New thread for Nick

This thread is becoming kind of crowded, and there are a lot of issues I would like to discuss and debate with Nick Petreley in a more organized way, so that we can stay on track until we have a chance (at least) to come to some kind of common ground. I'm going to pick out the most contentious points from that thread and quote them here:


Nick's characterization of the evidence for evolution
Nick. If this is what was done, even if this was a modest oversimplification of what was done, by scientists investigating the evolutionary hypothesis, then we would be done. I would give no credence to this kind of thinking or the evidence that produced it. Yes, it is extremely simple to see how silly are the conclusions of evolutionists, when they are represented by this straw man.

In the posts that follow, I would like to lay out the real and substantive difference between the evidence that confirms evolution, and the straw man above.


In the last thread, you claimed that you abandoned evolution on rational grounds instead of religious ones. If that is the case, then we can discuss those rational grounds. It appears to me from this that your rational grounds were probably good justification for abandoning the ideas you previously had about evolution, but do not apply at all to the real theory of evolution. If that is the case, then - should the data convince you, this will be the first time you were really convinced of the real theory of evolution. I will be posting the first topic back to this thread in a few hours... stay tuned!

PART I: Circumstantial evidence

LiveFreeOrDie posted a good analogy of circumstantial evidence, where, unfortunately - you murdered me. You offered two criticisms to his example: 1) the evidence that was found was recent, where evidence for evolution is often ancient and 2) it relied upon interpretation (your words about this follow):

If a talented lawyer interprets and prevents the evidence (incorrectly) in a convincing manner, then a person can be wrongfully convicted. However, does this mean that we can never have any certainty about what has happened? Can we not examine the lawyer's interpetations and presentation and search for flaws? If our legal system is working, someone will be there to expose the flaws in his interpretation (not just shout: "It's interpretation!!"). Assuming everyone is doing their job, and the jury is intelligent enough to understand both the interpretations of the evidence and any flaws that are exposed, we should almost never convict an innocent party. If we rule out any evidence that must be interpreted (I suppose because we are assuming that people are too stupid to understand flaws in bad interpretations?) then we can do no science, and we can leave the majority of criminals on the streets.

Lets look at the "interpretations" of the circumstantial evidence for common descent:

I. Paralogy and homology:
Homology (similarity of structures) helps us to classify organisms into groups. Paralogy (similarity of structures that produce different functions), within those groups, is the first evidence for common descent (of the groups that contain them). It is not conclusive evidence, by itself - it is merely the first. What are the interpretations available?

a - paralogous structures represent the modification of existing structures to meet new environmental needs.
b - paralogous structures represent the design rule that it is simpler to modify existing plans than to design new ones.
c - paralogous structures are a mere coincidence.
d - there are no paralogous structures. The perceived similarities in structure between functionally different organs, tissues, cells, or biochemicals are merely an illusion.

If paralogous structures represent the modification of existing structures to meet new environmental needs, then we can only ever expect to find them where homologous groupings represent a common ancestor to the paralogous forms. If interpretation b is true, then the designer could have used similar structures to perform different functions without regard to concern about homologous groupings of similar structures with similar functions. If c is true, then paralogous structures might be found randomly distributed.

What is found in nature? Well, in nature paralogous structures are found where, and only where, they should be by common descent. Bat wings are structurally similar to mammalian hands (not structurally similar to bird wings).
Whale pelvises are structurally similar to the pelvises of terrestrial mammals (not structurally similar to the ribs of sharks). On the molecular level, the instances of paralogy are overwhelming, always fitting the predictions of common descent. Interpretation a, is therefore, the best fit from a - c. Option d is an equal probability, but if such perceptions are universally illusory, then we cannot trust our senses, and the universe itself might just as well be illusory.


II. Genetic homology. Common descent requires certain biological relationships between organisms that share homologous structures. If common descent is correct, then genetic comparisons should reveal the same relationships discerned by comparisons of body structures. Of course, they do, to a high degree of certainty.
Interpretations:

a - genetic simlarities are, indeed, a result of common descent.
b - genetic similarities are the result of similar design.
c - genetic similarities are pure coincidence.
d - we have already discussed "d".

a, b, & c can be rehashed under the "nested hierarchy" principle from the discussion above. Under that principle, a is again the best fit. Furthermore, a is consistent with other observations from nature. We have only ever observed one source of DNA (genetic material) - that is the reproduction of previously existing DNA.

If I claim that a child, "John Doe" did not develope from the reproduction of existing DNA, but was instead built from scratch in my basement, and my wife argues "no, that is our child", a few tests can be done to help settle the issue. Lets say that a test is dones, and it turns out that John Doe has DNA with 23 human chromosomes, and each gene is identical to one carried by me or my wife. The "interpretations" are the same:
a - the child's DNA came about by reproduction of the DNA of my and my wife's gametes.
b - I designed the child's DNA using my own and my wife's DNA as a model
c - Pure accident
d - ... you know ...

The only one of these explanations consistent with our experience of where DNA comes from is option a.

Furthermore, common descent predicts that even non-functional DNA will have the same kinds of similarities between groups of organisms. We do find that this is the case. The interpretations:

a - common descent explains the similarities between non-functional DNA
b - The designer included these similarities for reasons not related to design/function (such as a joke, or to intentionally mislead us)
c - accident
d - the non-functional DNA has some hidden function that is important to anatomical homology.
e - complete observational incompetence: there are no such similarities.

We can rule out c, leaving a, b, & d unless we are to accept e, with its implicit denial of the possibility of ever having any degree of certainty about anything.

a is the best in this group by occham's razor. For b, one must postulate some reason for the designer to include non-functional DNA in the first place, and some reason for him to create similarities in it that mirrored similarities in body plan. For d, one has to postulate the as-yet undiscovered function of DNA that does not code for proteins, and does not make necessary contributions to structure or regulation... That means we have to find out something that is going on inside the cell that the known functions of DNA does not explain. At this stage in the development of the science of microbiology, that seems like a vanishingly small probability.

III. The Fossil Record:

I am not up to relating the predictions of common descent for the fossil record, for the reason that common descent only makes very generalized statements about what CAN be found in the fossil record, and what CANNOT be found there. Since fossilization is a rare event, no theory can predict exactly what WILL be found in the fossil record. However, I can give a general overview of the evidence from the fossil record and discuss the interpretations in general terms:

1 - Using relative stratigraphic dating techniques, we can determine the relative ages of different fossils.
2 - The oldest fossils are structurally very different from organisms living now.
3 - The development over time of structures and body plans present in organisms now living, but not present in much older fossil organisms, is sometimes recorded in the fossil record. For instance, there are several fossils organisms that incorporate bits of the body plan of modern horses, starting from three-toed dog-like creatures, and progressing through stages to one-hoofed horses (and many other now-extinct horses with somewhat different body plans and structures, by a variety of "routes").

Interpretations:
a - the progression and diversification over time from ancient forms to modern forms is a result of descent with modification, confirming the predictions of common descent.
b - the progression and diversification over time results from a designer who was learning as he went along.
c - the progression and diversification over time was pure coincidence.
d - there was no progression and diversification over time - the fossils are really worm tracks, bear no resemblance to one another or modern forms, and we are too stupid to tell the difference.
e - Most fossils were formed in a great world-wide flood 4000 years ago, and were sorted hydrologically

Discussion:
Common sesnse forces us to throw out c. D has its usual problem. It may be true, but if it is, there is no point in us discussing anything. Humans are just too stupid to understand anything about nature and we might as well not try if D is true. E is falsified. Hydrological sorting would yield a radically different pattern of fossil deposits. That leaves a & b. B requires we postulate a designer smart enough to create life, but who either was not designing toward any particular goal, or could not accomplish that goal on the first try. Occham's razor tells us a.

In order to account for ALL of this circumstantial evidence, then, we must interpret the following:

a - common descent is true
b - common descent is not true. There was a designer who was prone to adapting existing structures for new functions, and restricted himself to doing so in only the ways that can also be accounted for by common descent. He either designed homology into non-functional DNA in ways that can also be accounted for by common descent for some unknown reason, or much of the DNA in our genome has some hidden purpose not even hinted at by microbiological research. He designed living creatures to reproduce, by passing along their DNA, but also created a whole lot of DNA homologously from scratch, over and over again, at various points in history. He either had no final goal for the life he was designing, or could not figure out how to get it right in one step.
c - All of this evidence is the world's most outrageous coincidence.
d - We can never have any kind of scientific knowledge or any degree of certainty about the world we live in, because a whole lot of what we see is illusion.

I'm sticking with A for now, but maybe I will change my mind, when we get to part II, later....

Wow, my very own thread! Garwsh. G'hilt. (deep blush)

Part II: Tangential Interpretations

In part I, we talked about the evidence directly for common descent. Now let's talk about what common descent requires, i.e. potential falsification, and the interpretations that are involved in finding that evolution isn't falsified.

I. Descent with modification
Common descent requires this strongly. At the time Darwin published, little was known of descent with modification. It was a necessary and unproven postulate of the Darwinistic common descent.

The details of descent with modification have been worked out extensively since Darwin's day, beginning with Mendelian genetics. Introduction of novelty has been established through studies of mutation, genetic isolation has been established through studies of population genetics. In itself, this is evidence for common descent - descent with modification is, after all, a prediction of common descent. More importantly, however, descent with modification establishes strongly that the necessary mechanisms for common descent are in place and operating.

Lets discuss this in terms of interpretations now. First, lets approach it this way. Lets assume that every instance of descent with modification ever found is the result of faulty interpretations. Even in this extreme case, we are only set back so far: we still have evidence for common descent, but lack firm evidence that descent with modification takes place. However, I don't think any amount of equivocating of "interpretations" will ever bring us back to the point that we are compelled to say that descent with modification isn't proven.

Now, in discussions of evolution, many will point out that descent with modification, over vast periods of time, is guaranteed to bring about macoevolutionary changes. You cannot keep making small changes to a thing without eventually the thing being very different from the original, right? Well, it is a good argument, but the evidence that it works this way is in studies of comparative biology, genetics, paleontology, and studies of biogeography (a major type of evidence for common descent that I omitted from the discussion in Part I.). The extrapolation by itself lends credence to the common descent, but cannot be construed as strong evidence for it. If all we had was the extrapolation from genomic changes studied in the last one hundred years, we would not have an air-tight case against evolution. We can call into question an interpretation of this data set (by itself) as evidence for evolution. After all, it could be merely evidence for variation within created kinds.

II. Age of the earth

Gradualistic Darwinian evolution cannot produce the changes necessary for common descent in just a few millenia. Billions of years are required. It was already known that the earth was fairly old before Darwin published, but since the advent of radiological dating, the old age of the earth has become much more secure. Some might object to the interpretations of radiological dating (especially considering that it can, under some circumstances or if used incorrectly, give spurious results).

I am not an expert on radioactive dating (fortunately, we do have some very knowledgeable people posting on this board), but for the benefit of discussion, lets say that we have several rocks that each date to 3.2-3.9 billion years by isochron radiometric dating. As someone pointed out in the isochron dating thread, this technique does not rely on any assumptions about the original content of the rock, except that it be homogenous. It is reasonable to think that if the rock is homogenous now, that it was homogenous when formed, so that isn't a big problem. So, what are the interpretations?

a - the rock's are over 3 billion years old.
b - the rate of radioactive decay has changed significantly for the isotopes used in the measurement, and was once much faster.
c - our instruments cannot measure quanities of radioisotopes in minerals, and even if they could, we couldn't read them.
d - other unexamined interpretations

There is no indication that b is true. If b is true, then quantum physics is wrong about the nature of radioactive decay.

If another interpretation of the radiometric data is true, then we would expect to find that cross-checks between radiometric techniques and stratigraphic techniques (or even dendrochronological ones) would reveal dates inconsistent with the radiometric data. We find the opposit is true though, so we can be fairly well satisfied that the radiometric dates are accurate.

Even if the interpretations of the dating techniques are inappropriate for determining the age of the Earth, we are left again, with evidence for common descent, but insufficient evidence that enough time has elapsed for it to happen.

We have not discovered any flaws in the interpretations of any data important to evolution, except that some of the data may have alternative interpretations. We have seen flaws in the alternative interpretations that make them less probably correct.

It would be disingenuous at best, perverse at worst, not to conclude that descent with modification occurs and that the earth is at least a couple of billion years old, merely because it is a well-guided, unflawed interpretation of the data that leads us to this conclusion.

Not being disingenuous or perverse, we must conclude that the earth is old, that descent with modification occurs, and that therefore common descent is not falsified.

Now it is your turn. Three categories of evidence for evolution have been presented. Thousands of fossil finds, thousands of anatomical comparisons, and hundreds of genomic comparisons all say common descent happened. Show us the fault in the interpretations. If you can, show us the better interpretations.

If you cannot, then please leave off with your diatribes about evolution being based on our "imagination" and biased "interpretation".

bump

__________________
Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.

- Colin Wilson

Bumping this up so that Nick can see an example of me discussing the "issues" instead of "focusing on people".

__________________
Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.

- Colin Wilson

So Nick, according to your "theory", which animal should have the most similiar DNA to a mouse found in your backyard:
a)a kangaroo
b)a marsupial mouse (hey, this one looks & acts just like the mouse in question.)
c)a bat
d)a sparrow

So Nick, tell me why the bat & the mouse are so similiar & not the mouse & marsupial mouse. Tell me why the kangaroo is similiar to the marsupial mouse. Why aren't the bat & sparrow all too similiar? If it's due to a common creator, wouldn't that lead one to believe reptiles, birds, & mammals have different creators? Otherwise, I'd expect sparrows & bats would be more similiar.

hey, look what I found in the basement
<brush brush>

There good as new.

Look what happens when you ask Nick to back up his claims that the evidence is imaginary!

I bet we get a free quote-nugget!

__________________
Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.

- Colin Wilson

Why....why...why...it's a BUMP-FEST!



A thread that never dies, until it is addressed.

And since we know that Nick will never address any of these points, that means that

(in some miraculous way)

this thread has received ETERNAL LIFE!