While scanning through the posts on Panda’s Thumb today I stumbled across an article in The American Enterprise by sociologist Rodney Stark. The story, titled “Fact, Fable, and Darwin”, opens with this paragraph:
I write as neither a creationist nor a Darwinist, but as one who knows what is probably the most disreputable scientific secret of the past century: There is no plausible scientific theory of the origin of species! Darwin himself was not sure he had produced one, and for many decades every competent evolutionary biologist has known that he did not. Although the experts have kept quiet when true believers have sworn in court and before legislative bodies that Darwin's theory is proven beyond any possible doubt, that's not what reputable biologists, including committed Darwinians, have been saying to one another.
As you might expect, not everyone agrees. Ed Brayton calls it “a delightfully ridiculous little article” and Steve Reuland says it “proves that there really is no rock-bottom when it comes to anti-evolutionist diatribes.”
I’ve been following these types of arguments for almost twenty years now without coming closer to understanding which side is right. As a Christian, I believe that God is ultimately responsible for the variety of life in existence. Such a view obviously classifies me as a “creationist.” But while I'm convinced about who is behind the process, I'm still unclear on how it occurred.
One significant part that remains unclear is the claim that the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors is a scientific “fact.” Most people who claim to have trouble accepting “evolutionary theory” are really saying that they disagree on this particular point. I suspect that the crux of the entire controversy centers around this dispute.
According to many scientists, though, the question has already been sufficiently addressed. As evolutionary geneticist R.C. Lewontin notes:
It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun. (Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981))
The same point is made clear by Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, one of the most commonly used college texts on the subject:
A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.
As these citations make clear, the scientific community has established this point beyond question. Obviously, the line of ancestry from single-cell organisms to humans is so clear that it is considered an established “fact.” If true, I'm more than willing to accept this idea and so propose that we put this issue to rest once and for all.
The evidence for common descent necessarily crosses many fields of study, from biochemistry to paleontology to evolutionary biology. For the theory to have gained such broad acceptance within the scientific community the necessary data would have had to have been recorded in the peer-reviewed literature. All that is needed to establish this point beyond reproach is to compile the list of references that connect each piece of evidence to the one before it until we get a clear picture of this particular line of descent.
I’ll admit that I wouldn’t even know where to begin to find such references in the peer-reviewed literature. That is why I intend to ask the experts. Since a review of this literature is undoubtedly a prerequisite for earning a PhD in evolutionary biology, I expect that someone has such a list available already. As soon as I receive the list I’ll post the results so that we can all examine the data for ourselves, draw the necessary conclusion, and move on.
Obviously, not everyone will be ready to concede. But I’m sure there are many people like me who would defer to scientific facts that are duly recorded and widely acknowledged. If the evidence is enough to convince the experts in the field I see no reason why we laymen wouldn’t also be willing to accept the idea of common descent as “fact.”
Once we are able to examine the data and put the pieces of the puzzle in their proper order then we can see why the majority of scientists are already convinced. This should be the silver bullet that is needed to kill the controversy over “common descent.” All we need is to be allowed to peek behind the curtain.
Joe,
If you're willing to trust in the peer reviewed articles themselves, why aren't you willing to trust scientists when they say that evolution is well established?
Joe,
I'm surprised. You're usually better than this.
I appreciate that you are making every attempt at being open-minded, but your premise (the peer-reviewed literature will leave a reliable paper trail to use to determine "fact") is simplistic. Just the influence of naturalistic philosophy, which had gathered a good head of steam by Darwin's time, is an a priori interpretive lens that is reflected in that peer-reviewed literature. You ain't gonna get the straight story that way.
And it's mostly about the interpretation of the data, and to a lesser extent about which data are allowed and which are not.
But before any data are brought out to bludgeon, and this thread "devolves" (and this one certainly will) let me suggest a few rational reasons why Evolutionary Theory is suspect on its face, and that could be understood by any high school biology student. Consider the folowing:
I've limited my points to some simple rational proofs to demonstrate that the Theory of Evolution does not stand up well to established scientific laws. It is fatally flawed before it gets out of the gate.
I don't reject this theory so much because I see it as a threat to my theology; I reject it because it's plainly Bad Science.
Let the games begin…
If you're willing to trust in the peer reviewed articles themselves, why aren't you willing to trust scientists when they say that evolution is well established?
Because, to be perfectly honest, I doubt that most “scientists” are basing their trust in the theory on the literature. I suspect that they assume it is a proven “fact” because that is what they’ve always been told.
The literature will either show that the theory is strong enough to be considered a “fact” – without having to rely on a specific interpretative lens – or it won’t. After following the debate since my high school years, I’m ready to see where we actually stand. They're either right about it being a fact and I will have to concede the point or they will have to stop claiming that there is no “controversy.”
I've limited my points to some simple rational proofs to demonstrate that the Theory of Evolution does not stand up well to established scientific laws. It is fatally flawed before it gets out of the gate.
No Winsome, you've limited your points to simple and often refuted straw man arguments.
Here is a link to a journal that we could get started in. It's called The Journal of Molecular Evolution:
http://tinyurl.com/3syc4
They've had such "interesting" articles recently like:
"The Decline of Isochores in Mammals: An Assessment of the GC ContentVariation Along the Mammalian Phylogeny"
and
"Presence of a Bacterial-Like Citrate Synthase Gene in Tetrahymena thermophila: Recent Lateral Gene Transfers (LGT) or Multiple Gene Losses Subsequent to a Single Ancient LGT?"
Joe remarked: As these citations make clear, the scientific community has established this point beyond question. Obviously, the line of ancestry from single-cell organisms to humans is so clear that it is considered an established “fact.” If true, I'm more than willing to accept this idea and so propose that we put this issue to rest once and for all.
Nothing is beyond question in science. And I'm unaware of a single evolutionary biologist or paleontologist who even hints an unbroken fossil series of every taxa that ever lived exists back to the pre-Archean.
And it is unknown if all replicating organisms arose from a single replicating structure or if several such structures arose from earlier, distinct yet similar, chemosynthetic hypercycles. Those are fascinating questions, but they're also mysteries which may never be resolved. Such events being localized, microscopic, and organic, may have left no detailed record.
When discussing evolution in general, almost all of the controversy centers on vertebrate/metazoans such as humans, whales, birds, dinosaurs, and so forth. Most religious folks aren't terribly concerned about the evolution of cnidarians or eukaryotes.
What is a fact in the sense of "repeatable to the point that withholding provisional acceptance would be irrational" is that humans, as an example, share clear diagnostic features which nail down that we share common ancestors with other creatures(In larger terms, creatures share common ancestor with other creatures).
The primary observations which this fact was inferred from are the biostratification of the fossil record, molecular analysis of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA, comparative physiology, transitional fossils. The physiological evidence alone is so suggestive that even early naturalists who were in the dark about evolution or geology strongly suspected some kind of familial relationship.
I agree with many of your thoughts Joe. Sciences such as evolutionary biology are not concerned with, and do not directly address, the existence of deities. These fields are concerned with the processes and events which transpired to produce the array of natural phenomena currently observed.
DS,
Nothing is beyond question in science. And I'm unaware of a single evolutionary biologist or paleontologist who even hints an unbroken fossil series of every taxa that ever lived exists back to the pre-Archean.
I don’t think it has to be “unbroken.” But there shouldn’t be any huge gaps in the record either.
The primary observations which this fact was inferred from are the biostratification of the fossil record, molecular analysis of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA, comparative physiology, transitional fossils. The physiological evidence alone is so suggestive that even early naturalists who were in the dark about evolution or geology strongly suspected some kind of familial
relationship.
Okay. So let’s take a look at the references. All of these observations have to be recorded in the peer-reviewed literature otherwise they wouldn’t be considered “science.”
I agree with many of your thoughts Joe. Sciences such as evolutionary biology are not concerned with, and do not directly address, the existence of deities. These fields are concerned with the processes and events which transpired to produce the array of natural phenomena currently observed.
You’re absolutely right. Perhaps you can share with us some of the journal articles that helped convince you that common descent was so assured that it could be classified as a fact.
Let's use Winsome's post as an exercise for commentators to detail the mistakes. I'd like to take the SloT argument being a physics geek.
ET does not conform to the established, repeatable, unquestionable 2nd LAW of Thermodynamics: in closed systems, entropy increases & order decreases. There is no reason that biological systems should be exempt from this law.
This is utter nonsense of course. The Second Law of Thermo, or SLoT, states that the sole and sum result in a closed and bounded system cannot be the transfer of heat from a cold object to a hot object without an input of external work. (Obviously with an input of work, heat energy can be transferred from a cold object to a hotter one or your AC would be violating the SLoT)
This is sometimes restated to read the Entropy S of closed and bounded system increases over time. S = Change in heat of an Object/the total heat of the system in which that object resides. In metric (SI) units this is Joules/degree K. Where Winosome has been misled is that entropy is a counter intuitive concept often equated to thermal disorder for laymen. Thermal disorder is then equated to physical organization and this is simply invalid. There is no difference in entropy between the states of your room when it's a mess vs when it's spic and span. Unless there is a change in temperature that is ::G::
You’re absolutely right. Perhaps you can share with us some of the journal articles that helped convince you that common descent was so assured that it could be classified as a fact.
Did you finish the Journal of Molecular Evolution already?
Joe said: I don’t think it has to be “unbroken.” But there shouldn’t be any huge gaps in the record either.
Well it depends what you mean by large gaps of course and what you mean by record. If we're talking about the entire web of life from start to present, then no we don't have that, and even if we did have it no human could possibly view even a significant fraction of it in their lifetime. It would be that immense.
But in terms of good continuous fossil series, some of the best ones are of marine creatures such as foriminifera. What most skeptics of evo want to see is a more familiar sequence, creatures such as humans or whales, and yes we have slices of that continuum, but no matter how fine the resolution gets every new find simply creates two gaps on either temporal side.
Because of the nature of geology there will always be regions on the earth which leave no fossil record, indeed which leave no strata at all. So there are going to be gaps all over the place. That’s not a good reason to ignore the data we have between gaps that has been recovered and continues to be found.
Joe: Okay. So let’s take a look at the references. All of these observations have to be recorded in the peer-reviewed literature otherwise they wouldn’t be considered “science.”
I’m happy to oblige but we need to narrow it down considerably to the type of info you’re specifically interested in. It might be a good idea to pick molecular analysis, or transitionals, or comparative morphology/physiology, or biostratification, etc.
Joe: You’re absolutely right. Perhaps you can share with us some of the journal articles that helped convince you that common descent was so assured that it could be classified as a fact.
I can retrieve many such articles, literally enough to keep us busy for the rest of our respective lives. My guess is you want to see a sample of ‘bona fide’ lab data that forms the centerpiece of peer reviewed work? If you want to see what the raw data looks like, here’s an example of a Human/Chimp ERV with some commentary by the brilliant and sexy DR “Lilith”.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/erv/chimp_ltr_region_ag
ainst_human_files/body_genome_13294_1051719353.html
Winsome says Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics? Creationists must be as ignorant of physics as they are of biology. Which is pretty damn ignorant.
[i]I’ll admit that I wouldn’t even know where to begin to find such references in the peer-reviewed literature. That is why I intend to ask the experts. Since a review of this literature is undoubtedly a prerequisite for earning a PhD in evolutionary biology, I expect that someone has such a list available already.[/i]
Joe, a list of journal articles dealing with common descent would be massive indeed -- many thousands of articles over the decades, some of which aren't terribly relevant anymore, and some of which were not recognized as relevant when they were published. I do recommend that you do some simple PubMed searches and see what you come up with, and try to read some of the articles if you can. You'll see that the state of the science is quite different than the creationist caricature (in which scientists do little more than laugh maniacally about how they're destroying religion).
If you want a short list of the evidence for common descent, I suggest this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
DS,
Well it depends what you mean by large gaps of course and what you mean by record.
All I mean is the evidence that biologists’ use when they make the claim that common descent is an established fact. Obviously, they have a clear enough picture of the biological record in order to make this inference. I’m simply asking to be shown what they are seeing.
If we're talking about the entire web of life from start to present, then no we don't have that, and even if we did have it no human could possibly view even a significant fraction of it in their lifetime. It would be that immense.
Here is what I’m looking to have explained. The theory states (according to TalkOrigins) that “all living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related. All existing species originated gradually by biological, reproductive processes on a geological timescale, and each modern organism is the genetic descendant of one original species.” We should be able, for starters, to trace the phylogenetic tree from humans to this original species.
But in terms of good continuous fossil series, some of the best ones are of marine creatures such as foriminifera. What most skeptics of evo want to see is a more familiar sequence, creatures such as humans or whales, and yes we have slices of that continuum, but no matter how fine the resolution gets every new find simply creates two gaps on either temporal side.
So what your telling me is that the fossil record isn’t strong enough evidence to adequately confirm the theory, correct?
Because of the nature of geology there will always be regions on the earth which leave no fossil record, indeed which leave no strata at all. So there are going to be gaps all over the place. That?s not a good reason to ignore the data we have between gaps that has been recovered and continues to be found.
No one is claiming that we should ignore the data. But there is a difference between the data helping to lead to a conclusion and it being a confirmation of a theory.
I?m happy to oblige but we need to narrow it down considerably to the type of info you?re specifically interested in. It might be a good idea to pick molecular analysis, or transitionals, or comparative morphology/physiology, or biostratification, etc.
Let’s use whatever data builds the strongest case.
I can retrieve many such articles, literally enough to keep us busy for the rest of our respective lives. My guess is you want to see a sample of ?bona fide? lab data that forms the centerpiece of peer reviewed work?
Exactly. Basically, what I want to see is what the scientist are looking at that convinces them the theory is an established fact.
Exactly. Basically, what I want to see is what the scientist are looking at that convinces them the theory is an established fact.
What did you think about the retroviral insertions paper linked to above?
The talkorigins.org archive is full of citations of such papers. You can also search an article database, such as BioMed or PrimateLit (for articles on non-human primates and evolution). Also, if you have an evolutionary textbook (you cited one), you can look in the works cited section. You can find thousands of peer-reviewed articles either on or related to common descent over the last 50 years. The dirty little secret that creationists don't like to note is that something doesn't become orthodoxy in science until it has been published on extensively in peer reviewed journals.
Panda's Thumb and, I think, Pharyngula have also recently posted on phylogenetic trees and common descent, complete with references. You could try those.
Oh, and Joe, you might want to have a conversation with Winsome about the meaning of "a priori," as he seems to be misusing it in the same way that you and others did during L'Affaire Van Dyke.
I know a lot of you are (and some think you are) informed/intelligent with the scientific knowledge you have aquired. This goes for the Creationists and Naturalists alike.
It may seem silly to have to "talk down" to others (like me) that may not have the same amount of info. that you do. But please, condescend, and help me out here with the basics.
(I am aware most have heard these questions before.)
Naturalists: Where did life come from? (I don't mean humans from apes etc etc - I mean the VERY begining)
As I've been told (correct me if I'm wrong) early life was a slime/soup substance that all varieties of life sprang from. Where did the soup come from? Where did whatever you say the soup came from come from? i.e. before Big Bang...so on and so on...
My intention is not to win an argument here I just want the naturalists perspective on their existence and/or purpose.
Thanks.
This is a fun topic and there are so many sides to it. One basic comment from a guy that is not a true scientist (me) is that this whole topic falls down because it is about philosophy and pre-assumptions and not true science. True science is repeatable in controled conditions or over time. The process of evolution by definition is outside of this category. Scientists often comment on it, but then rock stars talk about politics too! The point of evolution is the presumption that earth (and the whole of space) evolved on it's own with no outside impact from "God" The attraction here is clear. Some people don't believe in God so they need evolution. When it is needed we (humans) find a way to make it so. Where in the process does life come from non-life? If that can be shown in a test tube then it is the field of science. Otherwise, let's continue to have fun with philosophy.
Where in the process does life come from non-life? If that can be shown in a test tube then it is the field of science. Otherwise, let's continue to have fun with philosophy.
Don't confuse the theory of abiogenesis with evolution. The theory of evolution cares not how life originally appeared on this planet, it simply describes the process from which we go from that initial formation to the present day (and into the future).
I love your lab analogy. When approached with the concept of proving it in the lab the retort from creationists and ID'rs is then, "well just because it can happen in the lab doesn't mean that's what happened here." Double standard? I think so.
True science is repeatable in controled conditions or over time.
Ever hear of forensic science? Since that doesn't deal with repeatable controlled conditions I suppose that's not science either. The theory of evolution is not only continually reaffirmed with new discoveries in the fossil record but the principles are used as the foundation for an entire field of algorithms called "genetic algorithms." Ah yes, that doesn't count either based on the idea that just because it happens in a laboratory/computer doesn't mean that's what did happen on earth.
Any of the non-evolutionists in the group, please do me a favor. Please read the link on viral insertions in the genetic code (i've tinyurl'd it below). Please tell me your alternate explanation for how chipanzees and humans have the same insertion error. Again, this is just one of thousands of insertion errors that can be seen between species on this planet.
http://tinyurl.com/4d2ja
Moderate,
What did you think about the retroviral insertions paper linked to above?
The text of the article wasn’t available online. Perhaps you can summarize for us why it helps establish the theory of common descent.
The text of the article wasn’t available online. Perhaps you can summarize for us why it helps establish the theory of common descent.
Go to the tinyurl link I posted later on.
The reason why it helps establish the theory of common descent is because these point insertions are passed on in the children's genetic code. The insertion is traceable in the exact same portion of the genetic code of multiple species. The only way that the two species have the exact same point error is if the species have a common ancestor somewhere back in time. While it the odds are extremely low that two species would have the same copy error by pure chance, it is nearly impossible for the same copy error to exist in multiple species at the same point in the genetic code. It is even more improbable that all these species would have thousands of such copy errors in the same position across species.
How do you explain the identical insertions across species?
Spot,
Oh, and Joe, you might want to have a conversation with Winsome about the meaning of "a priori," as he seems to be misusing it in the same way that you and others did during L'Affaire Van Dyke.
If I understand correctly, Winsome is saying that science requires an a priori adherence to methodological naturalism. On that point he is correct. Unlike Brian Leiter (and you too apparently), Winsome seems to have a fairly solid grasp of what a priori means.
Joe,
I can't resist that offer, I used to be a teacher.
A few of us will compile a list of texts and peer reviewed work for you later this evening if you're serious. I'll try to keep it short, perhaps a sort of sampling of the various fields, but it's going to be quite a bit of homework. We're talking semester worth of stuff here.
It would be helpful if you wold e-mail with your level of proffeciency in the sciences involved. My guess would be you want to see something from each of paleontology, homology, molecular biology/cladistic, comparitive biology/physiology and maybe some geochronology, which supports common descent.
I'll probably ask for suggestion from other Blogs. FYI I've posted your reuest on some bio Blogs already so folks may start chiming in.
On ERV's, I can bring in some expertise including the author of that site, or I can relate my inexpert layman's understanding with the caveat that I'm but a lowly mathematician who became a financial analyst nd only a weekend warior in biology. Up to you.
Moderate,
Don't confuse the theory of abiogenesis with evolution. The theory of evolution cares not how life originally appeared on this planet, it simply describes the process from which we go from that initial formation to the present day (and into the future).
While evolution and abiogenesis are separate issues, they are not completely unrelated. The fact that evolution is founded on a abiogenesis and that that no plausible explanation for how life first developed on earth is even close to being developed, I would say that proposes a rather embarrassing situation.
Ever hear of forensic science? Since that doesn't deal with repeatable controlled conditions I suppose that's not science either.
You probably want to avoid using an example (forensic science) that is based on the existence of intelligent agency.
"While it the odds are extremely low that two species would have the same copy error by pure chance, it is nearly impossible for the same copy error to exist in multiple species at the same point in the genetic code."
I'm no scientist so I don't know what you are looking for....but I think the odds of life springing from non-life are infinitely lower than anything you state here. Or for that matter imagine.
"pure chance.."
Interesting how you believe the odds are very low for pure chance to occur in this example....
BTW folks it doesn't do any good to snippity(Although I do empathize). If the evo skeptics want to examine the data let's help them do so.
The fact that evolution is founded on a abiogenesis and that that no plausible explanation for how life first developed on earth is even close to being developed, I would say that proposes a rather embarrassing situation.
Evolution has no predication on how the whole ball got rolling. There are plenty of plausible explanations, there just isn't one that is considered good enough to be considered the explanation. Evolution doesn't care if the first life sprung up spontaneously on earth in the ocean, was seeding by a passing comet, planted by aliens or any other explanation. It is only concerned with the development after this moment.
Moderate,
There are plenty of plausible explanations, there just isn't one that is considered good enough to be considered the explanation.
What plausible explanations are you referring to?
Evolution doesn't care if the first life sprung up spontaneously on earth in the ocean, was seeding by a passing comet, planted by aliens or any other explanation. It is only
concerned with the development after this moment.
Sure it does. The theory – or fact – of common descent has as a prerequisite that all life developed from one form. If the aliens seeded the earth with various types of lifeforms then the theory falls apart.
Interesting how you believe the odds are very low for pure chance to occur in this example....
So does that mean you are now in favor of infinite odds working in this case? The "odds" you speak of previously are really the odds that starting from single cellular life you get the current human forms. That is a false set of odds, because it is based on the notion that we had to evolve to this form. This is the form we evolved to, yes. There is nothing that stated we had to get to this point.
As an anology. Get a brand new deck of cards. Shuffle them. Lay them all out. The odds of that sequence occuring is 52*51*50...1 or 52!. That's something on the order of 1:10^67. Yet the odds of you pulling a sequence of cards is 1:1. It's the same for the evolution of modern life on this planet.
The insertion error on the other hand is the case of 1:10^67 in the above analogy. It has to be the exact right sequence in the exact correct place in the genetic code across multiple species. Since there are thousands of such insertions across millions of species, you can see what the problem is.
So please tell me. If you are so down on the odds, how do you believe these exact identical insertion errors occured?
What plausible explanations are you referring to?
I'll present one from the talkorigins.org archive:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
BTW Joe, what are your thoughts on the insertion errors article now that you have a chance to read it. What alternate explanations do you have for this?
Unknown poster: We don't know how likely or how unlikley abiogenesis is. We have only this one sample, and we don't even know the details of how it happened here. So we can't assign an accurate domain of possible permutations and calculate any odds.
For all we know chemosynths permeate the entire universe having developed at some location in the remote past and have been blasted around by impact calving ever since. Or it could have arisen here. Or the Zorc MotherShip may have purged it's sewage tanks on earth billions of years ago. Or it could have been created for everything to provide cheap food for BanderSnatchi to a Divine Plan to produce humans.
Joe is correct that folks who accept evolution lean to abio, but the two fields of study are not the seem at all. Nor are they mutually contingent on one another. I'll gladly stipulate for this thread that the first self replicating molecule on earth was created in situ by any deity you want to advocate if we can concentrate on evolution.
Sure it does. The theory – or fact – of common descent has as a prerequisite that all life developed from one form. If the aliens seeded the earth with various types of lifeforms then the theory falls apart.
Umm, who said the aliens seeded it with multiple life forms? You sidestep the bigger issue anyway. The origin of the first element of life on this planet have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. That comes about after the fact.
Did you know that we don't have the theory of planetary formation fully worked out yet? The latest studies of the gas giants are throwing some kinks into the works. By your above logic, since we can't predict how these planets form we somehow can't predict any properties of these planets at all, let alone predict their motion. The origin is a separate field of study in both cases.
Joe, a priori means prior to experience. Anything derived from experience is not a priori, but a posteriori. Methodological naturalism, as history shows, was developed through experience (people doing actual science and their successes and failures). Methodological naturalism was adopted, as a scientific paradigm, because of its successes, and the failures of methods that admitted non-naturalistic explanations. It is true that most individual scientists do not derive methodological naturalism from their own experience, but are taught it (that's still a posteriori). It is also true that it underlies the work of most scientists, but the fact that it underlies science does not make it a priori. You and Winsome are both wrong, and it's not just Brian Leiter and ol' Spot who disagree with you: all of philosophy does.
Joe originally wrote:
"As these citations make clear, the scientific community has established this point beyond question. Obviously, the line of ancestry from single-cell organisms to humans is so clear that it is considered an established “fact.” If true, I'm more than willing to accept this idea and so propose that we put this issue to rest once and for all."
If you're sincere about this, I suggest you stick to topic and not let yourself get sidetracked on irrelevant issues like the Big Bang or aliens sticking primitive bacteria on the primitive Earth. There are many millions of species currently living on Earth, and common descent states that they they all came from one or a few original progenitors. If it helps to limit the discussion to vertebrates, or simply to humans and chimps, then by all means do so. Please note that it matters not one bit if ontological naturalism is true or not; arguments against naturalism are as irrelevant to common descent as they are to meteorology.
It's a common occurance, and an annoying one at that, to see creationists invoke a strange sort of infinite regress when it comes to common descent. If you say that all organisims are related by geneaology, then they want to know where the first organism came from. If you provide an answer to that, then they want to know where the universe came from. Then they want to know what existed before the Big Bang, and on it goes forever. Those are interesting questions in their own right, but not at all relevant to the original claim, which is that organisms are related by geneaology. IMO, creationists drag things off-topic either because they find common descent unassailable, or more likely, because they aren't interested in common descent as a scientific proposal to begin with. Their interest is in finding a knowledge-gap in which to stick God, and it doesn't seem to matter where that gap is. If common descent is hard to argue against, simply start arguing against something else.
Going back to your original words, it seems as if you are interested in common descent as a scientific proposal. If so, then stick to asking yourself what we should expect to see if common descent is true, and what we should expect to see if it's false. Then ask yourself what we see. Leave the aliens out of it.
Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else. ~ Colin Patterson Evolution (1978) p.133
We must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific (metaphysical) .... Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test. ~ Colin Patterson Evolution (1978) pp.145-146
The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No. ~ Roger Lewin Science November 21 1980 p. 883
In the early days of the Piltdown discovery, Smith Woodward and I had been open antagonists – enemies, I might almost say. As years went by we were gradually, drawn together by two circumstances: he and I never differed as to the genuineness and importance of the discovery made at Piltdown; and we had both the same love and respect for Charles Dawson, the lawyer-antiquarian, the man who discovered the site on Barkham Manor which yielded the fossil remains of Piltdown man. ~ Sir Arthur Keith Autobiography (1950) p.654
Darwinists believe that the mutation-selection mechanism accomplishes wonders of creativity not because the wonders can be demonstrated, but because they cannot think of a more plausible explanation for the existence of wonders that does not involve an unacceptable creator, i.e., a being or force outside the world of nature. ~ Phillip Johnson Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism First Things October 1990
Steve,
If you're sincere about this, I suggest you stick to topic and not let yourself get sidetracked on irrelevant issues like the Big Bang or aliens sticking primitive bacteria on the primitive Earth.
I’m definitely sincere. But I also think that abiogenesis raises obvious problems for the theory of common descent. Obviously, if we do not know if life began as more than one form of species then we cannot claim to trace it back to a common ancestor.
There are many millions of species currently living on Earth, and common descent states that they they all came from one or a few original progenitors. If it helps to limit the discussion to vertebrates, or simply to humans and chimps, then by all means do so.
That certainly sounds reasonable. I think abiogenesis should be saved for another time anyway.
Please note that it matters not one bit if ontological naturalism is true or not; arguments against naturalism are as irrelevant to common descent as they are to meteorology.
Well, we certainly agree on that. If common descent relies on an acceptance of naturalism then it wouldn’t really be science at all.
It's a common occurance, and an annoying one at that, to see creationists invoke a strange sort of infinite regress when it comes to common descent. If you say that all organisims are related by geneaology, then they want to know where the first organism came from. If you provide an answer to that, then they want to know where the universe came from.
I think that if you claim a common descendant from which all other species came then it is a fair question to ask what species you are referring to. If you answer is limited to a certain “end-of-the-line” species for which we cannot tract the theory any further then I think you are right that it is wrong to expect science to go further than that.
I also think, though, that all scientific knowledge should be complementary. If a theory is premised on the claims of another theory then it is reasonable to expect those claims to be defended.
Their interest is in finding a knowledge-gap in which to stick God, and it doesn't seem to matter where that gap is.
True “creationist” don’t need “knowledge gaps” because all creation is directly attributed to God. If common descent is true then it is simply an explanation for how “God did it.”
Going back to your original words, it seems as if you are interested in common descent as a scientific proposal. If so, then stick to asking yourself what we should expect to see if common descent is true, and what we should expect to see if it's false. Then ask yourself what we see. Leave the aliens out of it.
It seems that no matter what topic I post on, the comments eventually stray off course. I wholeheartedly agree that we should stick to the topic at hand. That is why I’m interested in seeing what evidence the advocates of common descent found so compelling. What, for example, was it that convinced you that the theory was well-established?
My car won't start. The starter is broken. How did it happen? How could I find out?
I decide to ask some experts in car repair.
I ask 999 experts in car repair, each of whom looks at my car. According to 990 of them, the broken starter was caused by the use of a defective set of brushes. Ten of them believe it was a defective cable.
I also ask a toaster repair specialist who happens to be a Christian. He tells me that God broke my starter and I should just buy a new starter and not worry about the cable or the brushes but just accept God's plan for my starter.
The rational person who wants to prevent another broken starter replaces the brushes and maybe the cable as well.
The fundamentalist Christian spends a lot of time praying in his car that won't start.
Joe,
That is why I’m interested in seeing what evidence the advocates of common descent found so compelling.
I'm interested in your opinion on the common insertion errors across multiple species. In the referenced site particularly chimpanzees and humans. What do you find uncompelling about that one piece of evidence?
"What, for example, was it that convinced you that the theory was well-established?"
Joe, one piece of compelling evidence is the fact that the relationships between DNA sequences correlate very well with the phylogenetic relationships proposed by evolutionary biologists long before it was determined that DNA encodes our genes.
It's just one piece of evidence, mind you.
"I think that if you claim a common descendant from which all other species came then it is a fair question to ask what species you are referring to."
Whatever it was, Joe, it was certainly very tiny and simple. You know, bacteria-like. Go dig up some articles by Carl Woese or Norman Pace. They've thought a lot about this.
Someone above quote Phillip Johnson, who is a raving lunatic and knows diddly about evolutionary biology. Phil says, "Darwinists believe that the mutation-selection mechanism accomplishes wonders of creativity not because the wonders can be demonstrated, but because they cannot think of a more plausible explanation for the existence of wonders that does not involve an unacceptable creator, i.e., a being or force outside the world of nature."
I'm sure that I'm a "Darwinist" according to Phil. And he's right that I can't think up a more plausible explanation for the diversity of life on earth observed on earth today and in the past. But I certainly can think of a force or being outside the world of nature to explain the observations. The force is called murphradite, and it flows from Ploink Ploink, a giant space bat who lives on the edge of the Universe. Ploink Ploink controls everything and created all the life on earth, just as you see it, and all the fossils, too, about 1,000,034 years ago. Among other feats, it is well known that Ploink Ploink destroyed Jesus and God shortly after the 2000 elections. So there you go. It's not "science," of course, because Ploink Ploink is the most super of supernatural beings. On the other hand, like a lot of supernatural theories, it's bulletproof. Too bad about God and Jesus, though. The Christian creationists will surely be disappointed by this news.
I’m definitely sincere. But I also think that abiogenesis raises obvious problems for the theory of common descent. Obviously, if we do not know if life began as more than one form of species then we cannot claim to trace it back to a common ancestor.
Again, I don't see it as relevant. Tracing common descent is a backwards extrapolation, not a forward one. We start with organisms we know are related by geneaology -- us -- and note that the further back in time we share common ancestry, the more different we are morphologically, and genetically. Common descent is merely extrapolating this fact backwards to successively higher taxonomic categories, starting with apes, then primates, then mammals, etc. The logical end is that we get to an orignal common ancestor that was the progenitor of all life. But notice it doesn't matter if there's one or several original ancestors, the relatedness of subsequent progengy remains the same. So if you want to inquire about common descent, start with present day and work your way backwards. If you're starting with abiogenesis, you're at the wrong end of the evidence.
I think that if you claim a common descendant from which all other species came then it is a fair question to ask what species you are referring to. If you answer is limited to a certain “end-of-the-line” species for which we cannot tract the theory any further then I think you are right that it is wrong to expect science to go further than that.
Well that's about the case -- the first species would have been a primitive bacterium, or a community of gene-sharing bacteria, or something like that. The evidence from that period of Earth history is too fuzzy to know with any degree of certainty. But they would not have been the same as modern bacteria. Still, it doesn't have any bearing on whether humans and chimps share a common ancestor, for example.
True “creationist” don’t need “knowledge gaps” because all creation is directly attributed to God. If common descent is true then it is simply an explanation for how “God did it.”
I agree, but most so-called creationists do not. Many creationists, not just the YECs but also the IDists like Philip Johnson, argue that if we have an explanation for the origin of humans, etc. that doesn't require God's "explicit" (read supernatural) action, then God is superfluous and can be disregarded. It sounds rather unsophisticated to me, but it makes sense in the context of their broader socio-political agenda.
It seems that no matter what topic I post on, the comments eventually stray off course. I wholeheartedly agree that we should stick to the topic at hand. That is why I’m interested in seeing what evidence the advocates of common descent found so compelling. What, for example, was it that convinced you that the theory was well-established?
Earlier, I linked to a comprehensive article that covers most of the evidence for common descent. In isolation, each piece of evidence is strongly suggestive but not necessarily convincing. But taken together, the evidence is overwhelmingly powerful and cannot be explained away without a tremendous amount of ad hoc rationalizing. Here is the article again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave now and get back to doing some work.
Joe writes
"If the aliens seeded the earth with various types of lifeforms then the theory falls apart."
The statement in quotes is dead wrong, of course. The aliens could have seeded the earth with hundreds of different "types" of "lifeforms." And they all could have vanished because they were unfit for life here on Earth. Except for one species. The one we are descended from.
That's just one possible way "out" of the "dilemma", one which took me about five seconds to figure out.
Seriously, though, this alien theory is just plain boring. Even 3rd season episodes of the Original Star Trek theories have better plots.
Darwinism is a theory. Evolution is a fact.
Joe writes:
"If common descent is true then it is simply an explanation for how “God did it.”
Sure. Whatever. You are entitled to your religious beliefs, Joe. It's the creationists who imply (or just come right out and say) that scientists are a bunch of Kool-Aid drinking fact-ignoring morons with a "materialist agenda" that are the problem. That makes about as much sense as flying airplanes into skyscapers because "that's what God wants."
Joe what convinced me was a process. When I was young, about ten or so, I read science books and when day (when I was of all things shooting off firecrackers) it hit me almost out of the blue. I'd seen evolution presented before, but I didn't understand the selective mechanism. It hit me then, dunno why it happened at that time and place.
Anyway once it made sense to me it was simply a matter of looking at the evidence.
Formally it was my physical anthro and later human and primate origins classes in college that were pretty damn convincing. I held the casts of fossil hominids and pongid-like miocene precursors in my hands and learned the diagnostic traits which paleoanthroplogists have discerned. It was pretty cool. It's very detailed. And not something which can be laid out in ten easy lessons on a Blog.
Then biology linked up the physiology and osteology, geology linked up the time periods, and it went from there.
The reason I accept evolution is because
1) it makes sense
2) The evidence is immense and interlocking
3) Credibility-Even on the many lines of evidence I can't personally verify and don't fully appreciate, guys like Steve Reuland, Ed Brayton, PZ Myers and many others involved in the issue and in the respective fields of science, have never, ever, lied to me-not once Joe-in any field of science I've checked up on. Every single creationist and IDCist I've ever checked up on has lied or distorted science in a major and unmistakable way.
Interestingly, it was the latter hobby of discussing it with creationists that gave me the more rounded basic knowledge of evolutionary biology I hold today. There are many scientific facts underlying evolutionary biology and related fields I would have never even heard of had it not been for this controversy.
Winsome, while the Earth is, in a sense, in an open system with solar radiation, that energy is not in a useful patterned form. It is already highly entropic. The real question is where the *code* written on the DNA, and not part of the substance or essence of DNA, came from.
Mr. Moderate:7:07, from the titles given, you are talking about the loss of information in mammals, and the possible, but unproven transfer of bacterial DNA to Tetrahymena thermophila. Not the increase in the information content - the linguistic code written on the DNA.
One needs to remember how very little we know about the code on the DNA, and possibly other locations in the living cell. What has been disregarded as 'junk DNA' because it did not look like a known protein template has begun (as I predicted) to show its utility. Insertion errors might be such, or they might be useful code that we just don't understand yet.
How does one differentiate between code similarities obtained from common descent and code similarities due to design and code re-use?
As I had posted on an earlier thread, as a Christian I have the "freedom" to believe in evolution or not. God can create however He wants. However, the naturalists are forced into believing in evolution until something better comes along.
I'll be perfectly happy to believe in it if it can be proven or substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt (that's what Joe is saying too). I'll be the first to admit I'm not a scientist, but I have a real problem with evolution because it doesn't make sense to me. Mr. Moderate's question is the first piece of evidence I've seen presented on this post, (and precious little elsewhere), and there may be a rational explanation for it.
I look forward to hearing the evidence from the evolutionists (sincerely). References to scientific articles don't help--I don't have time to wade through those things. If your position is credible, summarize the key evidence in laymens terms. After all, juries are made up of ordinary people like me.
BTW, another arguement against evolution is the knowledge from breeding that species stay true to type. A species may vary in color, beak size, etc, but variation beyond some built-in limits results in damage to the species. Species naturally revert back to their norm. This would seem to argue against evolution.
From what I understand, that is what is seen in the fossil record as well. The sudden appearance of new species--not gradual changes.
"What has been disregarded as 'junk DNA' because it did not look like a known protein template has begun (as I predicted) to show its utility."
The arrogance is breathtaking.
First, noncoding regions of repetitive DNA were never "disregarded" by "scientists" (maybe some scientists felt it was more important to study the coding regions, or at least it was EASIER to do, so that's what they focused on -- they certainly made a lot of progress taking that approach so it's hard to fault them).
Furthermore, it is SCIENTISTS (and NOT creationists) who have made ALL the discoveries relating to the function of so-called "junk" DNA. And I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but SCIENTISTS were right about the fact that most of the non-coding repetitive "junk" DNA in the genomes of multicellular animals does NOT code for proteins (as predicted based on the genetic code, which was also discovered and characterized by SCIENTISTS).
And your last question is just another ID creationist joke, right puzzled? Seriously, puzzled, since you "predicted" the functions of so-called "junk" DNA, why don't YOU tell scientists how to determine whether a previously unknown DNA sequence was "designed" by an "intelligent" entity or not. I'm sure Phillip Johnson would be very proud of you if you could accomplish that because thus far his lackeys Behe and Dembski haven't been able to explain donkey doodoo.
Yo, DAC, you say you can't understand evolution and that it doesn't "make sense to you"? Too bad.
Do you dismiss the scientific explanations for everything you can't understand, or just evolution?
You say that "juries are made up of ordinary people like me." Yeah, they are. And the reason we have juries and trials to achieve a quick RESOLUTION to disputes.
That is quite different from science. In science, you have thousands of thousands of people who are not "ordinary" == they are specialized EXPERTS. And they have all the time in the world to collect data and make observations and propose theories to explain the observations and test those theories. Insofar as scientists can be equated to a jury, the "jury" has long ago reached its verdict: life on earth evolved and mutation and natural selection and genetic drift are the driving "forces" which explain how evolution occurred. Only a tiny tiny fraction of scientists dispute this. Why do you have a problem with it? Oh yeah, you're a Christian and one of your pseudo-philosopher "leaders" told you that you should feel threatened by these scientists. Some advice for you: use the brain that "God gave to you."
You also wrote:
"Species naturally revert back to their norm. "
This is nonsense. Meaningless. You don't know what you're talking about. How can you admit on one hand that you don't understand the scientific facts relating to evolution and then cite an argument "against evolution"???? How can you argue against something that you admit does not "make sense" to you and that you obviously know nothing about except what you've read on Christian websites? Clearly evolution makes a LOT of sense to the thousands upon thousands of professionals (many of whom are also Christians) who spend (and have spent)their lives collecting data and making observations and which are entirely CONSISTENT with evolution by natural selection and genetic drift.
Dac you have to visualize it forward over many generations. And naturally it helps if you're not rejecting it consciously.
I dunno where you're at education wise so I don't know where to start trying to outline it to you.
Try starting with a machine, a widget. Imagine the widget does one thing only, it uses materials around it to make copies of itself. Play around with that in your head for a bit.
Yesterday I stood in the exhibit hall at the Denver Botanic Gardens waiting for my grandson to emerge from the john. The display in front of me indicated that fig trees, of which this was a twenty-five foot specimen, had small flowers that needed fertilizing help from miniature wasps, and that each fig tree species each had its own wasp. The wasps were specific to the tree they served. No substitutes.
I am a simple man. How does a tree which requires a certain wasp and a wasp that requires a certain tree "evolve"? The common approach, indicated by this discussion, is that since all possibility of creation is to be banned from serious consideration, then the figs and wasps had a very complex genesis, which may have included links between species that are now extinct. Makes the problem go away, doesn't it? When the strictures of epistemic naturalism are firmly in place, anything that is not a cause and effect chain is a disallowed explanation. When people like me ask "why", we are either derided, like Mr Lord has done here, or talked down to as fundamentalists, or dismissed out of hand. The alternative is to appreciate the controversy and consider alternatives. Unthinkable, and untidy to dogmatists, but more intellectually honest I feel.
DS--Part of the the problem with your widget analogy is that any widget I have ever seen was designed and built by someone. It is hard for me, as an engineer to imagine some randomly selected raw material somehow coming together into a machine (an organic machine in this example) and then being able to become self-replicating with no outside interference.
I am a simple man. How does a tree which requires a certain wasp and a wasp that requires a certain tree "evolve"?
Quite simply, they evolve together. Small changes in the shape of the tube which allows the wasp access are accompanied by compensatory changes in the morphology of the wasp. Given that fig trees are dependent on wasps and vice versa, it makes sense that as the fig trees speciated, the wasps would speciate right along with them.
Coevolution between pollinator and flower are quite common, as it's to many plants' advantage to specialize in one or a few pollinators. An interesting case is with certain species of butterflies and tubular flowers that they get their nectar from. The flowers over time have gotten longer, which only allows the butterflies with the longest tounges access. The butterflies have evolved accordingly, so that now the butterflies' tounges are ridiculously long, which allows them to reach down the tubes of flowers that are also ridiculously long. Both the butterfly and the plant are dependent on each other. It's to their advantage to evolve in this fashion, because it guarantees the flowers a pollinator, and it also guarantees the butterfly a food source. Neither one has to compete with other species.
It's a very simple and compelling application of evolutionary principles to ecology.
Kevin writes,
"When the strictures of epistemic naturalism are firmly in place, anything that is not a cause and effect chain is a disallowed explanation."
I could care less about "epistemic naturalism", Kevin. If you want supernatural explanations for anything you don't understand or that can't be presented to you with videographic evidence, then why don't you just ASK for supernatural explanations. I've got a million different supernatural explanations for you, all queued up and ready to roll. I had no idea you were so curious. I might even throw Jesus into the mix if you'd prefer that (although Ploink Ploink might get upset).
"When people like me ask "why", we are either derided, like Mr Lord has done here, or talked down to as fundamentalists, or dismissed out of hand."
I didn't "deride" anyone for asking "why", Kevin, so I don't know what you are talking about. I derided someone for pretending that evolutionary biology wasn't supported by a mountain of evidence and for imagining that if something can't be explained with crystal clarity to "ordinary" people that somehow makes it less likely to be true. Such charlatans and fakers deserve to be derided. They do a disservice to the millions of scientists, many of whom are Christians, who dedicate to their lives to learning about the world. It's called "using their brains". You know: the brain that "God gave you." The discoveries made by scientists have led to cures for diseases that kill our mothers and children.
Have creationists made any discoveries in the last hundred years that you'd like to share with us, Kevin? Can you point us to any beneficial advances in medicine or technology that rely on supernatural explanations, Kevin?
By the way, let me know if your Viagra prescription has run out. I've got some cheap powdered Bigfoot penis that I'm told is a great substitute.
"It is hard for me, as an engineer to imagine some randomly selected raw material somehow coming together into a machine (an organic machine in this example) and then being able to become self-replicating with no outside interference."
Rob, this is the "argument from incredulity" and it doesn't address evolution from a common ancestor. It address abiogenesis, which is an entirely different area. Read what Norm Pace and Carl Woese and others have to say. They have some interesting theories (and perhaps better imaginations than you).
Oh and just a footnote before someone gets all worked up: I'll be the first to admit that Woese and Pace have better imaginations than I do, at least with respect to the evolution of life on earth.
What's more likely?
Jesus Christ was killed, buried, and rose from the dead proving his deity to hundreds of eye witnesses...
Or
Life sprang from non-life proving we're monkey parents of slime bound by a moral conscience.
Rob my hope was to initiate an analogy which Dac could build on to get a handle on iteration and selection. If you wish to assume the 'widget' is a result of human engineering, or natural proccesses, it shouldn't affect the lesson I hope to flesh out using that example.
Well, wouldn't Jesus' decaying corpse springing to life BE an example of life springing from non-life?
LL--I am sure I don't have to point that there has been a litte drift in the topic. I do note that you mention that Woese and Pace are using there imaginations WRT to the origins of life on earth. In engineering we call that a SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess)
I should point out that only engineers and scientists can make a SWAG. The rest of you are restricted to WAGs.
I also ask a toaster repair specialist who happens to be a Christian. He tells me that God broke my starter and I should just buy a new starter and not worry about the cable or the brushes but just accept God's plan for my starter.
This is nonsense. Meaningless. You don't know what you're talking about.
Phillip Johnson, who is a raving lunatic
which took me about five seconds to figure out.
By the way, let me know if your Viagra prescription has run out. I've got some cheap powdered Bigfoot penis that I'm told is a great substitute.
The arrogance is breathtaking.
I agree.
Larry wrote:
"Furthermore, it is SCIENTISTS (and NOT creationists) who have made ALL the discoveries relating to the function of so-called "junk" DNA."
Larry, why on earth do you assume scientists and creationists to be mutually exclusive? The are hardcore ideologues on both sides but that does not mean that everyone has to pick one of these two camps in which to park their beliefs. As stated several times by several people, evolution and abiogenesis are two separate issues. Therefore, it is illogical to exclude CREATIONISTS (defined by