published the maths was tested and found to be faulty. All attempts at establishing ID as a viable theory have since failed.
There is no significant physical evidence against evolution except in the minds of the deluded and the ignorant.
Did I say ID is always unscientific? There were some papers published in real journals initially which could be classed as science. Not very good science sure, but still science. Since then the idea has been disproved and ID has been adopted by creationists and it has lost its scientific aspects.
So you could say the idea behind ID isn't intrinsically unscientific but because it has since been misused by dishonest and ignorant groups for their own religious and political purposes any status it might have had has been diminished. Comment 5 (4103) by richard on 2014-07-31 at 17:27:58:
Well, I am rather surprised to hear you claim that the Big Bang is not liked by 'creationists'. All I have ever heard of have no issue with it as accepted science at all. Given that if 'creationism' (at least from a theistic pov) is true, then it must align with sound science, and there is no sound scientific reason to discount the evidence for the big bang. It also happens to provide a very strong case for the creationist view aka the cosmological argument (as already mentioned above).
I suspect the universe can only have one sound definition - comprising all that we can 'observe' - hence the dilemma. The multi-verse idea is without such physical evidence, but relies on speculation of a link to 'other observable' evidence. Now of course, that's the same for God, isn't it, as another possible extra-universal possibility. So as you say, the two notions have to be weighed using only what we have.
Obviously the major arguments for God as the best option far outweigh the extremely tenuous and highly speculative multi-verse idea. But again that's just my (and others) opinion. :-) Occams razor may well work in fact for multi-verses over God IF you consider ONLY the qn of origin. The big trouble with that is, you then have to account for all the other evidences in the resulting 'sub'-universe for and against purely physical multi-verses, which far overwhelm Occam for it being the simplest explanation to just the origin qn.
As for ID, I appreciate the far more balanced way you put it (when rightly pressed), and will try to follow suit, by saying I do understand your pov too, and am even happy to concede there will be some religious groups that latch on to ID's interests, and sadly like a naughty uneducated toddler, cause it some real scientific grief. I obviously disagree though, that the whole enterprise must be dismissed because of that, in the same way that I agree that evolution shouldn't be dismissed PURELY because some scientists make sill claims about it too - which does happen as well.
Given that the ID idea can only be 'disproved' by conclusive evidence for evolution this is a problem because this is far from true. Your statement 'there is no significant physical evidence against evolution' is expected, as mentioned before - merely an opinion that is disputed by many. Another fun discussion though Cheers.
Comment 6 (4104) by OJB on 2014-07-31 at 21:59:37:
From Answers in Genesis, one of the leading creationist sites: "The big bang is simply one of many incorrect conclusions derived from secular assumptions. It is not compatible with the Bible."
There is no sound evidence to discount the Big Bang? I would say there is far more that there is against evolution (but it's still a very well supported theory).
You think the universe is what we can observe - that's your definition? Well there would be a lot of disagreement with that, I think! There is a specific term: "the observable universe" for that particular part of it.
You think "obviously" the arguments for god outweigh the arguments for a multiverse. Yeah, this seems to be some new definition of the word "obviously" I have previously not encountered. God is the simplest explanation I agree: god did it. It applies to everything and you can't get much simpler (maybe that's why it appeals to so many simple people). But that's not actually what Occam's Razor is about.
I never rejected ID only because of it's mis-use by creationists. I also rejected it because the initial papers have been shown to be faulty and no one has written better ones. Scientifically the idea is dead, which is why it is now only supported by religious nutters.
There is no significant physical evidence against evolution. If you think there is let's hear it. And the only people who dispute it are the ignorant and the deluded (oh, and those who deliberately lie, but they are in the minority).
Also, can I ask for the fifth (?) time: if you agree micro-evolution is real and that the Earth is old, what would stop many micro-evolution events from adding up to a macro-evolution event? Comment 7 (4105) by richard on 2014-08-01 at 16:56:48:
Just to clarify, 'AIG' is a young earth 'creationist' site, with a particular biblical interpretation of Genesis, which must reject the Big Bang, simply due to it's age interpretation.
There are of course, other groups, who have no problem with the Big Bang, as the scientific description of the 'creation' of the universe (that word used in a purely physical sense this time). As already discussed, this shows clearly that the term creationist can be ambiguous.
The reason for that definition of 'observable universe' I used, is simply because any other use, (like invoking extra-universal multi-verses), doesn't help the discussion we are having, which can only be about the evidence we HAVE right now within this universe. Not trying to suggest there isn't anything in this universe beyond what we can see at all. If we think we have new observable evidence for other 'universes' though we probably haven't, we have just increased the observable boundary of this one. To suggest otherwise would be simply arbitrarily defining it as such, but there is nothing to justify that chosen definition. Thus, it doesn't really get us anywhere at all.
Speculation of such purely physical things without observable evidence is absolutely pointless, precisely because of this limitation. Speculation about God however is not, when physical evidence for that case is available, which of course is the claim of the ID crowd. Obviously it is simply up to each individual to make up their own mind about whether the science offered by that crowd is compelling or not.
As for evolution vs ID we are pretty much back to the same old line of discourse. The reason both opposing theories still exist is not because either one of them is discounted by the 'existing physical evidence'. That's the whole point. Saying there is no physical evidence 'against' evolution, isn't the problem. The problem is accounting for all the missing evidence FOR it that there is no scientific reason to expect should not be there - if it were true.
Scientifically the idea of ID is 'dead'?! #headinthesand Not true - just because lots of people can't accept the idea doesn't dismiss lots of the the science that has been offered, and it doesn't solve the scientific problems that evolution is still faced with.
You say I haven't answered that question (for the 5th time). Actually I have done that before in other posts. The only answer really needed is that even after all the experiments ever performed in Universities all over the world to try and demonstrate that this is possible, all results show that it is not, because the organism dies. It is shown experimentally not to be able to survive to either retain or sustain the scale and specified complexity of the genetic changes needed to bring about the changes in body plans observed. The extrapolation idea has rhetorical force yes indeed, but unfortunately only within your mind - not in the lab. That alone is reason enough for skepticism.
And again - neo-darwinism - i.e. natural selection acting on random mutation - can account only for the selection of, not the creation of new information. For that there is no sound mechanism proposed. That's why an increasing number of atheists scientists are beginning to look for alternative physical mechanisms to account for bio-diversity.
But hey - once again this is simply the same old disagreement. :) Comment 8 (4106) by OJB on 2014-08-01 at 22:15:29:
So AIG do for the Big Bang what you do for evolution. I don't see that much difference. Maybe they are a bit more in denial than you but it's the same mindset. I do agree that there are different types of creationists though. In many ways the young-Earthers are the most honest (and most deluded) because at least they have the courage to admit they just believe what the Bible says irrespective of the facts.
It's widely accepted that there are parts of this universe which cannot be observed and never will be. So what we can see (the observable universe) is not the whole universe even if you ignore a possible multiverse.
So you think there is a lack of evidence for evolution? That really is pathetic. Try this site (or one of hundreds of others) and try to understand a few facts before you make such a ridiculous statement. Can you supply a site with similar credibility (Berkeley University) showing evolution is wrong?
Just one small part of the evidence for you to start with: find out how endogenous retroviruses work and tell me whether that best fits evolution or creation.
The two theories don't exist. ID is not a serious scientific theory any more (assuming it even was at some point). That's just standard creationist tactic number one: try to create a controversy where none exists. We see the same thing with global warming deniers, the tobacco lobby, etc.
No, you havent answered the question. If you don't know then why not quote one of the "increasing number" (what a joke) of ID scientists? One more time: what is the mechanism which stops many instances of micro-evolution over a long time period from becoming macro-evolution?
I'm fairly sure you will find the well-understood mechanism where new information is created at the site above, if not just let me know and I'll explain it to you.
It's the same old disagreement because you keep making up crap and refusing to show your sources (I wonder why). Please show your source for the statement that "an increasing number of atheists scientists are beginning to look for alternative physical mechanisms to account for bio-diversity" or withdraw it. Comment 9 (4107) by OJB on 2014-08-01 at 22:40:04:
Also please tell me that if these aren't fossils of transitional species, as predicted by evolution, then what are they? Comment 10 (4108) by OJB on 2014-08-01 at 23:06:00:
You might also like to consider whether the origin of mitochondrial DNA best fits evolution or creation. Comment 11 (4109) by richard on 2014-08-03 at 10:34:21:
I will work thru the Berkeley reference in due course and please understand, that I totally accept the significance of the challenge that being an evolution skeptic against the overwhelmingly vast majority of 'belief' by major educational institutions incurs. That in itself though is not the problem, since obviously scientific history is littered with examples where the status changes, once enough evidence amasses.
To say that I haven't answered your question and counter by simply providing these references though, shows precisely the 'blinkers' problem. How on earth is stating that the evidence shows the creatures seem to die instead of evolving enough to demonstrate the theory we are asked to believe not answering the question? We don't even have to understand WHY they always die (or are unable to reproduce in the cases where they survive) , to propose that there is still a problem with the idea.
The fact that the phenomenon being proposed simply cannot be replicated in the lab (anywhere - including Berkeley) , is in anyones understanding a serious problem, and all sorts of circumstantial and circular conjecture about about how one or two examples might imply this is not that same as proving it at all.
I will look for evidence in the sites you have provided that give conclusive reasons for why we cannot (with all our intelligence) replicate the phenomenon.
Comment 12 (4110) by OJB on 2014-08-03 at 13:21:32:
You understand that your view is contrary to practically every expert on the planet, and to the findings of science as a whole. You have a worldview which tends to deny this science for purely religious reasons. And yet you are still not suspicious of your own motivations? Wow, talk about self-deluded!
Actually science is hardly littered with cases of major theories being overthrown at all, but it is littered with cases of nutters who refuse to admit the facts and who continue their outdated beliefs long after they cease to have any relevance!
Creatures dying is precisely what drives evolution. I sometimes wonder whether you have any idea at all what you are debating against.
Evolution happens over very long periods of time and replicating it in the lab is hardly a significant issue. Even if it was creationists would just say that it was guided by an intelligence so why even mention the idea? Evolution is primarily an historical science: we look back in time at the evidence.
We could replicate the phenomenon tomorrow by applying the correct genetic engineering techniques but as I said that's not the point. Evolution acts on (primarily) random changes over vast periods of time.
By the way, you still haven't answered my question, and neither has anyone else. I wonder why that is? You also haven't given a reference for your claim that an increasing number of atheist scientists reject evolution. I also wonder why that would be. Comment 13 (4111) by richard on 2014-08-04 at 11:58:35:
Trying to use rhetorical phrases, like a view being 'contrary to the finding of science as a whole', is simply special pleading when the whole point is a debate whether 'science as a whole' does actually provide a conclusive case for neo-darwinism to explain UCD (universal common descent).
Wow - that's scary Owen - Creatures dying is NOT what 'drives' evolution at all - it is NEW information inserted into genes (and 'how this occurs' is totally irrelevant at this point) is what 'drives' evolution. How do we know? Because without that creatures can continue to live or die all they like, but no evolution will occur. Don't try to patronize me and suggest I have no idea what I am talking about, by misrepresenting my statements so you can trash them. #Cheaptricks :)
Of course I do understand that without natural selection (i.e dying) evolution wouldn't occur either, but to suggest it's just the dying that drives it, is remarkably surprising of you.
And also, regarding answering your qn - even if the 'creationists' were to claim this was replicated by ID on the part of the scientists, (and you are right - it actually would indeed would be a significant problem, if we were talking merely about wholesale gene modification simply to 'create a new body plan' to satisfy this 'supposed requirement' we ask for - that in itself is similarly patronizing, because of course we know like you, that doing this would actually tell us nothing that meaningful. Another straw man.
But are you really suggesting 'science' is not intelligent enough to design impartial experiments that would allow the darwinian process to occur pretty much 'naturally' (without special ID like interference) - of course we are. And as I have stated - no attempts have succeeded - just like the original Miller-Urey experiments failed wrt the question of abiogenesis (which of course is a different qn than evo, but nevertheless an absolute requirement for your 'accidental' view - another totally unproven rung upon which the whole Darwinian project hangs).
This is just a quick response to the latest clangers - will track down some sources and look at the Berkeley stuff when I get a moment... ;)
Comment 14 (4112) by OJB on 2014-08-04 at 16:53:59:
That wasn't a rhetorical phrase, it was a statement of fact. Science doesn't deal with conclusive cases, it deals with the best evidence supporting a theory and how that theory might need to be replaced or improved to fit new evidence. If you require conclusive evidence before you accept a theory then you would accept nothing.
In fact differential rates of survival is exactly what drives evolution. In order for a new species to emerge it must out-compete and lead to the death of its competitors.
So are you saying that attempting to replicate evolution in the lab is valuable ot not? I'm really not sure. You accept that in fact it would prove nothing, right? And therefore evolution is primarily an historical science. We could design experiments but note the use of the word "design". It is very difficult to perform a truly useful experiment in the lab. What has the Miller-Urey experiment got to do with this and in what way did it fail? (please provide a reference discussing this failure).
And finally, any answers to my two critical questions, for the (I've lost count) time. 1. What stops many cases of micro-evolution over a long time period leading to macro-evolution? And 2. Please provide a reference to that claim that an increasing number of "atheist scientists" (that's a real creationist web-site phrase) reject evolution. Forget about the other stuff just now - let's get this sorted first. Comment 15 (4113) by richard on 2014-08-04 at 17:30:48:
During the lunch break I had a quick look at the transitional fossils Wiki link you provided above. Thanks for that! Noting first that I do understand the nature of the argument for transitional forms in evolutions record, my comments are as follows:
1 - Note the rather tentative nature of the intro text. This is appropriate. Just like Darwin, who noted that the fossil evidence is suspiciously incomplete, the article is also careful to truthfully add for consistency that even the term 'transitional fossil' is quite rightly a misconception, which of course is the very point I have raised in the first place. Unfortunately, it doesn't go on to provide the answer.
2 - These numbers may be out by just 1 or 2 (I did just a quick run thru) but of the 179 transitional forms provided in that list, 58 of them have no image provided at all, and another 57 display only an artists graphic. Why would the vast majority of them do not come with actual fossil evidence, when surely the original fossil must be readily available for easy verification? This is before we ask about the real evidential significance of 1 or 2 fossil finds, or even worse, 1 or 2 bone fragments. I do acknowledge this is not always the case of course, there are also some lovely examples of fully fossilized creatures in the record.
3 - With the approx 64 that are left, (actually take all of them for that matter, I don't care) we are left with incontrovertible evidence for the following ONLY: a) - That there has undoubtedly been a diverse range of living creatures present on the earth from the distant past until today. Note btw that the vast majority of this site is simply devoted to describing these creatures in great detail. Unfortunately, this does nothing to answer the qn of it's origin, no more than describing every detail of my old Mazda 323 informs us in any way how it got to my door. b) - many of these creatures are undoubtedly strikingly similar to creatures living today. c) Many are undoubtedly now extinct, and many have undoubtedly been extinct for a long time. d) All these living creatures undoubtedly have commonalities in their genetic material. e) All undoubtedly have some different features within their DNA (and/or their MtDNA) as well.
The obvious point is, that this is ALL we can say conclusively about them. None of these things is conclusive evidence for evolution, but it is agreed by everyone, that it is circumstantial. Yes - Evolution would indeed also present these same evidences IF it were true. So evolution could 'perhaps' be true according to the fossil record, but then the question I posed about the incompleteness of the fossil record is a very serious problem, as much as the evolution 'faithful' try to minimize it's significance.
It's case FOR evolution is only 'possible' once you have decided in advance that evolution is true, and then examine the record on that basis. Even then you need to make sure you are honest and use plenty of butt covering words and phrases like 'approximation','Perhaps', 'Believed to be', 'may have been', 'possible/possibly', Does this appear to be happening in this article? Why - yes it is, well over 30x in fact at last count. That's a lot of inconclusive evidence being used right there.
The problem is - so would design present these same symptoms, but for different reasons. So unfortunately the fossil record is largely unhelpful in making a conclusive case either for or against evolution.
This is not just my opinion - I am sure you know about the quotes by the late Dr Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History) to that effect when he said to creationist Luther Sunderland who reviewed his book and asked about the same lack of fossil pics there too. His response was a very candid: ‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’
and later he added: ‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.'
This is of course a fair admission from someone 'in the know'. Evolution might still be true, but we can't be sure from the fossil record. Of course we also know he complained when this quote was used by Luther Sunderland in his book, and went on to clarify his position that the quote was accurate but interpreted wrong. His intention was actually to say: ‘The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.’
All we can say is thanks for that clarification Dr! Comment 16 (4114) by OJB on 2014-08-04 at 20:16:45:
1. I noted the fact that the list was incomplete and that many of the fossils might represent evolutionary "dead ends" which is exactly what we expect if evolution is true. For that reason the term is indeed imprecise but, as I said, given evolution's branching structure with most branches dying out, the appearance of related species - whether they are ancestors of current species or not - is entirely consistent with evolution.
2. It is unreasonable to expect perfect images of every species. If you know anything about this subject at all you will know that many species have been identified using very incomplete fossils. Also, if you want to see the fossil the entry is based on feel free to follow some of the references.
3. You seem to accept all the evidence which would support evolution but you still can't make that last jump to say evolution is probably true. Why not? One reason only: willful ignorance based on a preference for superstition over science.
Do you think that 99% of all species which existed would have become extinct if a god was designing them. Does that really fit creation? Or does it fit evolution better? Do any of the facts above fit creation better than evolution? I don't think so.
I agree, none of these are conclusive proof, neither is molecular genetics, or endogenous retroviruses, or vestigial organs, or any of the dozens of other sources of evidence. But they are all good evidence and compared with any other theory, which have practically no evidence at all, I think it's clear what an honest conclusion should be.
No, the case for evolution is possible when you look at the facts and see which possible explanations they fit. How do you think Darwin came up with the idea? He looked at the evidence. That's what biologists do today too. Suggesting that modern biology is based on nothing much more than self-delusion is both arrogant and rather sad.
If every species was created perfectly and showed obvious advantageous design features it would support creationism, yet you claim the opposite: massive extinctions, sub-optimal features, etc, also does. It doesn't matter what the facts are creation would be supported because it just isn't a theory!
Yes, the Patterson quote is often used in creationist propaganda. You might want to find the truth instead, try here.
I agree Archaeopteryx can't be proved to be a direct ancestor of modern birds but it certainly fits in extremely well with what we would expect as part of the evolutionary process (many related evolutionary dead ends with few successes). Can you honestly say it fits in with a creationist model? Comment 17 (4115) by OJB on 2014-08-04 at 20:17:50:
I'm just going to keep asking...
1. What stops many cases of micro-evolution over a long time period leading to macro-evolution? And 2. Please provide a reference to that claim that an increasing number of "atheist scientists" (that's a real creationist web-site phrase) reject evolution. Comment 18 (4116) by richard on 2014-08-05 at 12:14:45:
Comment 14 must have been submitted while I was compiling 15 last night. Otherwise I would absolutely have held off as you requested. I will deal with the 2 questions first, as per comment #17.
1 - I have answered this one quite straightforwardly every time. All the evidence stops it when it shows that there are clearly self regulating mechanisms in organisms that prevent changes (of the scale required to make a significant difference to body plans) being replicated. I don't know why you are not sure about whether I am suggesting experiments to show this are 'valuable'. Of course they are. You tried to deflect your problem simply by suggesting we'd cry foul and claim 'design' about the experiments if they did show this occurring, but that is totally unfair. I thus reminded you that science is entirely capable of understanding the difference in design categories between actual interference and merely setting the stage to observing the process as it occurs 'naturally'. I could ask again - how is a lack of ability to replicate a theoretical process not significant?
2 - Now I can't find it above, but thought I had responded earlier to say that I never said (or at least never meant to say) that 'more athiest scientists reject evolution'. Not reject, but simply that they are 'more skeptical' about it's ability to FULLY account for all bio-diversity. This has led them to look that alternative mechanisms that may either partially or fully account for it. As for the reference, the easiest reference is probably Darwins Doubt, the latest book by Stephen Meyer, which I am sure you will have heard about - dealing with Darwins own (documented) doubt about the ability of his evolutionary theory to account for the 'Cambrian Explosion' as evidenced in the fossil record in his day. Note that the same problems exist. Now ignoring what you might think of that NY Times best selling book for now, it includes a whole section devoted to a number of these alternative (and recently published) theories - as provided by said 'athiest scientists', and gives them a fair hearing. These wouldn't even exist to examine in this book if more scientists weren't thinking about it. Obviously there are other references too, but I do accept they are non admissable to you, being quotes (either written or audio in podcasts etc) from creationist scientists like Stephen Meyer and others who describe their 'off the record' conversations held with colleagues in academic fields such as Paleantology, Genetics etc, where they acknowledge there are real problems for the view to yet be overcome, but would never admit to it 'on record' for real fear of job security. I know you will label this as more creationist propaganda (as does Wikipedia in fact), but the movie 'Expelled' (while not without some flaws like any movie) does at very least show people for whom this was/is a reality. For any scientists to doubt Darwin may be wrong, but it should not be the cause of preventing further research on the topic. The ID crowd at lease encourage all research.
BTW the term 'atheist scientists' was my own on this occasion, not a quote, and while it may possibly be a creationist phrase, I am not sure what the problem you have with it is?! The (I thought obvious and noble) intention of course is simply to make the distinction between scientists who are also creationists (remembering my strict definition please) and scientists who are 'athiests' and thus most clearly cannot be creationists, as opposed to theist scientists whose personal position on evolution may not be as clear.
It seems clear to me that suggesting there are more and more creationist (or theist) scientists doubting evolution isn't really going to be helpful for you is it (as it wouldn't for me either). However, the fact that more non-creationist scientists are indeed looking at alternatives (or add-ons), is at least 'of interest' - and that's only because I am assuming you won't be able to accept labeling it as 'significant' (as I think it is). Why is it of interest? Obviously, the ONLY reason to even think about considering any other possible alternatives, is a nagging doubt about the current view to adequately explain all the available evidence that is proposed to suggest it.
So I am a bit unsure how either I (or some writer on some creationist site), could make that perfectly reasonable distinction any clearer? Perhaps you could advise?
I hope that answers your qns. If not - then we'll just have to leave it at that. Cheers.
Comment 19 (4117) by OJB on 2014-08-05 at 20:17:06:
1. So instead of all these excuses based on nothing why not just be honest and say you don't know what the mechanism could be, and that no one knows. Of course, if there is no mechanism that might explain the fact that we can't establish what it is.
OK, so if I could show that there have been many observed examples of new species forming through evolution your objections might be negated somewhat? There's a good discussion of actual observed speciation events here.
2. Here's what you said "...an increasing number of atheists scientists are beginning to look for alternative physical mechanisms to account for bio-diversity". Sounds like you are suggesting they are looking for alternatives to evolution (which they must be rejecting as a result). In all my reading on the subject this just isn't true.
So for a reference you give me a book written by a creationist. Well, what a surprise! I guess that just shows why you will always believe this deluded garbage. We are talking about science here, let's use scientific sources. If you want to discuss religion then fine, let's do that, then we can use sources inspired by religious belief.
I don't care whether scientists are atheists or theists or whatever, if they present their findings in respected, peer reviewed journals and those findings are supported by further research then I'm happy to take it seriously. The crap you have presented in this discussion: not so much!
No, that answers nothing (except that you are blinded by your religious beliefs which I already knew) so I guess we have to leave it there! Comment 20 (4118) by richard on 2014-08-06 at 15:08:22:
1. Seriously? Even if I did say that I don't know what the mechanism that stops 'macro' evolution from working what difference does that make?! If science is not able to adequately re-produce the effect asked for in the lab, then it actually makes precious little difference whether we happen to know exactly why! Of course, in a creationist view, it makes perfect sense for organisms to be pre-designed with a finite amount of capability for variation to cope with environmental or other changes, which result in the kinds of variation we do observe. We see this in our own design efforts all the time - building in fail-safes and redundancy etc.
Remember too that it is ONLY the evolutionary theory that demands the occurrence of the sufficiently dramatic genetic (and epigenetic too) changes, of the order required to produce truly advantageous (an absolute requirement for natural selection) body plan changes. IF ('macro' - note the quotes lol) evolution is not actually the answer after all, then only the relatively small genetic variations (the only ones we do actually observe remember) 'need to be explained', which of course they already are quite successfully - which is why no one takes issue with them.
There is nothing wrong with mutation or even extinction in the theistic world view (you raised this earlier). Remember that that is theism/athiesm where this would be discussed, not 'creation/evo'. Creationists (by my chosen definition) are concerned only with the problem of whether more than natural processes appear to be required to account for all bio-diversity, given the scientific evidence available. Other qns you chose to insert, like the 'motivation' of said intelligence, or whether that 'mind' would do it one way or another, or got things 'wrong' - are philosophical questions, not scientific ones.
2 - As expected, you resort to sad ad-hominems to defend your position, rather than actually addressing the issues raised. I already hinted/reminded you not to fall into that trap when I quoted the book, but admittedly I already knew that was asking too much.
The purpose of the quote was merely to address your question of whether other scientists were actually proposing alternative mechanisms than evolution (as you requested). Their motivation for doing so I had already agreed does seem 'suspicious' yes. Point is though, the book provides the references to the respected peer reviewed papers where these alternative ideas (posited by evolutionists - again for want of a better phrase) were published.
Other content the book has that upsets you is a totally irrelevant factor in addressing this particular qn. And by the way, calling this a non-science book is unfair and simply untrue. It is nothing but science - using references to peer reviewed journal or other publications by the other accepted experts in the field when discussing its findings - as is entirely appropriate. Feel free to disagree with the findings - that is fine, but don't try to suggest it isn't a science publication on that basis. That's just petty, even desperate.
By the way - the book has been out for a just over a year now, & has had over 500 reviews on Amazon, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of them did not even attempt to address the major theme it presented, but merely played the ad-hominem game, just as you have done. Very poor form. Only a very few at least attempted to address a few of the specific issues the book raises. All these substantive questions have been highlighted and responded to by the author in an addendum added to the newer paperback release of the book. You can't get any fairer (or more scientific) than that. Once again the responses to those reviews were themselves using peer reviewed references by the other experts to support them. For example one reviewer argues with the books duration of the Cambrian Explosion, when of course the author was not coming up with this figure himself, but correctly using peer reviewed references (by non creationists - not that this actually makes a jot of difference) for the stated figure, which are accepted. So that old non-science diversion tactic is sad and just doesn't wash. Comment 21 (4119) by richard on 2014-08-06 at 15:21:06:
As an aside, I meant to ask a blog related qn. I can't see how to add hyperlinks, as you have done above. Perhaps because I am on an inferior machine - a PC :) I must admit, I haven't tried just adding the right html tags, is that it, or is there an easier way I am missing? I wanted to add this reference to the Darwins doubt website that very fairly details responses (for and against) the book and shows the debate is being handled in a perfectly sound way: http://www.darwinsdoubt.com/responses/.
The fact that the links point to an ID news site, isn't my fault, and doesn't alter the fact that there is plenty of evidence there to show they are more than happy to have open scientific debate about the book and its premises, when it is provided in turn by the reviewers (which is sadly often not the case).
Comment 22 (4120) by OJB on 2014-08-06 at 20:39:55:
So it sounds like you are saying that you don't know what the process could be and in fact no one does. So either there is a mechanism we haven't discovered yet and all the evidence for evolution is false or the mechanism doesn't exist. I wonder which is more likely? This is exactly why creationism "isn't even wrong". It is based on frivolous opinions with no evidence supporting it at all.
To take this discussion any further I guess I have to find out how significant a change would need to be in order for it to be significant to you, because many significant changes have been observed but it would be just too easy for you to claim they aren't enough.
The boundary between what is science, religion, and philosophy is rather blurred here, but to simplify things I will stick to the origin of bio-diversity as you suggested.
2. Saying this person is a creationist isn't an ad-hominem, it's a statement of his bias and ignorance. His book has been destroyed by many people with a biology background (which he doesn't have) and, according to them, it's so bad that it's really more an embarrassment than anything else.
I haven't read the book so I can't comment on the references but reading reviews of the book by biologists it is clearly hardly even worth considering because it's just so full of either incorrect information or deliberate lies.
Fake and misleading references are a common creationist tactic. Is the book referenced by real scientists? No, it's just a joke. And I don't care about reviews on Amazon, that's not science either.
I read science news every day, I follow respected sources (such as Nature). In all the years of listening to and reading this material I have never heard of a single instance where evolution has been seriously questioned. It's only in the superstitious dream-world of creationism that this is even an issue. Comment 23 (4121) by OJB on 2014-08-06 at 20:49:15:
Had a quick look at the Darwin's Doubt responses web site. Just more creationist drivel I'm afraid. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Do you really think that a person with no advanced biology training and who is a Christian (and therefore already has tendencies to fantasy) is likely to know better regarding this topic than 99.9% of experts?
Sure, it's not totally impossible, but ask yourself: what are the odds? (as I suggested in a previous blog entry)
BTW, I have never created any code to parse and encode URLs but I'm quite happy to convert the URLs to links for you. One day when I spend less time debating evolution I might have the time to make some improvements to this system! :) Comment 24 (4122) by richard on 2014-08-08 at 13:29:45:
Our discussion shows of course why the debate goes on, since 'reviews by biologists' differ being both for and against the conclusions made by the book, and that's to be expected. What you won't find however is any credible dispute about the actual evidence provided in the book. To suggest fake and mis-leading references is completely without sound basis, given the time taken by the author to respond fully to the (very few) substantive criticisms in the 2nd release.
Yes of course the reviews on Amazon are not strictly 'science' are they, but they are absolutely indicative to the reasonable point I was making at the time which was that no one has successfully challenged the major theme of the book in the year since it came out.
Are you seriously trying to suggest otherwise i.e. that if a credible refutation of the major themes did actually exist, that it wouldn't have appeared in the Amazon reviews simply because 'Amazon isn't science'? Come on - consider the odds. :)
OK - My turn to ask - point to some specific reviews by biologists you have read so we can see what their complaints really amount to and thus judge the weight of their evidence for ourselves.
Not surprising you consider it a joke, but obviously the many perfectly respectable and far more qualified scientists in the Editorial Reviews clearly do not.
As for the earlier question of other non creationist scientists that are also looking for alternatives, check out: The Third Way and their people page. I suppose these guys aren't 'real' scientists either, simply because they don't hold the current consensus view? Comment 25 (4123) by richard on 2014-08-08 at 13:32:33:
Ok - first attempt at adding html tags failed - a bit! LOL The first one was supposed to end at 'Clearly do not'. The 2nd worked ok tho! Feel free to correct the source if you wish - thanks, and Cheers. Comment 26 (4124) by richard on 2014-08-08 at 13:36:30:
Sorry! And the sentence was supposed to say... 'the far more qualified scientists in the Editorial Reviews clearly do not.', with the hyperlink being the words Editorial Reviews - perhaps it's there in the source somewhere? Feel free to remove these comments once fixed if that's less confusing. I'll try to be more careful next time! Comment 27 (4125) by OJB on 2014-08-08 at 15:10:15:
As I said, I haven't read the book (have you?) but commentary of it I have read from people with a background in biology and my past experience with creationist material indicates it most likely isn't even worth reading. The chit chat on the web you cite is hardly relevant to science.
The problem is you only look at opinions telling you what you want to hear. Have a look at a few biology and skepticism sites and see what they think! The book is superficial and ignorant.
You just can't carry out a debate on science by citing book reviews on Amazon. This is the problem really, your sources are frivolous, biased, and irrelevant, mine are places like podcasts by Nature and other respected sources. Can you see why I find it hard to take your opinions seriously?
That Third Way site doesn't seem to dispute evolution, it's just pointing out that evolution is far more complex than we thought (because of epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, etc). I have no problem with that.
I fixed your HTML tags. Nice try. Do you still do any technical computer work or are you just a parasite - oops I mean manager - now? :) In future just type the URL, I can convert it to a link for you. Comment 28 (4126) by OJB on 2014-08-08 at 15:12:52:
Also, let me ask a meta-question. As I have said before, I follow science, mainly through web sites and podcasts. If there was serious doubt or new evidence which was difficult to explain I'm fairly sure it would have been mentioned. After all, anyone who can seriously challenge evolution would surely be in line for a Nobel Prize. Yet in all the years I have followed these sources I have heard nothing. How do you explain that? Comment 29 (4127) by OJB on 2014-08-08 at 15:17:58:
I just read a few of the abstracts linked from Third Way. They all seem to fully support evolution, except perhaps one which was really more philosophy than science and I couldn't really figure out exactly what it was suggesting. Anyway, thanks for pointing out a source which supports evolution so well! Comment 30 (4129) by richard on 2014-08-12 at 13:33:36:
My pleasure. I have no problem either that they support the philosophical 'idea of evolution'. They are very welcome to that view. Remember though the point of supplying the reference was that they clearly see there are flaws in the current mechanism of neo-darwinism (random mutation + natural selection) to account for full bio-diversity. So the specific point I made originally that you disputed (that there are now more scientists doubting that mechanism - which btw is the ONLY mechanism seriously posited for 'evolution') was obviously entirely justified. In that respect in fact, they are no different to Stephen Meyer who has written a number of books providing some of the scientific justifications WHY that is the case.
So remembering the original reason for the link to Third Way, I shall thank you for acknowledging that my point was valid all along.
I already stated that citing the reviews on Amazon aren't science, so don't build straw men to pull down. The question is, are these or are they not a set of scientists who have acknowledged that there is at very least a scientific element to the book. Yes they are. End of discussion. Thanks you - I am right again. . If you were serious about a 'science' only discussion, then don't post links to Wikipedia either. In fact I don't recall you referencing Nature specifically - your posts are all from pro-evolution sites (so clearly are unreliable? - no that's a joke - I don't use that poor method of science) I am happy to look at the validity of the evidence provided for each argument presented in a site wherever it comes from.
So lets be reasonable and acknowledge the narrow purpose (discussion point) each link serves. I understood that wrt to the Wikipedia links you provided, and it would be nice if you capitulated.
For example, in the Amazon references for Darwins Doubt I provided, you can read the following bits of information which are very easy to confirm (or deny should you desire to):
"Many accusations have been leveled at this book, which isn't surprising given the controversial nature of its implications. It seems that the word "pseudoscience" is being tossed around a lot. This is incredibly ironic, because the vast majority of the scientific discussion in Darwin's Doubt is based on scientific literature written by scientists who are not even proponents of intelligent design. Meyer does a tremendous job of outlining paper after paper after paper, and he includes the full citations so that any careful reader can check to make sure that nothing is misrepresented or taken out of context. This is exactly what philosophers of science are highly trained to do."
Another reviewer on that page provides the number of scientific references used in the book at 753. So given these two claims, there must be at least 375 references to scientific papers by pro-evolutionists, and that's just half not a 'vast majority'. That seems a pretty fair and scientific analysis of the topic to me by the author.
The above claims from Amazon are purely 'scientific' claims - in that they are testable, refutable, etc so the source (in this case Amazon) is once again irrelevant. There is no reason to doubt these are fair representations of the book, when they can be so easily refuted. In fact one really starts to really wonder why there is so much effort to apply such labels as Pseudo-Science (diverting from the scientific content in the book), when if the scientific case is truly so flimsy there should be absolutely no need for such irrelevant diversion.
I'm not a parasite/manager (btw), but I admit I have a greatly reduced technical component to the IT work. Thanks for correcting the typos - which do seem to creep in these blog posts too often. Anyway - a fun discussion. Thanks.
Comment 31 (4130) by OJB on 2014-08-12 at 21:18:38:
It has nothing to do with philosophy (no disrespect, but this isn't about philosophy), but they support the *scientific* idea of evolution. What is "neo-Darwinism"? It has various meanings. Do you mean current, modern evolution theory?
Your point wasn't justified at all. These extra mechanisms give extra sources of variation for evolution to act on so make the case for evolution stronger.
Stephen Meyer has written books, but they aren't science. Science is conducted in respected journals, not popular books. Really, your argument is at a level which is so naive that it's almost embarrassing.
Evolution is a scientific subject. If you want to debate it use science, not reviews at a popular web site.
I don't care about the discussion on a popular book. I'm sure some of the arguments against it probably aren't very well considered but it doesn't matter. If there are real scientific papers which show real doubt about evolution let's see them.
So according to your LinkedIn profile you are a "business manager". I've never quite figured this "profession" out (except that they seem to be people too useless to do anything else - but that's probably not the case with you :), so what exactly do you do? Comment 32 (4131) by OJB on 2014-08-13 at 09:13:48:
You said "And again - neo-darwinism - i.e. natural selection acting on random mutation - can account only for the selection of, not the creation of new information. For that there is no sound mechanism proposed. That's why an increasing number of atheists scientists are beginning to look for alternative physical mechanisms to account for bio-diversity."
Regarding the comment about new information. Simply not true. The mechanisms where new information is created are well understood. Should I briefly describe them, or do you want a link, or do you just want to Google it?
And the comment about looking for alternative physical mechanisms is misleading at best. There is an increasing realisation that additional mechanisms, such as epigenetics, are important but that isn't really anything new.
And the alleged lack of a mechanism for new information isn't why these mechanisms are being investigated, its simply because research is indicating they have a role, along with "random" mutations.
So the implication that evolution is wrong and scientists are scrambling to find alternatives couldn't be more untrue. The truth is the existing processes do work but the real world is more complex (as is almost always the case). Comment 33 (4132) by richard on 2014-08-14 at 15:19:48:
Neo-Darwinism is yes a fairly standard term for 'new' or modern evolution theory, used to distinguish it from 'darwinism' which of course is/was Darwins original theory, which as I am sure you know was somewhat different, focussing purely on the 'anatomical changes' that occur, and are 'selected'. No disrespect to Darwin at all intended btw, he was a great scientist in his day, and I have no trouble understanding why the view was so accepted back then.
Of course no-one including Darwin had any knowledge of the sort of details we now have about the overwhelming complexity of the cell and the role of genetics (DNA/RNA/mRNA etc) and epigenetic information in the formation of new body plans. The more recent discovery of the importance of Epigenetic information in the 'creation' (purely a physical term there, no hidden agenda lol) of body plans, is intriguing to say the least when very little has ever been mentioned in pre-graduate text books about it.
Ask around and see how many believe modern evolution theory is ONLY about 'changes to DNA and natural selection'. You are absolutely correct though, there is an 'increasing realisation' that there are complex informational components outside of DNA, that are required to build new body plans. Given that DNA is 'pretty much' the sole source of 'information' that is passed from one generation to the next, this realisation is hardly insignificant to a theory which relies totally on what is passed to the next generation. I would be grateful if you could explain to us all how this 'increasing realisation' helps your case, rather than hinders it - bearing in mind that even if 'other processes have (MORE) of a role (than previously understood' this I'm sure is news to many, and cannot help but mean that their previous understanding of evolution MUST by law of logic, have LESS of a role.
Did I say 'scrambling' to find alternatives? Don't think so. Simply that more are looking than before. I certainly agree the real world is more complex.
Not that I need you to tell me the 'mechanisms where 'new information' is created, but that isn't the full story of course. The full story is whether those mechanisms provide enough new information in a form that can be passed on, to account for the variation observed. So just for fun, why don't you provide a reference to your 'best' mechanism for new information, and we'll examine that for its explanatory power... Comment 34 (4133) by richard on 2014-08-14 at 15:37:47:
Sorry - meant to add that I am not sure where in LinkedIn you got 'Business Manager'? My LinkedIn title is clearly 'Business Analyst'. I am not a manager at all - let's get that abundantly clear (phew!). My wife has asked however, whether I just sit around doing BA all day! I work exclusively with IT projects for UC, my current one being around implementing SOA Gateway and Message Queuing technology within the applications environment here at UC. Cheers. Comment 35 (4134) by OJB on 2014-08-14 at 21:05:30:
In fact the term "neo-darwinism" is hardly ever used except in philosophical or religious discussions. I'm fairly sure you won't find it used anywhere in the biology department at a university, for example (the Otago web site returns over 2800 hits on "evolution" but zero on "neo-darwinism").
Darwin was fundamentally right about almost everything but obviously things have been refined greatly since his original theory - note I said refined though, not replaced. But yes, I agree that things are far more complex than it first seemed, especially in regards to epigenetics. This in no way weakens evolution however.
Evolution involves natural processes acting on variations introduced through various mechanisms, including "random" mutations. If more variation can be introduced through other mechanisms this makes the potential effect of evolution stronger, don't you think?
Regarding mutation creating new information, for a start have a look at this New Scientist article.
Yeah sorry, I had "manager" ingrained, and you are right, it does say business analyst. So you are one of those people who make stupid decisions that all the tech staff then have to try to make work! :) Right, I see! Comment 36 (4135) by OJB on 2014-08-14 at 21:39:19:
You might also be interested in this article about observed evolution events, including new species. Comment 37 (4136) by OJB on 2014-08-14 at 21:55:02:
There's also the E. Coli Long Term Evolution Experiment. Comment 38 (4137) by richard on 2014-08-15 at 17:36:57:
The obvious reason why places like Otago don't use the term neo-darwinism, is because they don't have any reason to make a distinction between 'evolution' (as Darwin described it) and 'evolution' today. To evolutionists, it's all the same 'dogma', when in fact there is as you agreed a clear distinction. I don't actually have a beef with them not using it btw, I totally understand that pov. The fact that it's philosophical and religious discussions that tend to make the distinction, is irrelevant. The only relevant question is - whether there IS a valid distinction. Yes there is, because it's precisely the new 'information' we now have that is most significant to the case for evolution. Whether it weakens evolution is of course the very debate in qn, so just stating it doesn't is begging the qn.
Actually, no - if more variation can be 'introduced through other mechanisms', then one has significantly more to answer to, in terms of what produced those information rich mechanisms in the first place.
I will ignore for now the fact your previous complaint to me, remembering that the New Science article isn't really any more 'scientific' than any other 'popular source' and give it a fair hearing. Unfortunately though, I fail to see why it is relevant to our discussion?
It is a pretty std case of taking a 'micro' case to assert a massively extrapolated 'macro' case without sound justification.
It starts by taking an example of a micro-evolutionary adaptation in human milk digestion. The next examples provided are similar and also just fine, in terms of showing that (as already agreed), mutations can cause some minor changes in 'species' of (quote): abalone shellfish, fruit flies, 'some monkeys', and 'people'.
It does not however, provide a single case where said 'new information' has overcome the various regulatory systems that prevent significant body plan changes to produce major new morphology. i.e. The actual topic under debate.
For evolutionists to hold up a few small changes within fruit flies, and say this proves bacteria turned into people is of course the very problem under discussion, and I see no such proof in this article?
I particularly like the section 'Newly Minted' which stated categorically our debate: Can mutation really lead to the evolution of new Species? YES it said, with the Yes being this hyperlink:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16822621.100-darwin-strikes-back.html
So what's in this article that settles the debate once and for all? The following is the main summary I could access (not being subscribed to NS) and clearly the magic bullet text intended by the link:
"They have shown that natural selection can change the way both fish and flies recognise their prospective mates, a process which can lead to two groups rapidly diverging, even when they live together in the same place. This process of reproductive isolation only takes a dozen generations or so, making it faster than anyone thought possible."
Hmmm - Not quite sure how to make the leap of faith required there... It's just the same deal over again.
Similarly the 'E.Coli Long Term Evolution Experiment' experiment suffers from the same problem. Quite appropriate that the tile includes the phrases 'E.Coli' and 'Long Term'. ;-) What evidence in this experiment forces us to accept that E.coli will eventually turn into something different, when even after 50,000 generations, we still have E.Coli? The premise that 'evolution' means the organism type will support a certain amount of mutational change is entirely non-controversial surely? Assuming even a generous 10 year reproductive cycle in hominids, that's equivalent to half a millions years of hominid evolution! Probably more like 750,000- 1,000,000 years worth.
Remembering the question asked by Darwins Doubt is whether the experimentally observed mutation rate (and resulting change) is quick enough to account for the Cambrian changes, across approx 10-30 million. To do that you still have to ignore all the observed evidence of gene regulatory systems that prevent the 'macro' changes. It is fair to say this evidence is at best pretty flimsy, and fully supports only that we will have some different versions of E.Coli, no matter how many generations we observe.
I will grant you though, just like all the E,Coli strains, we humans have got fatter too, and that's only in the last hundred years or so! #obviouslyjoking :)
I did also enjoy reading Richard Dawkins expected spin on this experiment, in the 'Greatest Show on Earth' though. Classic RD :) Comment 39 (4138) by OJB on 2014-08-15 at 20:42:46:
It's just that we are discussing evolution, a scientific concept, yet you insist on using misleading and irrelevant terminology which is commonly used by creationists for the purpose of obfuscating the truth. Can you see why I would be a bit skeptical?
Ah so here we have the old micro versus macro thing again. Maybe you would be only happy if a lizard turned into a hippopotamus within 20 generations. Or maybe you would invent some sort of excuse no matter what the evidence was because your worldview is based on religious dogma, not facts?
So you think "bacteria changed into people huh?" you sound more like a nutty creationist all the time. When I first started discussing this with you you seemed almost reasonable!
I've given several examples of observed evolution, both in the lab and in the wild. I have given examples of where new species appeared. Still not enough? Maybe nothing that is even remotely reasonable would ever be enough because you just don't want to know.
You know the most ironic thing? You *do* believe the utter drivel which is Christian mythology. Something there is no evidence for at all, yet you reject some of science's greatest theories which have piles of evidence. Only religion (well OK, maybe politics too) can make someone that blind. Comment 40 (4139) by richard on 2014-08-17 at 19:18:17:
Seriously? You were mis-led by the 'irrelevant' term neo-darwinism, even after I explained it's relevance? How exactly? And what 'truth' does the term 'obfuscate' exactly?
In response to my request for your 'best evidence', you gave me some links, which (in spite of the fact that they are not specifically 'scientific journals' - the demand you made on me - I was happy to respond to, because I have no such intellectual snobbery - truth (or fiction) can be written anywhere, in journals or popular publications (as scientific history shows), so lets just let evidence speak for itself, - and be prepared to accept where it leads.
I believe I (fairly) politely pointed out where I felt your references claims about 'where new species have appeared' fell short. Did you even read the articles you pointed me too?! I certainly didn't mock any of your other beliefs, knowing they having nothing at all to do with this particular conversation. And btw what other of sciences greatest theories do you say I reject?!
Is your response in 39 really the best you can do to respectfully answer and enlighten us all about the straight-forward scientific (not world-view) questions I raised in response to your 'best evidence' for the evolution from: "single-celled organisms (a reasonable description of one of the earliest life forms?) to humans (currently the most complex species) - whatever pathway that took."? Is that quoted text btw not actually a reasonable description of the claim we are discussing?! Soooo sorry for thinking 'Bacteria to people' is just a heck of a lot simpler to type, (as is 'macro-evolution', the other very simple and easy to comprehend way to describe it).
Obviously such 'simple' straight forward terms which actually make clear to all the true scale of the evolutionist claim, aren't allowed here in a real 'science' discussion. It's plainly obvious from C39 that it is so much easier to mock such irritating terms than it is to actually answer them.
So the problem is that I don't want to know? Hmm - interesting. It has been my usual experience that asking questions (as I have done above) is precisely an indication of wanting to know. I still do, but I tend to prefer answers that are actually related to the questions. So I think this thread it done. Shame really - but guess I need to ask elsewhere. If there are decent answers - they are not to be found here. Cheers.
Comment 41 (4140) by OJB on 2014-08-17 at 21:19:09:
Well it's difficult to know for sure what creationists are thinking but the most likely explanation is that using "Darwinism" makes evolution sound like one of those dogmatic beliefs which end in "-ism" like communism, and less like science. Why else would they not just use "evolution" since that's what we are talking about?
I'm not sure how carefully you looked, but the references I gave did have citations to scientific papers, and unlike the creationist citations, they were relevant.
So the summary of research where speciation was found (including references to papers) didn't pass your high standards of scholarship eh? Oh dear, I must try harder in future!
Well I guess it takes someone who is not held back by a superstitious worldview to see the problems with yours. I am very confident that if you applied a fraction of the unbalanced excess credulity towards Christianity that you do to evolution you would be an atheist in a second! Comment 42 (4141) by OJB on 2014-08-22 at 09:07:09:
Just listened to a podcast about a major conference in London discussing the origin of life. Three things stood out...
1. The problem is not explaining how life started it is about choosing amongst the huge number of different possibilities. In some ways it's that life is too easy, not too hard.
2. Some people think that the question might be answered soon. I don't think there will be one answer which is totally proved, but there will a very well supported theory.
3. No one - not a single person - mentioned intelligent design or a need for any form of supernatural intervention. It just isn't a consideration at all because there's no evidence for it and no need for it.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form. To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
![[Comments]](../XuShared/Comment1B.jpeg) ![[Preview]](../XuShared/Comment6B.jpeg) ![[Blog]](../XuShared/Up2B.jpeg) ![[Blog]](../XuShared/Comment5B.jpeg)
|
![[Contact]](../XuShared2/Line2a.jpeg){kind=small}
![[Server Blog]](../XuShared2/Line2b2.jpeg){kind=small}
![[AntiMS Apple]](../XuShared2/Line2c2.jpeg){kind=small}
![[Served on Mac]](../XuShared2/Line2d.gif){kind=small}