Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Davian]

"The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines...Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts." Bruce Alberts, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell, Vol. 92: 291 (February 6, 1998).

Analogies don't prove anything.

 

[The Cadet]

I ask once again, describe the natualistic processes which created bacterial flagellum or tactile sensory units. Based on the scientific method of course.

Here's a quite useful model for how the flagellum could have evolved:

Each step introduces or takes away one protein or set of ancestral proteins already known to the bacterium, and each step has a clear advantage for the organism. It's not proven, but it does show a clear way the flagellum could have evolved, step by step. Which is where this sort of falls apart:

Biological systems exhibit the properties of sophisticated engineered systems that resemble methods developed by human engineers to accomplish complicated tasks.

Which is all well and good when you consider it in one direction (system designed -> system has methods that resemble those by human engineers), but doesn't work at all when you necessarily consider the other direction (system has methods that resemble those by human engineers -> system designed). See, the issue here is falsification. How would we tell that any given complex system was not designed? I'd posit it's trivially possible for a system put together with no intelligence behind it to resemble a human invention. Case in point: the above model of the flagellum. There's no intelligence necessary for that model to be correct. Even if the flagellum didn't actually evolve like that, the fact that it could have and you see it as an example of this shows that there's a clear problem.

In biological systems we have those systems similar in human designs that include control signals that include information, detection and decision, signaling to induce a response from other systems all for a set goal. Planning is shown from mechanisms that are for correction and back-up systems that do not go into effect unless some event occurs which shows planning to address possible occurrences.

Signaling mechanisms are ostensibly useful for biological systems. It makes perfect sense that they would be present even with no design as they offer a distinct survival advantage. Back-up systems are often a result of the bottom-up approach, as we see beautifully in bacterial chemotaxis. Again, nothing here necessarily separates a designed system from a non-designed system, because according to the evidence we have, systems like these did come about naturally, with no design involved, and while we cannot turn the clock back and observe their evolution in action, we can easily model hypothetical pathways by which they could have evolved. This shows that they need not be designed, which poses a serious problem for your criteria. Again, it comes down to you asserting design, not demonstrating it.

The bacterial flagellum looks like a well-designed helicopter rotor to you and probably quite a few others. And yet, piece by piece, natural processes could have formed it. How do we distinguish this?

That is okay, biologists do.

You mean like Richard Dawkins, who is quoted as saying:

The world is divided into things that look as though somebody designed them (wings and wagon-wheels, hearts and televisions), and things that just happened through the unintended workings of physics (mountains and rivers, sand dunes, and solar systems). Mount Rushmore belonged firmly in the second category until the sculptor Gutzon Borglum carved it into the first. Charles Darwin moved in the other direction. He discovered a way in which the unaided laws of physics — the laws according to which things “just happen” — could, in the fullness of geologic time, come to mimic deliberate design. The illusion of design is so successful that to this day most Americans (including, significantly, many influential and rich Americans) stubbornly refuse to believe it is an illusion. To such people, if a heart (or an eye or a bacterial flagellum) looks designed, that’s proof enough that it is designed.

[...]

The arguments of creationists, including those creationists who cloak their pretensions under the politically devious phrase “intelligent-design theory,” repeatedly return to the same big fallacy. Such-and-such looks designed. Therefore it was designed.

...Which means earlier in the thread you were clearly misquoting him.

It is intuitive to believe that complex biological systems were designed. Just like it is intuitive to believe that euclidean geometry is correct, that our memories are always accurate, and that single particles cannot act as waves. At least three of those completely intuitive assertions are totally wrong. The fourth? Well, unless you can provide strong evidence, beyond "it looks like a human design, ergo it is designed"... I'm sorry, but there's just nowhere to go with this argument. We're stuck. Without showing either a clear hallmark of design with no known naturalistic mechanism for something arising, or showing us the designer, there's no way to reasonably assert design.

 

[whois]

Without showing either a clear hallmark of design with no known naturalistic mechanism for something arising, or showing us the designer, there's no way to reasonably assert design.

this is relatively easy, abiogenesis.
science is still scratching its head about how it all came about.
crick describes the formation of DNA as a "frozen accident".
a simple analogy would be a car hitting a brick wall.
the accident is frozen before completion.
we can also use a reverse analogy, DNA testing.
the odds of DNA testing aren't 100% accurate, but yet you accept them.
i for one just do not understand this type of double standard when it comes to evolution.

koonin has this to say about abiogenesis:
. . . other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the “dirty” rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure . . .
A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.
-Eugene V. Koonin, molecular biologist, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), 391

 

[crjmurray]

this is relatively easy, abiogenesis.
science is still scratching its head about how it all came about.
crick describes the formation of DNA as a "frozen accident".
a simple analogy would be a car hitting a brick wall.
the accident is frozen before completion.
we can also use a reverse analogy, DNA testing.
the odds of DNA testing aren't 100% accurate, but yet you accept them.
i for one just do not understand this type of double standard when it comes to evolution.

koonin has this to say about abiogenesis:
. . . other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the “dirty” rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure . . .
A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.
-Eugene V. Koonin, molecular biologist, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), 391

Your alternative theory?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

this is relatively easy, abiogenesis.
science is still scratching its head about how it all came about.
crick describes the formation of DNA as a "frozen accident".
a simple analogy would be a car hitting a brick wall.
the accident is frozen before completion.
we can also use a reverse analogy, DNA testing.
the odds of DNA testing aren't 100% accurate, but yet you accept them.
i for one just do not understand this type of double standard when it comes to evolution.

koonin has this to say about abiogenesis:
. . . other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the “dirty” rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure . . .
A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.
-Eugene V. Koonin, molecular biologist, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011), 391

Spontaneous generation? Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Belief in the present ongoing spontaneous generation of certain forms of life from non-living matter goes back to Aristotle and ancient Greek philosophy and continued to have support in Western scholarship until the 19th century.[51] This belief was paired with a belief in heterogenesis, i.e., that one form of life derived from a different form (e.g. bees from flowers).[52] Classical notions of spontaneous generation, which can be considered under the modern term abiogenesis, held that certain complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances."

http://www.liquisearch.com/abiogenesis/conceptual_history/spontaneous_generation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

"Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms."

When you can explain to me how living matter from non-living matter is not without descent from similar organisms and therefore an obsolete body of thought, we will consider it a valid theory to discuss. Until then it is just another scientific myth of consensus claim. Illustrating the OP's original point quite well.

Evolution is just the continuation of the incorrect belief in "heterogenesis, i.e., that one form of life derived from a different form (e.g. humans from apes).

 

[Oncedeceived]

But you cannot, in any way, show that that there was any "intelligence" behind what you see as "design" in nature - correct? Yes or no?

I can and have in "many ways" shown that there was intelligence behind the design we see in nature. Yes.

IN fact, intelligence in nature is more parsimonious arising from an intelligent being rather that intelligence arising or even being possible from a mindless, purposeless, process with no goals or planning devoid of intelligence.

We see biological systems that are designed in ways that humans design systems, we see intelligence in humans and no intelligence for that intelligence to arise from and no explanation or evidence for either in an evolutionary model.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Analogies don't prove anything.

You asked for a citation to back up what I said and then tell me analogies don't prove anything...move those goalposts why don't cha!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But you cannot, in any way, show that that there was any "intelligence" behind what you see as "design" in nature - correct? Yes or no?

We can explain what we see in nature by intelligently designed mathematics we have designed to explain that design we see in nature, indicating beyond any mere comparison that it too must be designed.

We do not use random mathematical operators to arrive at the end results, but numbers and formula in an exact mathematically designed sequence in an attempt to mimic what we observe in nature. A sequence that if randomly changed in any way - leads always to results not consistent with observations.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You asked for a citation to back up what I said and then tell me analogies don't prove anything...move those goalposts why don't cha!

Like your sig line Once.

""So sad that in times past the church could not see that God spoke with numbers, just as sad now, Science can not see that numbers speak of God."
Oncedeceived."

Yes, it's a shame no one seems to want to accept the true significance of those numbers to God and His works, with either stance from either side at times.

"for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world, by the things made being understood, are plainly seen, both His eternal power and Godhead -- to their being inexcusable;"

 

[RickG]

One of the evolutionist's favorite tactics is to immediately appeal to a "scientific consensus" that Evolution theory is beyond all reasonable doubt. If the vast majority of scientists accept Evolution theory (or more accurately, do not publicly oppose it) then it simply must be true. This reasoning is absurd on its face to any sophisticated reader, but lets demonstrate that it is false.

Thought I would revisit the OP. And I want the OP to know that I agree with his description stating "this reasoning is absurd". That the paragraph I quoted, the first paragraph in the OP, is absurd. Lets take a look at it.

Evolutionists: What is an evolutionist? From a scientific point of view, I'm not sure I can define one, as every single field of the physical sciences contribute to the theory of evolution (ToE), whether directly or indirectly. In fact most disciplines of science that contribute to ToE are not investigating evolution at all. Applied physics and chemistry don't investigate or research evolution, but what they learn contributes to ToE. Geochemists, Stratigraphers, Petrologists, Geologists, Geophysicists, Climatologists, Glaciologists, Geomorphologists, etc., don't study ToE, but what they learn does contribute to ToE. Medical doctors don't directly research ToE, but what they learn does contribute to ToE. Now, how about those who actually do study ToE, such as evolutionary biologists and Paleontologists? They do directly research and contribute to ToE. So OP, why do you categorize people of science who have nothing to do with evolution as evolutionist?

Scientific consensus: Scientific consensus is not beyond a reasonable doubt. Scientific consensus is demonstrated in the scientific literature, that being the published peer review literature supports a position, whether directly or indirectly. It has nothing to do with polls, or a list of compiled affirmations.

It simply must be true: A scientific consensus does not make something true, a scientific consensus suggests something is likely true. Science does not deal in proofs.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Like your sig line Once.

""So sad that in times past the church could not see that God spoke with numbers, just as sad now, Science can not see that numbers speak of God."
Oncedeceived."

Yes, it's a shame no one seems to want to accept the true significance of those numbers to God and His works, with either stance from either side at times.

"for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world, by the things made being understood, are plainly seen, both His eternal power and Godhead -- to their being inexcusable;"

Right, it is amazing to me that people who pride themselves on logic and reason have no understanding that mindless processes have nothing to do with logic and reason.

Thanks I love that quote too. I had one that was from Einstein previously and changed it due to some of the materialists that felt it was misrepresenting him.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Thought I would revisit the OP. And I want the OP to know that I agree with his description stating "this reasoning is absurd". That the paragraph I quoted, the first paragraph in the OP, is absurd. Lets take a look at it.

Evolutionists: What is an evolutionist? From a scientific point of view, I'm not sure I can define one, as every single field of the physical sciences contribute to the theory of evolution (ToE), whether directly or indirectly. In fact most disciplines of science that contribute to ToE are not investigating evolution at all. Applied physics and chemistry don't investigate or research evolution, but what they learn contributes to ToE. Geochemists, Stratigraphers, Petrologists, Geologists, Geophysicists, Climatologists, Glaciologists, Geomorphologists, etc., don't study ToE, but what they learn does contribute to ToE. Medical doctors don't directly research ToE, but what they learn does contribute to ToE. Now, how about those who actually do study ToE, such as evolutionary biologists and Paleontologists? They do directly research and contribute to ToE. So OP, why do you categorize people of science who have nothing to do with evolution as evolutionist?

Scientific consensus: Scientific consensus is not beyond a reasonable doubt. Scientific consensus is demonstrated in the scientific literature, that being the published peer review literature supports a position, whether directly or indirectly. It has nothing to do with polls, or a list of compiled affirmations.

It simply must be true: A scientific consensus does not make something true, a scientific consensus suggests something is likely true. Science does not deal in proofs.

What fields? Animal and plant husbandry which have all but abandoned evolution through mutation as a viable source of new genomes? http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Or do you mean paleontology which has shown nothing but that triceratops remains a triceratops from the oldest fossil found to the youngest, before it mates with another breed and a new breed T, Horriblus or T. Prorsus comes into the fossil record? That they mistake all of these as separate species - when they are in fact just different breeds is a problem they need to learn to deal with. And in quite a few cases nothing more than the exact species under discussion - just adult or babies.

Or do you mean biology in which E. coli always remained E. Coli, since they reproduce by splitting and not adding any new genetic information?

You know, just like we observe in real life. Husky remains Husky until it mates with another breed within that species - and a new breed comes about in the record. I am to ignore how we understand life propagates to maintain a theory clearly at odds with observations? And then refuse to apply those emperical observations to the fossil record??? This is what you term as science?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ar-old-creature-that-would-make-darwin-smile/

It would make Darwin turn in his grave. Which just supports the truth that E. coli always remain E. coli, no matter how many times they tried to evolve it in the lab through mutations. It's hilarious how you can take something that disproves evolution and try to twist it to prove evolution. It was totally unexpected and mysterious, but suddenly things that do not evolve at all is now proof of evolution. I'd say along with the laboratory evidence of E. coli, it merely confirms there is no evolution through mutation at all.

 

[RickG]

What fields? Animal and plant husbandry which have all but abandoned evolution through mutation as a viable source of new genomes? http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Or do you mean paleontology which has shown nothing but that triceratops remains a triceratops from the oldest fossil found to the youngest, before it mates with another breed and a new breed T, Horriblus or T. Prorsus comes into the fossil record? That they mistake all of these as separate species - when they are in fact just different breeds is a problem they need to learn to deal with. And in quite a few cases nothing more than the exact species under discussion - just adult or babies.

You know, just like we observe in real life. Husky remains Husky until it mates with another breed within that species - and a new breed comes about in the record. I am to ignore how we understand life propagates to maintain a theory clearly at odds with observations? And then refuse to apply those emperical observations to the fossil record???

Might I suggest re-quoting what I posted ( post # 2130) and comment on that instead of going off on an unrelated rant.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Right, it is amazing to me that people who pride themselves on logic and reason have no understanding that mindless processes have nothing to do with logic and reason.

Thanks I love that quote too. I had one that was from Einstein previously and changed it due to some of the materialists that felt it was misrepresenting him.

Must have quoted him on his view of religion .

Well when you can believe that bacteria that do not evolve prove that things do evolve - I guess you can consider about anything to be logical and reasonable.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Or do you mean paleontology which has shown nothing but that triceratops remains a triceratops from the oldest fossil found to the youngest, before it mates with another breed and a new breed T, Horriblus or T. Prorsus comes into the fossil record? That they mistake all of these as separate species - when they are in fact just different breeds is a problem they need to learn to deal with. And in quite a few cases nothing more than the exact species under discussion - just adult or babies.

You know, just like we observe in real life. Husky remains Husky until it mates with another breed within that species - and a new breed comes about in the record. I am to ignore how we understand life propagates to maintain a theory clearly at odds with observations? And then refuse to apply those emperical observations to the fossil record???

Might I suggest re-quoting what I posted ( post # 2130) and comment on that instead of going off on an unrelated rant.

"A scientific consensus does not make something true, a scientific consensus suggests something is likely true. Science does not deal in proofs."

I did, you seem to think there is proof of evolution - even if you just claimed there is no proof. I would say what was likely was that breed mates with breed producing a new breed within the species just as we observe and would therefore explain the fossil record quite well, when one stops interpreting those fossils as separate species. You somehow disagree that this is the most likely thing to be true in the past, even if it is what we observe in the here and now?

 

[RickG]

Please not that I had edit my previous post to fix a quote problem. The new CF software upgrade, not that friendly.

 

[RickG]

"A scientific consensus does not make something true, a scientific consensus suggests something is likely true. Science does not deal in proofs."

I did, you seem to think there is proof of evolution - even if you just claimed there is no proof. I would say what was likely was that breed mates with breed producing a new breed within the species just as we observe and would therefore explain the fossil record quite well, when one stops interpreting those fossils as separate species. You somehow disagree that this is the most likely thing to be true in the past, even if it is what we observe in the here and now?

Please review my previous post, I had to edit it due to a problem with the begin and ending quotes. It is now fixed. Please comment on that post. I am not disagreeing with anything but your terminology. UNDERSTAND?

 

[whois]

Thought I would revisit the OP. And I want the OP to know that I agree with his description stating "this reasoning is absurd". That the paragraph I quoted, the first paragraph in the OP, is absurd. Lets take a look at it.

Evolutionists: What is an evolutionist? From a scientific point of view, I'm not sure I can define one, as every single field of the physical sciences contribute to the theory of evolution (ToE), whether directly or indirectly.

evolution is a concept, not a theory.
darwinism and others are the theories that attempt to explain this concept.
god is also a concept, and so far has eluded any type of theory to explain it.

when you start looking at the complexities of the biological cell, you get the distinct feeling that this thing was designed.
i would assume that a great many scientists also get this impression.
so why don't they just say so?
the answer to that is simple, take a good look at some of the threads here.
you either take the evolution route or you are berated, ostracized, and accused of being a bible thumping god believing creationist.

so help me, and beat me with a hammer for saying it, i'm beginning to believe that evolution will not be solved until you take intelligence into the equation.
the recent discovery of epigenetics combined with the placebo effect has prompted me to say that.
living organisms apparently have some kind of "will" to change what they are.
this is a scientific fact and it cannot be dismissed.

 

[Davian]

I can and have in "many ways" shown that there was intelligence behind the design we see in nature. Yes.

IN fact, intelligence in nature is more parsimonious arising from an intelligent being rather that intelligence arising or even being possible from a mindless, purposeless, process with no goals or planning devoid of intelligence.

We see biological systems that are designed in ways that humans design systems, we see intelligence in humans and no intelligence for that intelligence to arise from and no explanation or evidence for either in an evolutionary model.

That is your assertion. Now, show it to be the case.

 

[Davian]

You asked for a citation to back up what I said and then tell me analogies don't prove anything...move those goalposts why don't cha!

I asked for a citation. You provided an analogy. That is not a citation. That you never reach the goalposts is not because they are moving.