Tag: evolution

Mailvox: an alternative mechanism

Stephen J. takes a logical approach in arguing for evolution by natural selection:

While this question is going to sound snarky, I can only ask our host to
believe it is meant as a genuine inquiry and hope it is answered.

1) Let us take as evidentially established the fact that species which existed in the past now exist no longer and are extinct.

2)
Let us take as evidentially established the fact that not all species
now extant existed at all times throughout the history of organic life;
if nothing else, we know for a fact Homo sapiens did not.

3)
Therefore, it must be possible for species which did not exist to come
into existence by some mechanism, just as species which do exist can go
extinct by any variety of mechanisms.

4) If it is a fact that
new species can come into existence while others go extinct, by what
mechanism other than evolution through natural selection are these
species proposed to arise, and does that proposed mechanism explain more
of the observed evidence than TeNS?

I don’t think it sounds snarky at all.  In fact, this is one of the first rationally competent attempts to defend evolution that I’ve ever seen presented on this blog.  Let’s look at his postulates and his logic and see where it leads us.

1)  I concur.  We know from historical documentary evidence that there are species that previously existed and are now extinct.  We can also infer from fossil evidence that there were a number of other species that previously existed and went extinct prior to the historical record.

2) I tend to agree and am willing to concur here for the sake of argument and on the basis of Occam’s Razor.  We certainly believe that homo sapiens sapiens did not exist from the beginning of the history of organic life on the basis of our current understanding of the geological and fossil records, but we cannot say that with the same degree of confidence that it is a fact in the sense that we say the Dodo is now extinct.  The problem is that there appear to be an increasing number of indications that the current geological and biological timelines are not going to hold up to future evidence, the claimed 521-year half-life of DNA being one of them.

3)  I concur, assuming (2) holds true.

4) Intelligent Genetic Manipulation is the mechanism that I propose.  And yes, I believe that explains more of the observed evidence than TENS, since IGM is a scientific proposition, a readily observed action, and a successful predictive model, whereas TENS is a philosophical proposition, an unobserved process, and an unsuccessful predictive model.

Now, this does not provide any basis for assuming the existence of a Creator God, or even declaring that TENS did not actually take place.  The logical fact of the matter is that even if TENS can be conclusively demonstrated to have taken place in various species, which has not happened despite more than 150 years of trying, that doesn’t necessarily mean the process was sufficient to produce Man.  If one contemplates the biological differences between ape and man, the vast leap in cognitive capacity taking place in a relatively small sum of generational cycles from the proposed common ancestor in comparison with the timelines supposedly required for other, less complicated evolutionary changes, the logic suggests – though it does not prove – that some degree of purposeful genetic manipulation has likely taken place at various points in the origin of the species and the development of homo sapiens sapiens.

I’m not talking about Intelligent Design, but rather intelligent editing.  And the interesting thing is that IGM should be an increasingly falsifiable concept as genetic science continues to improve.  Only recently have we learned that junk DNA serves a purpose; even though we have sequenced various genomes, we haven’t yet understood how the code works or fully comprehended the various ways it can be manipulated.  As our understanding grows, we should be able to develop an ability to recognize patterns that indicate purposeful alterations in the code have been made.

Now, I realize how crazy this probably sounds, especially in light of my argument that Man cannot easily distinguish between God, god, demon, and alien.  But that is where Stephen’s reasonably sound logic takes us. 

Mailvox: education and the evolutionist

MD regurgitates the common mantra of the evolutionary faithful:

You are an educated man and know as well as me that evolution has been verified in countless experiments.  I agree that the precise details of the mechanism are still open to debate.  Since you are essentially making money out of the poor uneducated civilians of your own deeply divided culture, I expect that this E-mail
may not make it to the multitude.  Until then, any
pretensions you have as a serious philosopher – until you spell out your
objections to the actual EVIDENCE of evolution, must be viewed
suspisciously.  Being an intelligent fellow, I know you know this already; hey ho.
First, I note what appears to be a popular use of the adjective “countless”, which in its most common usage apparently means “zero”.  A few days ago, I noted how spin is the hallmark of the weak argument; when someone uses the word “countless” it is often a flashing sign of where a little research will probably prove fruitful.

Second, it is because I have educated myself on the subject over the years that I am aware that there is not a single experiment or study that verifies evolution by natural selection.  Richard Dawkins very nearly admits as much in his homage to the faux science, The Greatest Show on Earth.  Strictly speaking, evolution by natural selection is not even truly scientific, because it is first and foremost a logical argument, which necessarily renders it philosophy rather than science.  At this point, there is less actual scientific evidence for it than for my hypothesis concerning the neural atypicality of atheists.

This isn’t the first time such a claim has been made. Last time, I even asked for any scientific papers that supposedly contained such evidence; after reading the first ten on the list provided, it was readily apparent that none of them contained any such thing and the individual who provided the list of papers had simply done a search for references to “natural selection”. But, for example, showing that guppies become smaller under certain predatory pressures and that this result is “consistent with evolution by natural selection” is very, very, very far from evidence that the guppies have evolved into something other than a guppy.

As I mentioned over one year ago, “I have read seven of Richard Dawkins’s ten books, two of Stephen
Gould’s, a random assortment of books by other authors including Charles
Darwin, Marc Hauser and Daniel Dennett, around 50 published papers
which relate to natural selection in some way, and more than 20 years
worth of magazines such as Natural History and New Scientist.  This doesn’t make me any sort of expert on the subject. But I should think it tends to indicate that I am not completely
uninformed about it. And it’s certainly ironic to be repeatedly
accused of ignorance when not having read any economists from Turgot to
Tobin or theologians from Tertullian to Craig ever seems to prevent
credentialed Cult of Darwin members from opining authoritatively on
economics or theology.” 

How many of the champions of evolution who claim I don’t know what I’m taking about with regards to evolution can claim to have read as much on the subject?  How many have even read On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life? And how many of the biologists who don’t hesitate to spout off on economic matters can claim to have read even half as deeply in the field of economics?

I have repeatedly spelled out my objections to evolution and the actual evidence for it.  First, the evidence doesn’t exist.  Second, the historical timelines that purportedly support it are dynamic.  Third, evolution is a complete failure as a predictive model.  Fourth, it is scientifically and technologically irrelevant; where is the evolutionary engineering.  Fifth, theoretical epicycles are increasingly appearing.  Sixth, it is a repeated failure as an explanatory model.  Seventh, there is a long track record of scientific fraud attached to it.

I have no pretensions of being a serious philosopher.  Quite the contrary, I am merely an intellectual dilettante who takes even his most cherished beliefs with a grain of salt.  But even if I did have such pretensions, my skepticism concerning the Theorum of Evolution by (probably) Natural Selection, Biased Mutation, Genetic Drift, and Gene Flow would not be a strike against me, it would be a mark in my favor. Regardless, I have no problem with my opinions and assertions being viewed suspiciously. If you can find the flaw in the argument, that’s great. Point it out to me, I won’t hesitate to agree and either revise or recant the argument, so long as the flaw is actually there.

That being said, if there is a book on the subject of evolution that an evolutionist feels is missing from my education on the subject, then by all means, I encourage them to send me an epub.  I will read it.  I may even review it.  Of course, there is always the possibility that in doing so, I will point out the obvious errors it contains.

Evolution and a potential rabbit

About five years ago, I publicly predicted that genetic science will eventually rule out the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis and the Theorum of Evolution by Natural Selection.  Now, it would appear that we have a potential mechanism for doing precisely that without needing to discover J.S. Haldane’s hypothetical rabbits in the Precambrian:

Few researchers have given credence to claims that samples of
dinosaur DNA have survived to the present day, but no one knew just how
long it would take for genetic material to fall apart. Now, a study of
fossils found in New Zealand is laying the matter to rest — and putting
paid to hopes of cloning a Tyrannosaurus rex.

After cell death, enzymes start to break down the bonds
between the nucleotides that form the backbone of DNA, and
micro-organisms speed the decay. In the long run, however, reactions
with water are thought to be responsible for most bond degradation.
Groundwater is almost ubiquitous, so DNA in buried bone samples should,
in theory, degrade at a set rate.

By comparing the specimens’ ages and degrees of DNA degradation, the
researchers calculated that DNA has a half-life of 521 years. That means
that after 521 years, half of the bonds between nucleotides in the
backbone of a sample would have broken; after another 521 years half of
the remaining bonds would have gone; and so on.

The team predicts that even in a bone at an ideal
preservation temperature of −5 ºC, effectively every bond would be
destroyed after a maximum of 6.8 million years. The DNA would cease to
be readable much earlier — perhaps after roughly 1.5 million years, when
the remaining strands would be too short to give meaningful
information.

Now, cloning a dinosaur or other ancient species from theoretically nonexistent DNA would not be a directly conclusive debunking of evolution, but would be a sufficiently devastating blow to the evolutionary timelines as to render it every bit as temporally dubious as it appeared when its earliest advocates were worrying about how the time-consuming process could have taken place in only 6,000 years.

I would be interested to hear from those who seriously subscribe to the theory of evolution and learn if, given this announcement of a 521-year DNA half-life, the successful cloning of a dinosaur known to be from a historical epoch well before the 2-million year readability limit would be enough to cause them to abandon their belief in the theory.  And if not, would the discovery of rabbit fossils in the Precambrian be enough to do it?

Mailvox: certainly self-comlimentary

BB affects to be surprised:

I found this site by accident. This discussion of evolution is certainly on a low level for a site that is so deeply self-comlimentary. I am always surprised that people refuse to accept biological evolution because of its supposed implausibility, yet easily accept the idea of spontaneous human appearance. God, in this view, did not need to develop, but just “is.” The plausibility of God goes unquestioned. Said another way, the argument is that man evolved is unsupportable, but the idea that God is and was forever, self-conceiving, is logical.

By the way, I believe in God.

I suggest you apply the same argument to God and man. But I readily admit that doing so will not answer the Question that you and I both have. The old question of something out of nothing.

Color me dubious.  An affectation of disinterest, followed by a nonsensical naked assertion, followed by a complete strawman.  And notice how quickly the “defense” of evolution rapidly transitions to its scientific plausibility to a philosophical attack on God.  What I find amusing is how the Neo-Darwinian faithful continue to insist that evolution is every bit as probable no matter how much the necessary complexity is observed to have increased. 

The recent recognition – long expected by me and others – that genetics are much more complex than previously understood and that junk DNA is somehow involved in the process, to say nothing of the toppling of the “tree of life”, all significantly increase the improbability and necessary time scales of evolution by natural selection.  And yet, there hasn’t even been any attempt to account for these additional complexities, partly because evolutionary biologists are both relatively innumerate and logically challenged, but mostly because the so-called science is little more than an article of willfully blind faith.

So much for “the science is settled”

Now it is the turn of evolutionary scientists discover that Richard Dawkins is a deeply unpleasant individual:

A disagreement between the twin giants of genetic theory, Richard Dawkins and EO Wilson, is now being fought out by rival academic camps in an effort to understand how species evolve.

The learned spat was prompted by the publication of a searingly critical review of Wilson’s new book, The Social Conquest of Earth, in Prospect magazine this month. The review, written by Dawkins, author of the popular and influential books The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion, has prompted more letters and on-line comment than any other article in the recent history of the magazine and attacks Wilson’s theory “as implausible and as unsupported by evidence”.

“I am not being funny when I say of Edward Wilson’s latest book that there are interesting and informative chapters on human evolution, and on the ways of social insects (which he knows better than any man alive), and it was a good idea to write a book comparing these two pinnacles of social evolution, but unfortunately one is obliged to wade through many pages of erroneous and downright perverse misunderstandings of evolutionary theory,” Dawkins writes.

The Oxford evolutionary biologist, 71, has also infuriated many readers by listing other established academics who, he says, are on his side when it comes to accurately representing the mechanism by which species evolve. Wilson, in a short piece penned promptly in response to Dawkins’s negative review, was also clearly annoyed by this attempt to outflank him.

“In any case,” Wilson writes, “making such lists is futile. If science depended on rhetoric and polls, we would still be burning objects with phlogiston [a mythical fire-like element] and navigating with geocentric maps.”

As I noted a few years ago in The Irrational Atheist, Richard Dawkins is not a scientist, he is an ex-scientist. Dawkins has always been inept when it comes to arguing against intelligent and informed interlocutors, so it should come as no surprise that he would blunder badly when trying to take on EO Wilson, even in the event that he happens to be right.

Dawkins’s statement also raises a serious question. If a famous and heavily credentialed biologist like EO Wilson truly does not understand evolutionary theory, what could possibly be the use of attempting to teach it in public schools?

The end of the evolution debate

It’s always very telling when the so-called scientists resort to wishful thinking and ideological propaganda:

Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself. Sometime in the next 15 to 30 years, the Kenyan-born paleoanthropologist expects scientific discoveries will have accelerated to the point that “even the skeptics can accept it. If you get to the stage where you can persuade people on the evidence, that it’s solid, that we are all African, that color is superficial, that stages of development of culture are all interactive,” Leakey says, “then I think we have a chance of a world that will respond better to global challenges.”

Any hope for mankind’s future, he insists, rests on accepting existing scientific evidence of its past…. Leakey, who clearly cherishes investigating the past, is less optimistic about the future. “We may be on the cusp of some very real disasters that have nothing to do with whether the elephant survives, or a cheetah survives, but if we survive.”

Leakey is letting the atheist evolutionary cat out of the bag here. Unlike the likes of Harris, whose revolutionary Enlightenment 2.0 globalism is never advertised and can only be confirmed by carefully reading through his books, Leakey is quite willing to draw the connection between evolution, atheism, multiculturalism, all intended to lead towards the long-term utopian fantasy of rule by a scientific and technocratic global oligarchy.

My prediction is quite the opposite. I am increasingly convinced that genetic science will render the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis scientifically unviable in the same manner it previously required the development of the synthesis by rendering untenable classic fossil-based Darwinian evolution by natural selection. One thing that has escaped most professional biologists, who are neither historians of science nor logicians, is that the increasing complexity of the DNA/RNA interplay along with growing understanding of mutations renders the present evolutionary timelines increasingly improbable. Whereas the decoding of the human and other genomes was supposed to provide not only answers, but even conclusive proof of macroevolution, it has instead raised considerably more questions. And while the growing number of proposed evolutionary mechanisms are not necessarily proof that macroevolution has not happened in the past and is not happening in the present, they do show the need to develop epicycles that is always indicative of a theory that is in trouble and on its way to being falsified and ultimately jettisoned.

Could I be incorrect? Of course. That is why I describe myself as an evolutionary skeptic rather than an anti-evolutionist. But once again, we see a conflict between pattern recognition and scientific consensus, and I expect that as has usually happened before, pattern recognition will win out because scientific consensus is not always science, it is often logical conclusions drawn from science by scientists. And the history of science shows that scientists are, for the most part, inept logicians, which is why they tend to keep making the same type of mistakes with each new generation of scientist. So, I am quite comfortable asserting, contra Leakey, that in 15 years, skepticism over evolution will not only not be history, but will be both more popular and more scientifically credible than it is now.

The myth of the evolution myth

The New Scientist doesn’t understand what “a prediction” is, and in doing so, underlines the very point it is attempting to dismiss:

Cosmologists make precise predictions about what will happen to the universe in 20 billion years’ time. Biologists struggle to predict how a few bacteria in a dish might evolve over 20 hours. Some claim that this lack of precise predictive power means evolution is not scientific.

However, what matters in science is not how much you can predict on the basis of a theory or how precise those predictions are, but whether the predictions you can make turn out to be right. Meteorologists don’t reject chaos theory because it tells them it is impossible to predict the weather 100% accurately – on the contrary, they accept it because weather follows the broad patterns predicted by chaos theory.

The amusing thing is that in an effort to claim that evolution really is a predictive science despite the inability of scientists to use it to predict anything, the article then denies that the failure of any evolution-based predictions could falsify the theory. And it is telling that the primary examples it cites cannot be reasonably described as predictions, which relate to the future and not to the past.

“Most predictions relate to very specific aspects of evolutionary theory. If a eusocial mammal like the naked mole-rat had not been found, for instance, it would have proved only that Alexander’s ideas about the evolution of eusocial behaviour were probably wrong, not that there is anything wrong with the wider theory.”

Right, just like the failure of Keynesian theory to predict the simultaneous rising inflation and unemployment of the 1970s only related to the very specific aspects of the historical American economy, not that there was anything wrong with the wider theory. This article makes it very clear that evolution, or if one wishes to be more specific, the theory of evolution by (probably) natural selection is not a science when viewed from either a predictive or Popperian perspective.

Climate change is the new evolution

I couldn’t agree more, considering that they’re both most likely little more than pseudo-scientific fiction.

Is climate change education the new evolution, threatened in U.S. school districts and state education standards by well-organized interest groups? A growing number of education advocates believe so, and yesterday, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in Oakland, California, which fights the teaching of creationism, announced that it’s going to take on climate change denial as well.

NCSE expects this task to be much harder than fighting creationism. “The forces arrayed against climate science are more numerous and much better funded,” Scott says, and are better able to get their message across in the mainstream media than creationism supporters.

The reason the task will not only be much harder, but impossible, isn’t because of the more formidable nature of “the forces arrayed against climate science”, but because it is significantly harder to lie to people about something that they can readily observe, at least in part, for themselves. That is why I am merely deeply skeptical about evolution by natural selection whereas I completely reject the observably false assertion of anthropogenic global warming.

That is why AGW/CC will go the way of phrenology, the global Ice Age, the food pyramid, and other past scientific consensuses sooner than TE(p)NS. I’m confident that genetic science will eventually shoot down the latter, but it’s going to take a considerable weight of incontrovertible evidence to finally root out the die-hard Neo-Darwinian dogmatists, considering how they are still clinging so desperately to their evolutionary epicycles.

They just never learn

Keep in mind that the following assertion is from the same individual who five minutes later departed the scene with the following Parthian shot: “Arguments from ignorance galore – ah, how I love Vox day. Anyways, enough of arguing with people of IQ below lima beans. Ciao. Just a Random Atheist wrote:

How about the fact that a molecular tree of life and a morphological tree of life has over 99% congruency? Do you think anyone would take evo seriously if the case was different?

There is not much that needs to be said except that “the fact” is clearly nothing of the kind. And yes, it is entirely obvious scientists will still continue to take evolutionary theory seriously despite the fact that the case has been determined to be different, as the fifth search result for “Darwin tree of life” shows that this is already the case. Consider the following statements.

The discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 – whose pioneers believed it would provide proof of Darwin’s tree – opened up new vistas for evolutionary biology. But current research is finding a far more complex scenario than Darwin could have imagined – particularly in relation to bacteria and single-celled organisms.

Dr Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, said: “For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.”

“It’s part of a revolutionary change in biology. Our standard model of evolution is under enormous pressure.”

“The tree of life is being politely buried – we all know that. What’s less accepted is our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”

So, precisely whom is arguing from ignorance here? Now, note that it was me, the evolutionary skeptic, who predicted that this would happen, that the standard model of evolution, the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, would not only come under enormous pressure due to advancements in genetic science, but eventually be junked entirely. That hasn’t happened yet, of course, but the trend is clear and the predicted outcome has become increasingly likely. It is also worth noting that it is evolutionary true believers like Just a Random Atheist who are simply not up on recent developments in biology, in part because they erroneously assume that the standard model is not only correct, but infallible and unquestionable.

That is not scientific thinking. That isn’t even theological thinking. That is pure, unquestioning, religious dogma.

Mailvox: scientists wanted

A documentary filmmaker is looking for scientists and mathematicians willing to go on camera to discuss TE(p)NSBMGDaGF:

I am a filmmaker currently working on an untitled documentary project with the purpose of revealing the ideological motives of those who act as the gatekeepers for Darwinism. While on the surface this may sound a bit like the 2008 documentary “Expelled”, my proposed film is not about Intelligent Design whatsoever, it is simply an examination of the science of TE(p)NSBMGDaGF, as you so affectionally refer to it, and the ideology of those determined to protect it from criticism and attempt to strong arm others who practice any genuine scientific inquiry to challenge it.

I recently discovered your blog during my research, and though I am an agnostic, I have found your material on this subject very compelling. My funding is in place, and most of my preliminary research has been completed, but I am running into a brick wall when it comes to getting those in the scientific community (outside of ID proponents) to point me in the right direction on the challenges to Darwinism from evo-devo, genetics, and mathematics, and to agree to be interviewed for the project. Though I have simply presented my film as an “evidentiary exploration of Darwinian evolution”, most biologists seem to have learned that it is not wise to provide potential ammunition for a documentary film. Either out of fear of retribution or a sense of their authority being challenged, I have found few who are willing to assist me in my research, or to go on record.

This is why I am contacting you. From the comments on your posts, I have noticed that quite a few scientists and engineers read and comment on your blog, and I was hoping perhaps they might give me some assistance regarding fundamental objections to Darwinian theory from other schools of scientific inquiry, and suggestions on those in the scientific community I should be looking to engage with. I appreciate any assistance you and your “ilk” would be willing to give me on this topic.

I have the impression this guy is looking for credentials, so if you happen to be a sufficiently credentialed scientist or mathematician who is interested in being interviewed about what is happening in the field of evolutionary biology, shoot me an email with your credentials and I will pass them along to the filmmaker.

And before anyone leaps to the wrong assumption, no, I’m not involved in this, and no, I won’t be appearing in it. But it is interesting to see that scientists are either afraid to speak publicly concerning their doubts about TENS or are unwilling to defend the orthodox dogma. No wonder the Darwinists are losing the media war. They’re afraid to even show up for the fight and have resorted to ideological thuggery inside their increasingly irrelevant secular monasteries. Thomas Huxley must be rolling over in his grave at the sight of Darwin’s Yellow-bellied Chickens.