Annoying creationists

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The point is that evolution is too good at accounting for observations - in other words, it has large elements of vacuity and can explain too many things - and it is not good enough at predicting them - in other words it is not tested because, across many observational domains, it does not make testable predictions.

Perhaps you're thinking of predictions as "predicting the future."

Evolutionary theory and predictions:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177.html

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1276062

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8248(197312)40:4<518:FPOET>2.0.CO;2-3

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/fisinfo/fisinfo.html

http://wilstar.com/evolution/predictions.html

http://www.mbari.org/seminars/2000/Fall2000/oct18_reznick.html

And try a PubMed search, too.

~~ Paul

 

[joobz]

Apart from the unnecessary Mickey taking I basically agree with the things you say but I think your slant is inappropriately kind to the evolutionary side. The point is that evolution is too good at accounting for observations - in other words, it has large elements of vacuity and can explain too many things - and it is not good enough at predicting them - in other words it is not tested because, across many observational domains, it does not make testable predictions.

There are a lot theories that hold true, but are hard to use as a predictor.

Navier-stokes equation describes (We are nearly 100% certain) fluid flow in all systems. Yet prediction of turbulence is still not possible. Does this mean that the equation is wrong?

If that is the worst critique to leverage at evolution, then you really have no argument.

 

[delphi_ote]

1. I was discussing evolution not the melting point of water or the distance to the stars.

All of the above are scientific facts measured and observed time and time again. Ironically, I'd say there's probably a larger body of diverse types of corroborating evidence for evolution than the other two these days.

2. You want an example. OK, Behe, in Darwin's Balck Box, points out that you can stroll around almost any biological system and find phenomena that have not been explained by evolution.

You can look inside any complex system and find phenomena that have not been explained by gravity, too. This phrasing is intellectually bankrupt.

Here's one, tell me where genes come from.

Toledo? I have no idea what you're asking here. It's clear from the way you've phrased your question that you don't either. Are you asking how genes evolve, how protein structures form, what genes are composed of, what process creates them? Since you've asked with the vocabulary of a five year old demanding answers, your query is a mystery to me.

You need to have more respect for the very process of asking questions. If you are ignorant, challenging someone with your ignorance is worthless to both parties. If you think I'm being unfair, ask yourself exactly the same question about water and see if you can completely answer with the same amount of evidence and detail you'd expect here. Make sure you're pedantic about every single step in the process. I expect you'll have to work out Schrödinger wave equation at some point in the process.

You'll have to come down off your high horse if you want to discuss where genes "come from."

I do know that a lot of evolutionary stories are virtually unevidenced.

Point to the "many" that are.

 

[Myriad]

Again with the "evolution does not make testable predictions" argument?

Science uses observations, and theories based on those observations, to make predictions of future observations. Predictions of future observations need not be predictions of the observation of future events.

Let's repeat that in boldface: Predictions of future observations need not be predictions of the observation of future events.

For instance, astronomers predicted the obsevation of Neptune and then Pluto in certain orbits, based on observed deviations from the expected orbits of the already known planets. Those were predictions. Even though, obviously, the planets were there the whole time.

Similarly, the theory of evolution makes many predictions of future observations:

- That additional creatures with mosaics of features of already known species will be discovered in the fossil record, adding to the many already discovered.

- That further genetic discoveries will be made confirming common ancestry of species that are distinct species in the present day, such as more examples of common retroviral remnants and common nonfatal non-adaptive features.

- That occurrences of genetic "convergence" between species of differing genetic lineage will be found to be limited to what would be expected based on probability, the selective value of the convergent genes, and extraneous sources of interspecies gene transfer.

- That organisms associated with different geological eras (which were known long before the theory of evolution was proposed) will never be found sharing the same stratum, consistent with the organisms having lived during different time periods. A minnow will never be found in a fossil bed with a trilobyte.

- That future measurements of genetic homology between species will continue to show a hierarchical structure consistent with common descent (with the possible exception of simpler microorganisms in which the next effects of horizontal gene transfer might possibly be more significant in generating the genome than inheritance). For example, if A is more similar to B and C than to D is more similar to A than to B, D cannot also be more similar to B and C than to A. (Whereas, if you're designing genomes without any need for common descent, it's trivially easy* to design four genomes A, B, C, and D which can be arranged at the corners of a square, each being more similar to the two adjacent genomes than to the diagonally opposite one. When designing a large number of genomes, such nonhierarchical patterns would arise over and over again unless the designer made a considerable deliberate effort to avoid them -- for what reason? The existence of such nonhierarchical patterns of gentic similarity would rule out common descent and thus the theory of evolution.)

That last one is pretty conclusive in favor of evolution, based on what's been measured so far. If you want to convince anyone that genomes were designed, you have to either show nonhierarchical patterns of genetic similarity among earth's species, or give a plausible reason why such a hierarchical pattern of relationships would exist among a bunch of designed genomes, other than that the designer was being deliberately deceptive in creating the appearance of common descent. (Why that last limitation? Because if you've got a deceptive designer of unknown powers, face it, you're never going to be able to find any evidence confirming or falsifying any proposition about that designer, so in that case "the designer is deceptive" is the last and only thing that ID "science" could ever discover.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

*Here's an example:

genome A: CCAG ------ genome B: ACTG

genome D: CAAA ------ genome C: AATA

Each differs from its two adjacent genomes at two positions, but from its diagonally opposite genome at all four positions. Thus no hierarchical relationship can be established among them. That situations like aren't prevalent throughout earth's genomes indicates either common descent, or a designer trying to make it look like there was.

 

[joobz]

However, the probability of a good mutation occurring at a particular locus very quickly approaches 1 and further increases in population no longer increase this probability by significant amounts.

Can you show your calculations for this. Define "very quickly" followed by a definition for "significant amounts."

Dr. Kitten's stated that as pop---> infinity, generation to form binding site ----> 1. How do you go from this to population doesn't increase rate of binding site evolution? Your explanation doesn't seem to connect well.
provide your calculations to explain this because I'm completely missing it.

 

[John Hewitt]

1 - You claimed that the beliefs of scientists have some kind of effect on their findings. You were given good examples showing this claim to be invalid. Don't try to move the goalposts.

2 - You stated that creationist claims were unanswered. You were asked to provide an example of an unanswered creationist claim. What you provided above is not a creationist claim - it is a question. Don't try to move the goalposts.

3 - Oh, look - another unsupported claim. What is an 'evolutionary story'?

PS. Behe thoroughly discredited himself with his testimony at the Dover trial. You might want to look elsewhere for reference material.

Huh?

I do not know why you are asking me about creationism, my work does not come into that category.

I have pointed out to you that most criticism of evolutionary theory comes from a creationist perspective and that you are more likely to improve evolutionary theory by thinking about those criticisms rather than just ranting about them. I did read Behe's book and I found it better than you seem to think it is - which is not the same as saying agree with his general position. He does argue that one can stroll around the architecture of any cell and find components that were clearly designed. Adaptively designed, I would argue, intelligently designed he would argue, but certainly designed.

What he is saying, what I do agree with and am repeating to you, is that evolutionary theory, which labours under the misnomer of the "modern synthesis" provides not one sensible jot of explanation for their origin.

I have not moved any goalposts, I am trying to get people to understand that there is a difference between "the theory that evolution happened," which is not disputed by me and "a theoretical description for how evolution happened or got started." From a purely scientific perspective, I am not at all happy with those theories. In my opinion, those popularly expounded theories are largely vacuous and basically obsolete.

What I did, in response to your suggestion and Behe's was to stroll into a cell and pluck out an object - the gene. Not, I admit, a random choice but still the gene has clearly been designed - adaptively designed I would argue, intelligently designed Behe would argue.

Now, please, don't spout still more evidence that evolution happened - I already know that. I even know how evolution can lead to adaptive design. Tell me instead, since you seem to believe it, how evolutionary theory can validly be based on genes, when genes themselves have obviously been subject to prior design.

 

[Yahzi]

I do not know why you are asking me about creationism, my work does not come into that category.

...

Tell me instead, since you seem to believe it, how evolutionary theory can validly be based on genes, when genes themselves have obviously been subject to prior design.

So you think genes were designed, but you're not a creationist.

Riiiiight.

Anyway, the answer is pretty simple; genes have not been subject to prior design. This is obvious to anyone who studies genes.

 

[tsig]

I do not know why you are asking me about creationism, my work does not come into that category.

I have pointed out to you that most criticism of evolutionary theory comes from a creationist perspective and that you are more likely to improve evolutionary theory by thinking about those criticisms rather than just ranting about them. I did read Behe's book and I found it better than you seem to think it is - which is not the same as saying agree with his general position. He does argue that one can stroll around the architecture of any cell and find components that were clearly designed. Adaptively designed, I would argue, intelligently designed he would argue, but certainly designed.

What he is saying, what I do agree with and am repeating to you, is that evolutionary theory, which labours under the misnomer of the "modern synthesis" provides not one sensible jot of explanation for their origin.

I have not moved any goalposts, I am trying to get people to understand that there is a difference between "the theory that evolution happened," which is not disputed by me and "a theoretical description for how evolution happened or got started." From a purely scientific perspective, I am not at all happy with those theories. In my opinion, those popularly expounded theories are largely vacuous and basically obsolete.

What I did, in response to your suggestion and Behe's was to stroll into a cell and pluck out an object - the gene. Not, I admit, a random choice but still the gene has clearly been designed - adaptively designed I would argue, intelligently designed Behe would argue.

Now, please, don't spout still more evidence that evolution happened - I already know that. I even know how evolution can lead to adaptive design. Tell me instead, since you seem to believe it, how evolutionary theory can validly be based on genes, when genes themselves have obviously been subject to prior design.

Designer genes!

How can you tell the genes are designed?

Can yourecognize design because you are designed?

Circularity.

 

[John Hewitt]

Designer genes!

How can you tell the genes are designed?

Can yourecognize design because you are designed?

Circularity.

Please take this as an answer to Yahzi also.

It is obvious and also universally agreed that all livings things have been the subject of design. At issue, in the dispute between creationsim and evolution is whether that content of design arises from the intervention of an intelligent agent or from adaptive design by a process of evolutionary selection.

The point I am making is
1. That modern evolutionary theory takes the gene as its fundamental concept.
2. That genes, like organisms have plainly been the subject of design - either intelligent design or adaptive design.
3. That if modern evolutionary theory is correctly constructed the gene precedes evolution. Therefore the content of design present in the gene could not have arisen from adaptation.
4. That the implication is either
a. the gene was intelligently designed or
b. modern evolutionary theory is not correctly constructed.

Myself, I favour option b, combined with a greater level of humility on the part of evolutionary theorists.

 

[kjkent1]

Please take this as an answer to Yahzi also.

It is obvious and also universally agreed that all livings things have been the subject of design. At issue, in the dispute between creationsim and evolution is whether that content of design arises from the intervention of an intelligent agent or from adaptive design by a process of evolutionary selection.

The point I am making is
1. That modern evolutionary theory takes the gene as its fundamental concept.
2. That genes, like organisms have plainly been the subject of design - either intelligent design or adaptive design.
3. That if modern evolutionary theory is correctly constructed the gene precedes evolution. Therefore the content of design present in the gene could not have arisen from adaptation.
4. That the implication is either
a. the gene was intelligently designed or
b. modern evolutionary theory is not correctly constructed.

Myself, I favour option b, combined with a greater level of humility on the part of evolutionary theorists.

Many complex molecules arise environmentally without any apparent intelligent intervention, so why can't self-replicating RNA/DNA arise similarly?

Is there some universal law which bars this outcome?

 

[Yahzi]

It is obvious and also universally agreed that all livings things have been the subject of design.

No, it is not.

It is inappropriate to describe the product of selection as "designed." While it is not random, it is not designed, either. Blurring this distinction only confuses the issue.

The point I am making is
1. That modern evolutionary theory takes the gene as its fundamental concept.

And you're wrong, at the very first point.

Biological evolutionary theory takes the gene as its fundamental concept. This is because biology is only interested in things that have genes.

The concept of evolution applies to any system with random mutation and a selection effect. It works perfectly well when writing computer programs (even though they are called "genetic algorthims" they don't actually have genes), and it works when applied to self-replicating chemical systems.

Myself, I favour option b, combined with a greater level of humility on the part of evolutionary theorists.

Like all theists, you have attempted to define your way to victory. Believing that the definition you give words affects and determines reality is the opposite of humility.

 

[joobz]

It is obvious and also universally agreed that all livings things have been the subject of design.

Not to get pedantic, but how are you using "design" here? Typically, design implies some sort of creative force driving outcome. I would not consider the autonomous following of simple, natural rules as "designed". Do you consider the spray pattern from a paintball as "designed"? It, too, follows prescribed force/momentum balances.

3. That if modern evolutionary theory is correctly constructed the gene precedes evolution. Therefore the content of design present in the gene could not have arisen from adaptation.

There is no reason to believe this. Complementary features can arise in concert and not require a sequential formation. For instance, Red/Ox pairs. Do you have to reduce something prior to oxidizing something else?

EDIT: Yahzi beat me too this critique.

 

[delphi_ote]

Tell me instead, since you seem to believe it, how evolutionary theory can validly be based on genes, when genes themselves have obviously been subject to prior design.

I see you're still challenging us with your ignorance. Your question still makes no sense. It's gibberish. Genes are molecules. Are you contending that the formation of these molecules is not adequately explained by science and invoking your designer before the process of evolution started? Is your argument "God made the genes and evolution acted on them."?

What you think is a clever attempt to sneak under the radar by pretending not to be a creationist isn't working out is it? If you would just start being honest with us, we could correct whatever misconceptions you have.

 

[Yahzi]

Yahzi beat me...

Three of my favorite words.

 

[fishbob]

It is obvious and also universally agreed that all livings things have been the subject of design. At issue, in the dispute between creationsim and evolution is whether that content of design arises from the intervention of an intelligent agent or from adaptive design by a process of evolutionary selection.

Quite a twisted and tortured definition for 'design' you have there. Poor thing.

Deliberate confusion instead of communication is another common creationist characteristic.

Just so's you know.

 

[John Hewitt]

I see you're still challenging us with your ignorance. Your question still makes no sense. It's gibberish. Genes are molecules. Are you contending that the formation of these molecules is not adequately explained by science and invoking your designer before the process of evolution started? Is your argument "God made the genes and evolution acted on them."?

What you think is a clever attempt to sneak under the radar by pretending not to be a creationist isn't working out is it? If you would just start being honest with us, we could correct whatever misconceptions you have.

Genes are molecules? Go read a book.

 

[John Hewitt]

Many complex molecules arise environmentally without any apparent intelligent intervention, so why can't self-replicating RNA/DNA arise similarly?

Is there some universal law which bars this outcome?

There is no evidence that RNA/DNA has any self-replicating ability.

 

[John Hewitt]

Biological evolutionary theory takes the gene as its fundamental concept. This is because biology is only interested in things that have genes.

The concept of evolution applies to any system with random mutation and a selection effect. It works perfectly well when writing computer programs (even though they are called "genetic algorthims" they don't actually have genes), and it works when applied to self-replicating chemical systems.

When I said "living thing" I thought maybe it might be clear that we were talking about biological evolution.
I am perfectly familiar with other forms of evolution. Now, please, since genes are clearly not the general foundation of evolutionary theory, tell me why Dawkins keeps telling us that it is.

 

[John Hewitt]

Not to get pedantic, but how are you using "design" here?

Why not, pedantry seems to be the only level of discussion round here. I was hoping for an intelligent discussion but I am clearly not going to get it.

 

[delphi_ote]

Genes are molecules? Go read a book.

Still trying to pummel us with your ignorance? It's not going to work. Hint: DNA and RNA are molecules.

A gene is the unit of heredity in every living organism. Genes are encoded in an organism's genome, composed of DNA or RNA, and direct the physical development and behavior of the organism. Most genes encode proteins, which are biological macromolecules comprising linear chains of amino acids that affect most of the chemical reactions carried out by the cell. Some genes do not encode proteins, but produce non-coding RNA molecules that play key roles in protein biosynthesis and gene regulation. Molecules that result from gene expression, whether RNA or protein, are collectively known as gene products.

If they aren't composed of molecules, what do you contend a genes are?