Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[PixyMisa]

Well, yes. ID brings biology essentially into the same realm as archeology -- trying to predict the behavior of intelligent entities in order to figure out why they did what they did, and what else they might have done. And just like no amount of Achaean excavation will ever allow us to understand their culture perfectly, no amount of information about known designs will ever give perfect predictions as to what other designs may be found.

Except that people actually build cities.

It's generally going to be easier to predict unintelligent actors than intelligent actors, but that doesn't mean that a theory that an intelligent actor is involved is therefore either completely useless or unscientific.

Except that ID is completely useless and unscientific.

 

[A'isha]

You may ask, well, so what. Of course, assuming a constant rate of mutation and so the molecular clock was a stupid idea, and it was being reflective of NeoDarwinian simplistic thinking.

It was not, however, reflective of thinking in the Synthetic Model, which has always been wary of the molecular clock hypothesis, and (once again) contrary to your assertions, scientists have been fully aware of all the problems in it.

As a result, the molecular clock hypothesis only has limited application for investigating the Synthetic Model, used mainly in the specialized field of molecular phylogenetics. In other words, it's flaws are well known, and so it's used cautiously as an adjunct to help with cladistics, and it's certainly not the basis of any of the framework of the Synthetic Model.

Even the paper that your creationist website claims is evidence for how "NeoDarwinism" is falling apart as long-believed things are abandoned is false. See the sentence where it says "Here, we propose that these innovations represent welcome progress towards obtaining reliable dates from the molecular clock"?

It says progress towards obtaining reliable dates because the paper's authors are well aware that the dates are unreliable, and the paper is about discoveries they've made which would make the molecular clock reliable enough to provide accurate dating.

The most promising
approaches for analysis, such as that of Drummond
et al. [21], allow for uncertainty in the dates attributed to
calibration points and do not impose unproven assumptions
about the pattern in clock-rate variation among
lineages. Some pressing questions remain, many of which
are not theoretical problems but require empirical investigation.
If the substitution rates turn out to be autocorrelated
after all, or if they are predictable from the biology of
the species, then it should prove possible to exploit this
knowledge.

For the moment, we need to determine the precision of
clock-based date estimates when realistic errors are specified
for the dates of calibration points and when appropriate
allowance is made for the existence of rate variation.
By combining information from many species, the recently
developed Bayesian methods enable the extent and pattern
of the clock-rate variation to be roughly characterised,
and allowed for. When the information is available, the
inclusion of additional calibration points to the analysis
should therefore produce more accurate clock-base dates,
but it remains to be seen whether they will be more precise
(e.g. have reduced standard errors).

But evos roundly and severely derided Denton as wrong.

Because he was, about a whole lot of things. Really basic things, too.

The molecular clock has very little to do with why Denton is so roundly derided.

If evos had honestly and objectively considered Denton's arguments, they might have seen that their ideas on the molecular clock were premature, but typically evos maintain a dogmatic orthodox approach in order to silence their critics and so continued in their error when the ID theorist, in this matter, was correct.

As even a cursory reading of the cited paper shows, Denton's arguments have absolutely zip to do with theirs. So listening to Denton certainly wouldn't have helped them.

Tomoko Ohta's "Nearly Neutral Theory of Evolution" of 1993, cited in the paper mentioned at that creationist website, actually contradicts Denton's claim by confirming that amino acids show the very similar substitution rate across lineages with wildly divergent generation lengths (Denton, remember, said they should show equally wildly different substitution rates).

Instead, it's DNA-sequence data that is affected most by generation size, and therefore the thing that shows so much variation among lineages (and, therefore, the reason why the molecular clock is so unreliable, contrary to Denton's claims about it).

Here's the relevant part of the paper, conveniently unquoted by your creationist website in their effort to whitewash and redeem Denton's ridiculous book:

In fact, Ohta [5] found that generation-time effects are
more apparent in DNA-sequence data than in comparisons
of amino-acid sequence. She explained this pattern with
her Nearly-Neutral extension of Kimura’s theory (Box 1),
which argues that substitution rates can be elevated in
small populations by the fixation of mildly deleterious
mutations, and that this effect, among others [6–8], can
compensate for longer generation times. Mutations are
more likely to be deleterious if they are amino-acid changing
(i.e. non-synonymous), hence the compensation
between population size and generation time might be
more effective for amino-acid sequences than for DNA.
The fundamental principles associated with theNearly
Neutral Theory mean that the rate of the molecular clock
is known to vary between evolutionary lineages, and that
it does so in a way that is not precisely predictable,
although broad trends might be anticipated.

Wonder why they left that out of your link, there.

So even on something where you'd think most evos (and there were some) would be more cautious than insisting the molecular clock was valid because it was part of a defense of evolutionism, they plunged ahead just as they did with Haeckel, recapitulation, evolution only through a change in allele frequency, depicting a fully terrestrial animal as a swimming whale, insisting years ago the fossil record detailed gradual change, claiming pseudogenes, etc, etc,.....

You have no idea what the molecular clock hypothesis is used for, when, and why, in evolutionary studies.

 

[randman]

It was not, however, reflective of thinking in the Synthetic Model, which has always been wary of the molecular clock hypothesis, and (once again) contrary to your assertions, scientists have been fully aware of all the problems in it.

As a result, the molecular clock hypothesis only has limited application for investigating the Synthetic Model, used mainly in the specialized field of molecular phylogenetics. In other words, it's flaws are well known, and so it's used cautiously as an adjunct to help with cladistics, and it's certainly not the basis of any of the framework of the Synthetic Model.

I alluded to that already. That makes it even worse though for evos. They knew it was iffy but blasted their critics as ignorant for questioning it.

So what evos are in the habit of doing, it seems, is just trying to shout down their critics with disinformation such as overemphasizing a theory that they know themselves is iffy?

 

[A'isha]

Ok, here ya go:

From the Science article in 1997 (note using another source to quote it but you can look up the original article).



http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_04.html

Then in section 4 of the conclusion of a paper in March of 2002 (not 2005 as I mistakenly recalled)



http://wwworm.biology.uh.edu/evodevo/lecture2/richardson02.pdf

So in a matter of 5 short years he goes from saying the drawings were fakes, fraudulent, mistakenly relied on, etc,....to lauding them as teaching aides and incredibly as "evidence for evolution."

There ya go. Fakes are still "evidence for evolution."

Did you even read the 2002 paper (which I labeled a 2001 paper, based on its submission date, not its publication date, so we were both wrong about the date of that paper)?

You know, where Richardson actually cites his own 1997 paper above, confirms its conclusions (with corrections, especially regarding the claim of Haeckel's fraud conviction), and talks about how Gould agreed with those conclusions (even quoting Gould as saying that Haeckel committed the `academic equivalent of murder').

His 2002 paper does not actually contradict anything he said in 1997. It merely addresses a different part of Haeckel's work, and its potential usefulness - a usefulness that the 2002 paper flat-out says has nothing to do with his fraudulent drawings, or the "ontogony recapitulates phylogeny" Creationist bugbear.

It also doesn't contradict anything about his other 1997 paper (also cited in the 2002 paper), since it mentions very specifically that Haeckel was wrong about conserved embryonic stages in the later paper as well.

Sorry, Randman, but Richardson didn't change his stance, didn't backtrack on anything, and didn't say anything at any point in any paper that casts any part of evolution in doubt.

 

[A'isha]

I alluded to that already. That makes it even worse though for evos. They knew it was iffy but blasted their critics as ignorant for questioning it.

No, they blasted him for being wrong about something that he was, indeed wrong about, and remains wrong about to this very day.

So what evos are in the habit of doing, it seems, is just trying to shout down their critics with disinformation such as overemphasizing a theory that they know themselves is iffy?

Which, of course, explains the scores of papers discussing the flaws in the molecular clock hypothesis that don't attack it from a completely false standpoint but instead use actual scientific data.

Like the paper your creationist website so (purposefully?) misunderstood.

On that note, I'm really curious as to how you have the ability to apparently simultaneously claim that actual scientific discussion in published peer-reviewed papers show that evolution is falling apart because the stuff in those papers contradicts the standard theory of evolution, and also that scientists suppress any data that contradicts the standard theory of evolution and harass those who publish that data until they recant.

For instance, that ENCODE data you think is so damning for "NeoDarwinism"? It's available for free. All of it. Right at the ENCODE Consortium's own website, in fact.

Far from suppressing such dangerous information that threatens to tear apart evolution, they're giving it away. To anyone who wants it. Without even a barrier such as cost, like a lot of scientific papers have.

They even offer a nifty little genome browser visualizer.

So go on. All that data destroying evolution is right there for you to play with. Have fun!

EDIT: In fact, the only money involved here is the many multimillion dollar grants that are being distributed to do even more of the same thing that the ENCODE pilot program did!

That's how little scientists are worried that ENCODE is going to destroy the theory of evolution.

 

[Dinwar]

I alluded to that already. That makes it even worse though for evos. They knew it was iffy but blasted their critics as ignorant for questioning it.

Please show a paleontologist who argued for the infalibility of molecular clocks. Or did you forget that there are branches of evolutionary theory outside of molecular biology?

 

[devnull]

Sure. Show the functioning intermediate stages and the steps between them.

OK, so then they choose something else they think is irreducibly complex, and I do the same thing.... so they choose something else...... ad infinitum.

So..... falsifiable?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Irreducibly complex is just another form of "I don't know how this evolved" argument from ignorance. God of the gaps.

 

[randman]

Ok, here ya go:

From the Science article in 1997 (note using another source to quote it but you can look up the original article).



http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/embryology_04.html

Then in section 4 of the conclusion of a paper in March of 2002 (not 2005 as I mistakenly recalled)



http://wwworm.biology.uh.edu/evodevo/lecture2/richardson02.pdf

So in a matter of 5 short years he goes from saying the drawings were fakes, fraudulent, mistakenly relied on, etc,....to lauding them as teaching aides and incredibly as "evidence for evolution."

There ya go. Fakes are still "evidence for evolution."

Did you even read the 2002 paper (which I labeled a 2001 paper, based on its submission date, not its publication date, so we were both wrong about the date of that paper)?

You know, where Richardson actually cites his own 1997 paper above, confirms its conclusions (with corrections, especially regarding the claim of Haeckel's fraud conviction), and talks about how Gould agreed with those conclusions (even quoting Gould as saying that Haeckel committed the `academic equivalent of murder').

His 2002 paper does not actually contradict anything he said in 1997. It merely addresses a different part of Haeckel's work, and its potential usefulness - a usefulness that the 2002 paper flat-out says has nothing to do with his fraudulent drawings, or the "ontogony recapitulates phylogeny" Creationist bugbear.

It also doesn't contradict anything about his other 1997 paper (also cited in the 2002 paper), since it mentions very specifically that Haeckel was wrong about conserved embryonic stages in the later paper as well.

Sorry, Randman, but Richardson didn't change his stance, didn't backtrack on anything, and didn't say anything at any point in any paper that casts any part of evolution in doubt.

I read both papers and publicly debated them before. He clearly says Haeckel's drawings were forgeries and incorrect, and then he later writes or lends his name to the claim THE SAME FORGERIES are evidence for evolution.

Please note he didn't just say they depicted roughly something that was evidence but that the forgeries themselves were EVIDENCE.

How can you defend that?

 

[Avicenna]

How the hell did Haeckel draw those pictures? No seriously, think about it. He would have needed various tools that are simply not available. No biologist worth anything after the 1900s even listened to him because every single one asked the same question. How the hell did he see those stages? A human baby and any other animal baby go through similar stages at the start but differentiation occurs that pushes us in a different direction to them at an appropriate point.

And here is the thing. Embryology is as subjective in visualisation as astronomical constellations are. We stopped comparing embryos on how they looked compared to each other in the 50s. However we look for specific events that differentiate how things work. Human face formation, formation of limbs and so on. In some cases people have said things such as "embryo at 5 1/2 weeks looks like this one at 8 weeks" which is just people saying things like that.

Hey, that dude looks like a lady, is not a statement of scientific nature. It is a statement of "hey that dude looks like a lady". Haeckel's observation was "these embryos look awfully similar". Which they do. the problem is they are differences though that Haeckel was not privy to understand owing to failings of his own technology.

They are taught to children as evolutionary devices to help them understand. In the same way that schools teach newtonian gravity rather than Einstein because "I can do the math on Newtonian gravity, Einstein's gravity however is completely out of my depth. What hope do some kids have of understanding it."

In my BSc Human Gen degree I have never once seen or even heard of Haeckel. Neither have I heard of him as part of my ongoing medical degree and I finished embryology in the first year.

The initial stages of Fertilisation, Cleavage, Blastulation and Gastrulation are universal to all sexual animals. After that the differences creep in, however related animals have similar foetal development.

As you can see the infant chimp looks incredibly human and childlike.

Foetal skulls of human and chimp. They are identical at birth. Chimpanzees are (sadly and quite aptly. The term troglodyte has never been applied to a more deserving creature as the chimpanzee. They are vicious buggers. Show a orangutan what a hammer does and it will go off and hammer nails and steal clothes to wear. Show a chimp a hammer and expect to watch it hit someone else with it) our closest existing ape relative via genetics. The skulls are nearly identical in utero and ex utero for a fair while. Hence the chimpanzee young looks very human.

 

[randman]

Haeckel and the whole over reliance on dubious embryonic analysis played a huge role in Darwin's argument and later evos in initially gaining acceptance for evolution. It became sort of a mythic concept, recapitulation and the Biogenetic law, so much that it's been very hard to stamp out despite the claims often being wrong, and not really logically supporting evo theory any more, nor being that critical to it.

Haeckel's drawings were used in most textbooks to introduce people to evolutionism until around 1998.

What's sad is the evolutionist community cannot seem to divorce themselves from Haeckel and finally accept recapitulation just isn't so.

 

[randman]

Some have asked what I believe and I posted that and had at least one evo here commend the response as clear and honest. For the record, I'd like to add a little more. Modern science has not been around that long. It stands to reason most scientific theories will be overturned. Science is still in it's infancy. So the proper attitude is to not be as dogmatic in one's defense of a particular scientific theory. Science is limited by technology which dictates what we can test.

In physics, for example, we have experimental results, repeated and predicted, that either local realism, locality and causality (all considered by some to be laws of physics) are not actually laws and are violated or we propose a fantastic scenario of a gazillion universes via a multiverse, or some combination of both. Even physical reality is a somewhat dubious scientific proposition. Some others posit we live in a hologram. All sounds crazy but this is where the evidence leads.

Biology has not come to grips with these various findings and still feels comfortable in asserting the universe is self-existing and physical with a time-line where the past is immutably fixed. In reality, those are all dubious propositions. The universe may in fact not be "physical" or material at it's root as quantum physics suggests unless one wants to invent the multiverse which is sort of saying instead of "God did it", the multiverse does.

So it's worth considering the weakness of the level of our scientific knowledge. Statements like evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles, period, just does not advance people's knowledge of the processes involved all that much.

Look at the data, see what it says and does not say, and consider the various theories explaining it, all of them, recognizing the whole scenario may change tomorrow.

 

[Brainache]

Some have asked what I believe and I posted that and had at least one evo here commend the response as clear and honest. For the record, I'd like to add a little more. Modern science has not been around that long. It stands to reason most scientific theories will be overturned. Science is still in it's infancy. So the proper attitude is to not be as dogmatic in one's defense of a particular scientific theory. Science is limited by technology which dictates what we can test.

In physics, for example, we have experimental results, repeated and predicted, that either local realism, locality and causality (all considered by some to be laws of physics) are not actually laws and are violated or we propose a fantastic scenario of a gazillion universes via a multiverse, or some combination of both. Even physical reality is a somewhat dubious scientific proposition. Some others posit we live in a hologram. All sounds crazy but this is where the evidence leads.

Biology has not come to grips with these various findings and still feels comfortable in asserting the universe is self-existing and physical with a time-line where the past is immutably fixed. In reality, those are all dubious propositions. The universe may in fact not be "physical" or material at it's root as quantum physics suggests unless one wants to invent the multiverse which is sort of saying instead of "God did it", the multiverse does.

So it's worth considering the weakness of the level of our scientific knowledge. Statements like evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles, period, just does not advance people's knowledge of the processes involved all that much.

Look at the data, see what it says and does not say, and consider the various theories explaining it, all of them, recognizing the whole scenario may change tomorrow.

I agree with what you say. I think you will find others here also eschew dogmatism. People accept the TOE because it is the best theory to explain what we see. If it turns out to be wrong and there is a better explanation, then I guess we'll accept that, whatever it is.

If what we know of the world through our senses turns out to be an illusion or something, then all bets are off and we are living in the matrix. Might as well practice dodging bullets and leaping from tall buildings, or maybe not.

If reality is an illusion it is a damn good one and I'm pretty sure that leaping from a tall building would kill me, even if I am only a figment of your imagination.

 

[PixyMisa]

Some have asked what I believe and I posted that and had at least one evo here commend the response as clear and honest. For the record, I'd like to add a little more. Modern science has not been around that long. It stands to reason most scientific theories will be overturned. Science is still in it's infancy. So the proper attitude is to not be as dogmatic in one's defense of a particular scientific theory. Science is limited by technology which dictates what we can test.

In physics, for example, we have experimental results, repeated and predicted, that either local realism, locality and causality (all considered by some to be laws of physics) are not actually laws and are violated or we propose a fantastic scenario of a gazillion universes via a multiverse, or some combination of both. Even physical reality is a somewhat dubious scientific proposition. Some others posit we live in a hologram. All sounds crazy but this is where the evidence leads.

Except that when we built GPS, we had to account for relativity. With relativity we get the right answers. Without relativity, we get wrong answers.

When we build microprocessors, we have to account for quantum mechanics. With quantum mechanics, we get working chips worth hundreds of dollars. Without quantum mechanics, we get dirty glass worth nothing.

Sure, both relativity and quantum mechanics are going to be extended and refined. But they are NOT wrong. We know this, because we depend on them every minute of every day. It's not open for dispute.

Biology has not come to grips with these various findings and still feels comfortable in asserting the universe is self-existing and physical with a time-line where the past is immutably fixed. In reality, those are all dubious propositions. The universe may in fact not be "physical" or material at it's root as quantum physics suggests unless one wants to invent the multiverse which is sort of saying instead of "God did it", the multiverse does.

The Universe behaves the way it does. The past does not change. This is not an assertion of biology - the question doesn't even come up. It's an observation. You're talking the most asinine rubbish.

So it's worth considering the weakness of the level of our scientific knowledge. Statements like evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles, period, just does not advance people's knowledge of the processes involved all that much.

Nobody anywhere ever said "evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles, period".

Look at the data, see what it says and does not say, and consider the various theories explaining it, all of them, recognizing the whole scenario may change tomorrow.

We have, thanks. Evolution is right, and you are talking rot.

 

[randman]

When we build microprocessors, we have to account for quantum mechanics. With quantum mechanics, we get working chips worth hundreds of dollars. Without quantum mechanics, we get dirty glass worth nothing.

QM works and I love it and accept the mainstream interpretation and so reject MWI and causality, locality and local realism.

Do you?

The Universe behaves the way it does. The past does not change.

Not according to quantum mechanics, which after all works very well in applied technology, as you mentioned.

Nobody anywhere ever said "evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles, period".

Really? That's a quote from an evo on this thread.

 

[Avicenna]

Darwin came before Haeckel. And Darwin supplied evidence for his theories anyways in the form of his meticulous notes on finches.

As I keep saying, Newtonian Gravity is used to introduce people to Physics, does not mean it's right. It's a working model. And art is subjective. Medical art is very much subjective as well. We replaced his inaccurate drawings with accurate photos.

I have shown you castings of actual foetal skulls between us and our closest living relative and we have actual foetal developmental scans to dictate what we see. Dude was from the 18th century, biology was not yet a science. Seriously prior to darwin most biologists were just interested in capturing as many animals as possible and putting them in orderly jars rather than any real study.

 

[Lowpro]

Lol for being against dogmas you sure seem foolish for traipsing the ID line.

How are you going to divorce yourself from them if we were to turn your argument against you. Are you not guilty of dogmatism as well? Even being associated with it places you in that position, the same reason we're all here saying you're wrong in the first place.

ETA: There is a man named John Hampden I'm not sure if you've heard of him. You REALLY should read up on him. Your whole set of arguments parallel him EXACTLY, albeit in his time they didn't have the internet to argue back and forth. It also was in relation to flat earth versus current global earth. Guess which side Hampden was on.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Much simpler to pigeon hole not only the members of a skeptics forum as mindlessly dogmatic, but the majority of the educated planet. It's all a conspiracy at worst, or a tragic case of circular logic and dogma only a few privileged fringe theorists have the insight to grasp clearly. It's no coincidence they have a religion to champion. And what is the Christian religion but the definition of dogma? I wonder what it is that forces these Christians to not see the evidence that Randman sees.

http://blue.butler.edu/~mzimmerm/rel_evol_sun.htm

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

(EDIT:And, uh, you are aware that even if "front loading" were, by some impossible happenstance, true...that there would still have to be "common descent", with all modern living things descending from a single ancestor, in order for it to explain what it's purporting to explain. Right?)

Don't forget that despite arguing for it, randman doesn't seem to actually believe in front-loading or, indeed, any form of evolution. He doesn't want to demonstrate that front-loading is right, just demonstrate that the Theory Of Evolution is wrong.

One of the reasons that I am a theist is how most plausible it seems to me that there is an infinite superior omnipotent Creator to brush aside the arrogant inanity and finite inferiority of impotent and impudent atheists that happen to be other mere men, despite their self-exalted self-opinion.

Really? You believe in God because you find atheists arrogant?

 

[PixyMisa]

QM works and I love it and accept the mainstream interpretation and so reject MWI and causality, locality and local realism.

Do you?

What do you think you mean by that? So you accept (presumably) the Copenhagen intrepretation and reject the Many Worlds interpretation.

That doesn't imply that causality isn't real. It very obviously is. It's just statistical, but the numbers are so large that on the macro scale it only signifies in very carefully constructed scenarios.

As for locality and local realism... Your position makes no sense. By Bell's Inequality, you have to lose either strict locality or strict causality, not both.

As for me? I'm an instrumentalist. I think that the numbers in Quantum Mechanics mean exactly what they say.

Not according to quantum mechanics, which after all works very well in applied technology, as you mentioned.

I'd like to know what you mean by that. What, exactly, in Quantum Mechanics are you taking to mean that history can change?

Really? That's a quote from an evo on this thread.

You'll be able to cite the post where they said "evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles, period" then, won't you? I mean, if it's a quote, and not something you've pulled out of context and paraphrased.

Edit: sphenisc has now pointed me to the post you mean.

You appear to be confusing the Theory of Evolution with the fact and history of evolution. Again.