Where's the evidence *against* evolution?

[JonF]

Yeah, I guess you could put it that way. I tried to write something along that line but didn’t like the result, so I took it out.

[David_B]

Joel said:

I’ll just say that I said the words, and I quote, “since most or all of you are athiests”, to allow for those of you who are religious and evolutionists. Once again, note the words MOST OR ALL. That’s not the same as saying that all of you are athiests.

This has already been tackled once, but I suspect it might be a good idea to reply as well.

Yes, you said “most or all.” Do you understand that most means greater than half? Since you don’t know the religious affiliation of pretty much anybody here, how can you make the statement that over half of us are atheists?

Why not just admit you were wrong to say it and be done with it? Why try to wriggle out of it like that? You’re not doing yourself any favors.

CollegeStudent: I’d reply to your message, but somehow I doubt it would make any difference to you. You just spouted standard creationist lines (well, except the bit about 6 types of evolution – don’t think I’ve heard that one before), and I doubt that the most reasoned response in the world would make a dent in your perception of reality.

[Liberal]

I’m sorry, but let’s have one standard here. It seems to me that both sides, not just the Creationists, are pretty much “spouting standard lines”. The Creationists might just be copying and pasting from a single source or two, but the Evolutionists just keep linking to talk-origins or some rehash (or prehash) of it.

Now let’s see how many people raise a red herring and go, “Lib is defending the Creationists, so he must be one.”

[JonF]

Gee. does one raise a red herring like a flag? Interesting image …

To some extent, yes, we are both spouting standard lines. Would you rather that we make up new lines as we go along, without evidence or support? But there’s a significant difference in how we’re doing it. With the exception of Joel, the creationists are not providing references. Providing references is important in scientific discussions for several reasons. The interested reader can:

[list=A]
[li]Read a more detailed discussion of the subject.[/li][li]Evaluate the validity of the claims, perhaps even by following a trail of references from the referenced article.[/li][li]Examine the data directly and test whether the claimed implications of the data are true or reasonable.[/li][/list=A]

Largely, we’re spouting standard evolutionary claims in response to the standard (and mostly long-debunked) creationist claims. When someone brings up something new (e.g. London_Calling’s “Theory of Evolution and Adam and Eve co-existing” from yesterday) at least I am capable of considering it and posting something new in reply. I also think that my response to Joel’s five questions posted yesterday contains some original thought and some material and a reference that is new to this thread. So there’s evidence for my claim that “they started it!” <grin>.

When anyone posts a claim without references, we may have no convenient way of checking that claim. I’m fairly familiar with creationism and the Web resources about it, so I can usually find out more. But when someone posts “Of the six types of evolution …”, I’m stuck; a reasonably informed person doesn’t know anything about “six types”. It’s polite and common in scientific discussions to make it easy for all concerned to understand and check on anything you claim.

On the other hand, it’s extremely likely that most of the creationists are not familiar with scientific literature on evolution or popular interpretations of that literature. I say this because of the many obviously wrong and downright silly claims they make about what the standard theory of evolution is.

Now, I admit to posting some references multiple times in this thread. I have a reason for that; those duplicate postings are in response to duplicate (and unreferenced) false claims. IMHO, if the people who claim that “only microevolution has been observed” and haven’t bothered to look at the references that have already refuted that claim several times in this thread, then the only chance of getting them to read the reference is to post it again.

[David_B]

You rather missed the point, Lib.

He’s spouting standard lines that don’t make any sense. I’ve seen that type of creationist many, many times. Some preacher or friend or parent told him these things, and he’s repeating it as a mantra. He probably doesn’t even know what he means. Do you think he can answer the protein homology question? Do you think he understands speciation – or has any interest in learning? I don’t.

There are some creationists who we can at least talk to. There are others who aren’t worth the time. Until CollegeStudent says something more intelligent than he has so far here, it’s fairly obvious to me that he falls into the second group.

[Liberal]

Okay. Fair enough.

I don’t know protein homology from protein heterology, but I do know that replacing religion politics with science politics is not an improvement. I wish both sides would, for the benefit of those of us less knowledgable in these matters, would elucidate more. Perhaps you can empathize if you recall some of your frustrations with what you call my mysterious quips.

Perhaps rather than “How do you explain protein homology? [link to talk-origins article that only a biologist can comprehend]”, why not say, “How do you explain so-and-so specific process of protein homology? The process fits evolution because of so-and-so, while it does not fit your model because of this-and-that.”?

[IzzyR]

Hardcore:

That said, I feel I have examined each and every word you’ve written in this thread and have commented appropriately. I am most assuredly an imperfect being, and could have missed something along the way. Please resubmit any point I might have overlooked, or direct me to the appropriate response. Or simply ignore me and hope I go away.

It was my understanding that Triskadecademus and Mauve Dig had correctly understood me when I spoke of gaps in the fossil record. (I was referring to the extent fossils being clustered more tightly at specific points, not to the gaps that are inherent in any discrete distribution.) I therefore assumed that you had not paid much attention to the entire correspondence. However I see that Ben, in a subsequent post, seemed to also suggest that there may be some confusion on this matter. I therefore retract and apologize for my accusation.

If you are operating under a scientific paradigm, then I would agree. However, creationists are not bound by any such logic, and an omnipotent creator could fashion things in any conceivable manner. The car could be made of titanium, while the truck was made of wood. The actual similarity of their components is further validation of the scientific viewpoint, which could have been falsified by the data. Creationist theories are inherently unfalsifiable.

The idea of a creator creating the world does not require the assumption that it function with no rhyme or reason. There is no denying that the world operates on natural laws. My understanding of DNA is that they are “blueprints” of the creatures that contain them. It would seem quite logical to expect that creatures that contain similar DNA would develop similarly. Therefore, it would also seem quite logical to expect that similar creatures would contain similar DNA.

To me, this is the silliest viewpoint of all. Certainly further scientific advances may change our classifications of the various sequences of DNA. This is part of the strength of the scientific process. But we must base our conclusions on the weight of the currently available evidence, especially when it so strongly supports one. To do otherwise would restrict any further progress. And the full weight of the evidence indicates that 90-95% of the DNA is nonfunctional.

I don’t see how the fact that scientists must use a working assumption as a practical matter constitutes a proof of anything.

Ben

Uh, but the “general similarity” doesn’t extend to a genetic level. Remember, with all those silent mutations, genetics tells you something’s lineage, not its similarity.

To choose one example, Linnaeus classified organisms on the basis of similarity, and so he classified mammals, birds, and reptiles as three separate groups. If you were going to classify them on the basis of their lineage in the fossil record, you would get a completely unexpected result: birds would be a sub-group within reptiles, more closely related to alligators than alligators were to, say, snakes and turtles.

Now, if you examine their DNA and do “paternity testing,” you find that the DNA completely backs up the lineage from the fossil record, and doesn’t reflect the overall similarity at all (except to the extent that similarity coincidentally reflects lineage.) Where there is a conflict between measures of similarity and deduced lineage from the fossil record, the DNA agrees with the fossil record.

This seems like a good argument.

But you’re reading my argument as an argument from evil, when it’s not. The question is, if you’re going to say that God did it, then what did he do? It’s one thing to make an attribution, and another to make an explanation. How does the hypothesis of special creation explain anything? What predictions does it make? If you predict that God would have gotten it right the first time, then you have a problem when faced with the fact that in some cases, you see a half-finished job. Within a population of butterflies, both of the genes they need in order to escape predation are present. But there’s only a 50% chance that the offspring will actually get both of them. So why didn’t God finish the job, and put both genes on separate genetic loci?

To assume a God creates the world assumes that he understood the implications of his actions, and wanted the world this way. The assumption that the world is in some way “imperfect” or “unfinished” presupposes that there is a standard of perfection that the world has thusfar failed to meet. This is not a valid assumption.

Let me ask you this: do you understand what segregational load is?

As I type this, no. But at the time that I responded to your point about it I was under the impression that I had grasped the essence of the point you were trying to make from it. Feel free to correct.

And this is precisely why creationism is bunk! For creationism to be scientific, it must make predictions. But instead of making predictions, creationists just say well, you can’t understand God

I would like to divorce myself from any connection to creationists and creationism. I have read less of creationist literature in my life than I’ve read of evolutionist. I have not at any point in this thread relied on any creationist arguments (to my knowledge). I am not trying to establish creationism as a science. I am dwelling solely on how conclusive is the idea, expressed earlier, that evolution can be shown to be conclusive because “it fits all the facts”.

DavidB

Izzy said:
quote:

Evolutionists are fond of claiming that evolution is a fact, not a theory

Which evolutionist is fond of claiming that? Please name names and cite cites.

Now, some of us state that evolution is a fact and a theory (or group of theories, actually). Perhaps you were confused?

I saw the statement that I referred to in Encyclopedia Brittanica. They said that evolution is a fact not a theory, but that the methods of evolution were theories.

[London_Calling]

<__Playing Devil’s Advocate __>

JonF – I was a little disappointed in this response, seemed a tad inflexible. You seem to be committing yourself to saying there is no place for a Biblical account of creation, per se (and irrespective of the unsolved H-S and Neandathal question) ?

In one sense your response begs the question: Are you clear in distinguishing the oral traditions that may or may not be manifest in the Bible from the fuller implications of accepting ‘The Bible’ - how about calling the latter ‘potential socio-empiric contamination’ ?

In another sense: In over 200 hundred posts in this thread, no one thought to state a pretty simplistic compromise-cum-accommodation.

This raises two issue’s, for me:

1. • Fear that the absence of someone suggesting an obvious compromise is indicative of entrenched thinking in the wider community on both sides.
2. • Also, I worry that requiring a standard of proof of you opponents in a debate that is, for them, one of faith tends to load the dice and for those of a scientific bent this can cause idle dismissive reaction.

I can’t take the debate very much farther for lack of evidence – there is no resolution at hand - but wanted to make the observation that, IMHO, not all the doors have been closed.

</End Devil’s Advocacy>

[JonF]

You seem to be committing yourself to saying there is no place for a Biblical account of creation, per se (and irrespective of the unsolved H-S and Neandathal question) ?

I think I haven’t committed to anything; if I gave that impression, then I mis-typed.

I cannot see any way to reconcile an absolutely literal interpretation of the Bible (including counting generations to date Adam and Eve at around 6,000 years ago) with the observed evidence. However, I will admit that there is at least of possibility, in theory, of doing so; it’s very unlikely.

If one is willing to interpret some of the Genesis account figuratively, then I can definitely see the possibility of reconciling that with the observed evidence. However, I don’t see a reason for doing so. From a scientific point of view, there is no evidence or lack of explanation that requires adding some interpretation of Biblical creation to explain the evidence. Nor does adding Biblical creation to evolutionary theory increase evolution’s predictive or explanatory power. From a non-scientific point of view, there are people who would like to incorporate Biblical creation into science. It appears to me that they want to do so because they want to validate the Bible in a way that seems to me to be unneccesary. I have a lot of respect for many of the Biblical teachings, and I agree with a lot of them, but I think the Bible stands on its own for whatever it is, and does not require scientific validation as a religous work.

So although I can conceive of incorporating a partially-figurative interpretation of Genesis into scientific theories, I can’t see any reason for doing so. Do you have any suggestions?

In one sense your response begs the question: Are you clear in distinguishing the oral traditions that may or may not be manifest in the Bible from the fuller implications of accepting ‘The Bible’ - how about calling the latter ‘potential socio-empiric contamination’ ?

I don’t understand what you mean by that distinction, nor do I understand what you mean by “accepting ‘The Bible’”. Accepting the Bible means very different things to different people. There are people who claim the Bible does not contain any oral traditions; it is said to be absolutely literally the unchanged and eternal Word Of God. See the references I posted near the end of this thread.

The problem I have is with people who discard or ignore the existing evidence when trying to oncorporate Biblical creation snto science.

[Liberal]

I have put in for a straightforward answer on the protein homology question, too, in General Questions. I am waiting on an answer explaining how to tie protein homology to ancestry without using a tautology to do it…

[JonF]

FWIW:

I did a search in Web Ferret Pro on “six tytpes of evolution” (the phrase used by CollegeStudent which I didn’t understand). Usually I get 500 hits on just about any phrase that doesn’t have mis-spellings. I got 84 hits. I don’t exactly understand how Web Ferret queries search engines; some of the hits contained the phrase “six types” but not “six types of evolution”. The only one that seems to be relevant is Conceptions of the evolution which does actually identify six types of evolution:
[ul]
[li]Rapid Evolution: New types spring up spontaneous. Undesirable developments are corrected by eliminating. (T. H. Huxley)[/li][li]Teleological Evolution: Movement towards a last goal, to a final aim of perfection (Aristoteles, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin)[/li][li]Lamarckianism: The evolution of organisms and the development of species was caused by
heredity of acquired attributes.[/li][li]Teleonomical Evolution: Proceedings are caused by a development of built in possibilities.[/li][li]Teleomatical Evolution: Physical objects change because of the action of the law of nature. (E. Mayr)[/li][li]Darwinism: The doctrine of the origin of species by generation of multitude and natural selection.[/li]The most biologists disapprove all conceptions of evolution, but not the Darwinism. Many biologists do mind that a few people interpolate the evolution into the future.
[/ul]
But this doesn’t seem to be the list to which CollegeStudent referred.

I also tried “six kinds of evolution” and got 34 hits; none of which were relevant.

So I just don’t understand.

[Ben]

http://216.248.142.66/Articles/FAQ250000.jsp

Kent Hovind lists six types of “evolution” in connection to his famous reward offer.

-Ben

[Mauve_Dog]

*Originally posted by London_Calling *
**<__Playing Devil’s Advocate __>

…

2. • Also, I worry that requiring a standard of proof of you opponents in a debate that is, for them, one of faith tends to load the dice and for those of a scientific bent this can cause idle dismissive reaction.

</End Devil’s Advocacy>
**

Well, I see I’ve missed a bit by not visiting the boards over the weekend!

The above statement, by London_Calling, concerns me. For those of us arguing from the scientific viewpoint (i.e., evolution), we are doing more than simply arguing the case evolution. We are arguing the case for the Scientific Method. The same method of thought that allows everyone here to view this thread on a computer is what has led to the theory of evolution (or, more properly, vice versa). To dismiss evolution out of hand in favor of ‘faith’ is to dismiss an entire method of thinking. Yet, interestingly, it seems that only evolution gets this treatment from creationists. The Scientific Method is responsible for our understanding of earthquakes (and all other geological phenomena), of weather, of space travel, of medicine…yet none of these are questioned by creationists. The reason? Because evolution alone dares tread on that most Holy of Holies, the Origin of Man. It’s fine and well to argue that the Biblical version is correct, and evolution is bunk. But, if evolution is bunk, so is the sum total of all scientific knowledge acquired to date.

Evolutionists, indeed, scientists in general, whether atheist, agnostic, or theistic, believe in a specific method of inquiry above all else (well, except for theists, where it probably comes in second ;)). Part of this method of inquiry involves matching ideas with observations. The standard creationst view simply does not account for observations. It relies exclusively on the idea. This is akin to Aristotle’s (forgive me if this is the incorrect person…my knowledge of Greek history is lacking) view that all knowledge could be arrived at by thought alone; experimentation was unnecessary. Unfortunately, that view provided for some erroneous claims. For example, the idea that a heavier object must fall faster than a lighter object. When Galileo actually got around to experimenting, it was found this this was simply not the case.

In effect, yes, requiring proof from creationists does load the dice in our (the ‘evolutionists’) favor. But this is only because they (the ‘creationists’) are trying to play a game wherein they are not familiar with the rules. One cannot reasonably expect to debunk a scientific claim without using science! Just as one cannot debunk a religious view without invoking religion. Confuse the two, and you get nowhere.

Another issue is that of ‘proof’. Creationists seem intent upon proving something, while scientists (at least the ones who rely on the scientific method) realize there can be no proof; one can only show overwhelming evidence. Currently, the overwhelming evidence is in favor of evolution. Unfortunately, here again, the creationists are at a disadvantage since their claim cannot be proven at all…it can only be taken on faith. And that is something scientists don’t do well (within a scientific arena, anyway).

The purpose of science (and in particular, evolution) is not to disprove the existence of God. However, science must be able to exist without God, otherwise, what with the whole Omnipotence thing, how can we really know anything? If it is accepted that God can, and does, manipulate the so-called ‘natural laws’ at will, then we can ultimately never be sure of anything (who knows, maybe this is what Heisenburg caught in action).

There are basically three possibilites regarding God and Science:

1. God exists, but does not meddle. This leaves the natural laws to progress on their own, and the scientific method is a valid method of inquiry.
2. God exists and meddles. This means there is no valid method of inquiry, and that we are wasting our time in trying to determine ‘natural laws’, since they don’t really exist. We’ve simply gotten lucky a lot with what we have ‘figured out.’
3. God does not exist. Again, this leaves the scientific method as a valid method of inquiry, as only natural laws exist.

For the record, I am Agnostic. I do not know if God exists, and I do not feel his existence (or lack thereof) can be proven.

Anyway, this is why (in my opinion) it seems that these evolution vs. creation debates wind up at an impasse: creationists are unable to back up their claims to the satisfaction of the scientists, and the scientists are unable (or unwilling) to accept the creationists’ claims ‘on faith.’

Something for the creationists to be aware of, however: if you choose to ‘pick on’ evolution, you should rightly be prepared to pick on every other branch of science as well. As I mentioned earlier, we use the same method of inquiry in evolution as every other science (with the exception of the unfortunately named ‘Political Science’…shudder…). Evolution is not a fairy tale; we didn’t just make this stuff up. We (those arguing the ‘scientific’ point of view) have observations and evidence to back us up.

Apologies for the length of this post, but I had a lot I had to get off my chest

[IzzyR]

Mauve Dog,

Re your last post: Do you think it is possible that the fact that the battle over evolution is seen by many scientists as you see it - as a struggle over the supremacy of science and scientific method - is in part a cause of the extraordinary vehemence which seems to pour forth from the evolutionist camp? Or even, taking it a step further, that it is causing scientists to overstate the degree to which evolution can be definitively established, in an effort to do away with what they see as the great anti-scientific evil of creationism?

[CollegeStudent]

*Originally posted by Ben *
**http://216.248.142.66/Articles/FAQ250000.jsp

Kent Hovind lists six types of “evolution” in connection to his famous reward offer.

-Ben **

That is ** exactly ** what I was referring to when I said the six types of evolution. Thanks Ben.

[tracer]

NiceGuyJack wrote:

Who said life started on Earth? Perhaps a single cell organism was transported here by somee heavenly body.

Or perhaps it was both a single-celled organism and a heavenly body.

Like Britney Spears.

<ducking and running>

[JonF]

Kent Hovind lists six types of “evolution” in connection to his famous reward offer.

Ah, thanks, now I understand.

[JonF]

Do you think it is possible that the fact that the battle over evolution is seen by many scientists as you see it - as a struggle over the supremacy of science and scientific method - is in part a cause of the extraordinary vehemence which seems to pour forth from the evolutionist camp?

Of course, I can’t speak for MauveDog, but I woud like to make a relevant comment. There are several other possibilities for the vehemence that this issue engenders from scientists:

Most, perhaps almost all, “creation science” is a travesty of real science. It strarts from a conclusion and looks for evidence that supports that conclusion, ignoring and suppressing and lying about evidence that does not support that conclusion. There is good reason to believe that misunderstanding of science is a serious problem (not our worst problem) in today’s society. Teaching what passes as “creation science” as science, in our public schools or even in private universities, worsens this problem.

The errors of “creation scientists” are Hydra-headed; they seem to be impossible to kill. The same 20-year-old errors appear over and over again in all but a few “creation science” publications, presentations, and speeches. This frustrates scientists.

A significant amount of the material presented by many famous “creation scientists” consists of flat-out lies. The claims are incorrect, the presentors know they are incorrect, but they continue to present those lies (perhaps because they’re good theater, perhaps because they believe they’re serving a higher truth, perhaps all sorts of reasons).

Many “creation scientists” attempt to hide their agenda. They want their dogma taught in public schools. They can’t get religous dogma taught in public schools. So they re-dress the dogma in scientific clothes; but it’s still religous dogma.

Please not that I do not include all “creation scientists” in the categories above. A very few appear to be trying sincerely to unify science and their religous beliefs. Perhaps some are trying to do good science. But they’re definitely the minority.

[Mauve_Dog]

*Originally posted by IzzyR *
**Mauve Dog,

Re your last post: Do you think it is possible that the fact that the battle over evolution is seen by many scientists as you see it - as a struggle over the supremacy of science and scientific method - is in part a cause of the extraordinary vehemence which seems to pour forth from the evolutionist camp? Or even, taking it a step further, that it is causing scientists to overstate the degree to which evolution can be definitively established, in an effort to do away with what they see as the great anti-scientific evil of creationism? **

I can only speak for myself, but it appears to me that vehemence issues forth from both camps.
I do not feel that scientists (most, anyway) are attempting to argue for the ‘supremacy of science and the scientific method.’ If that is happening, it is happening in both camps, not just from the evolutionists. I feel that, rather, scientists are arguing for a consistent pattern of thinking that will allow us to better understand the world around us. To simply say, “God did it” does nothing to promote understanding; it encourages quite the opposite. And that, I feel, is where the vehemence on the scientific side may stem. The vehemence on the creationists’ side seems to stem from the idea that evolution lowers us to the status of ‘common animal’: “Why, they want us to believe we’re nothing more than monkeys!” Which, in a way, it does. Personally, I think Mankind could do with some humility, as we go about wiping out much of the natural world to further our ‘Divine Right’ to be the rulers of the earth. But that’s just my opinion…
More to the point, however, is the fact that animals we may be, but we are still very special creatures. Evolutionists do not deny that.

When it is said that evolution is definitively established, it is said with the same certainty that we say that gravity causes masses to attract one another, light is an electromagnetic wave, the continents move, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, etc. Facts are facts. Organisms change. Descent with modification - we see it happen. For creationists to argue that it doesn’t happen is mind-numbing - I, for one, cannot comprehend the rationale for such a claim. The problem is that, for the most part, when creationists try to argue against evolution on a scientific level, it becomes apparent that they have little idea what they are talking about. Read The Origin of Species. It’s not heresy, really. Now, really read it! It’s an argument for the extension of what we see happening in animal husbandry and breeding to the natural world; really it is nothing more than that. Yet, it’s described by many creationists as The Most Evil Book Ever.

No, what annoys evolutionists about creationists, I think, is the fact that no one ever bothers to come up with anything new. The claims made by creationists are all the same, and all have been refuted countless times on a scientific basis. Yet, without checking into past discussions, the same claims resurface again, with the same refuted quotes, etc. So, the same refutations are made by the evolutionists, and so on. We go around and around with each, but no progress is ever made.

The biggest obstacle is that creationism is not scientific. One cannot argue for creationism in a scientific arena; faith is not one of the steps in the scientific method. If one wishes to take creationism on faith, fine. But don’t expect scientists to believe the ‘(non-)scientific proofs’.

[David_B]

Hovind? Jeez, don’t tell me I have to debunk that idiot again. In fact, I thought I did so for CollegeStudent once before. Then again, maybe I’m confusing my creationists here…

I really should make it into a text file for easier upload…