Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Loudmouth]

I don't think the evidence is conclusive.

Why not?

I have lived without questioning the philosophy of evolution that I need to determine what is actual evidence and what is assertion.

I am talking about the science of evolution.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why not?

Like I said, the evidence is not conclusive to me.

I am talking about the science of evolution.

I am too.

 

[lifepsyop]

I don't think the evidence is conclusive. I have lived without questioning the philosophy of evolution that I need to determine what is actual evidence and what is assertion.

Evolutionists are masters of equivocation and disguising their assumptions. Instead of openly presenting the strengths and weakness of their theory they are instead constantly glossing things over and trying to sell it to you, with the added hostility if you begin questioning them in any way.

 

[lifepsyop]

You haven't shown that those species are misclassified.

Interpretation of the "whale transition" has been notoriously ambiguous, fraught with erroneous conclusions, and generally dominated by subjective imagination of what the researchers want the animals to be. There's really no reason to assume the current classification interpretations are correct.

 

[Jammer]

A suggestion for anyone who believes a so-called "scientific consensus" proves something correct, or at least beyond questioning: Evolve a brain, get an education, and use it.

Throughout history, the "scientific consensus" has been wrong more often than right. Consensus is built on groupthink and peer pressure; not exactly the most stable of foundations.

Throughout history, "scientific consensus" has been repeatedly toppled by minorities, sometimes as small as a single person. After all, scientific advancement is the product of new data and/or new interpretations of old data, not the spoon-feeding and regurgitating of current ideas (i.e., consensus).

This is why those of us who truly understand science and its history can only roll our eyes at the simpletons who sing the praises of the "scientific consensus!" like braindead cheerleaders at a football game.

As for evolution, and how accurately it describes reality: It depends entirely on how one defines evolution.

One of the go-to rhetorical tricks of evolutionists is to give the term evolution several meanings, which allows them to throw out baits-and-switches like they're going out of style.

For example, that you look different from your parents can be called a form of evolution. This evolution is a directly-observed fact; it's true.

However, this observed fact is a far cry from the claim that mutations engineered all of the living world. Yet, by calling both claims "evolution," with no clear distinction between the two, evolutionists can use the undeniable proof for the former as undeniable proof for the later.

The general public, being mostly naive idiots, eat it up like a fat kid with a banana split.

What evolutionists must do is prove that their "theory" is compatible with the origin of life, and prove that it's capable of producing the vast high-tech engineering found in life. Then, and only then, will we skeptics accept it.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

How do you reconcile your belief of God and then claim that He didn't create the life on earth?

It is a matter of indifference to me whether the life on earth started naturally (due to a universe that could "grow" life) or started as a miracle (due to God creating a miraculous living cell at the time life started). Either way, I give God full credit for life. But I suspect He used the natural method.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Interpretation of the "whale transition" has been notoriously ambiguous, fraught with erroneous conclusions, and generally dominated by subjective imagination of what the researchers want the animals to be. There's really no reason to assume the current classification interpretations are correct.

And yet, there they are, transitional whale fossils where before we didn't have any.
And yet, there you are, still denying that whales evolved from land animals.
There's really no reason to take your denials of all evidence always as anything but reflexive denial.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What evolutionists must do is prove that their "theory" is compatible with the origin of life, and prove that it's capable of producing the vast high-tech engineering found in life. Then, and only then, will we skeptics accept it.

In what way is evolution not now compatible with the origin of life? Do you mean you want evolution to explain the origin of life? Because if the origin of life is merely accepted, evolution is certainly compatible with what happens to life after it originates.

 

[The Cadet]

A suggestion for anyone who believes a so-called "scientific consensus" proves something correct, or at least beyond questioning: Evolve a brain, get an education, and use it.

The entire purpose of the scientific community is to keep ideas in check, and ensure that they still hold up to the evidence. A consensus on a subject means that most of the people who are educated on the subject collectively think the current evidence strongly supports a certain hypothesis. That's all it means.

Throughout history, the "scientific consensus" has been wrong more often than right. Consensus is built on groupthink and peer pressure; not exactly the most stable of foundations.

Throughout history, "scientific consensus" has been repeatedly toppled by minorities, sometimes as small as a single person. After all, scientific advancement is the product of new data and/or new interpretations of old data, not the spoon-feeding and regurgitating of current ideas (i.e., consensus).

This is why those of us who truly understand science and its history can only roll our eyes at the simpletons who sing the praises of the "scientific consensus!" like braindead cheerleaders at a football game.

David Gorski is a practicing oncologist.
Steven Novella is a practicing neurologist.
John Timmer was a geneticist and is now science editor for a major pop sci publication.
You are some creationist with an account on Christianforums.com.

"The simpletons". Yeah.

Actually, you should really read that Timmer article. It really explains the concept in depth. What the scientific consensus on evolution and common descent means is that among those people best able to evaluate the evidence - those whose job it is to examine and make judgments on the evidence, and who have gone through extensive training to understand the finer points and technical aspects of said evidence, and who are most likely to be exposed to all available evidence - almost everyone agrees about what the evidence indicates.

In other words, almost every single person who has studied evolution in-depth at a university level has come to the conclusion that the current evidence indicates that evolution is an accurate model of the diversification of life on earth. That is what a scientific consensus means.

And you can appeal to the consensus view being "wrong" all you want. Science is an iterative process, constantly improving on our understanding given the evidence we have. Evolution could be overturned tomorrow! We might be unearthing some precambrian strata and find rabbits, T-Rexes, and Trilobites jumbled together in a single layer, blowing a massive hole in our model of prehistoric life! We're not likely to find that, any more than we're likely to find a perpetual motion/free energy device or a macro object that does not adhere to relativity, but it could happen! And just like that, boom, major overhaul in the theory, the consensus being updated, and science changing. And you know what's neat about the scientific method? If we find that evidence, the consensus view will change. It might take a few years (there is always a certain inertia in science, a certain hesitance to accept new ideas, particularly wild paradigm shifts), but it will happen.

But until we find that, we're stuck in a position where the best evidence we have now indicates that the modern theory of evolution is the best explanation we have, at least according to what almost every single legitimate expert on the subject has to say on the matter.

However, this observed fact is a far cry from the claim that mutations engineered all of the living world. Yet, by calling both claims "evolution," with no clear distinction between the two, evolutionists can use the undeniable proof for the former as undeniable proof for the later.

Because there is no distinction. Effectively, it's the difference between riding your bike to the corner store and riding your bike across the continent - a difference of scale, not kind. Mutations within populations can lead to vast differences, and when populations become divided, it can lead to vastly different mutations and selection pressures being applied to each population. Heck, you can even write simple computer algorithms with nothing more than death, selection pressures, and descent with modification, and come up with some very impressive results.

The general public, being mostly naive idiots, eat it up like a fat kid with a banana split.

And so do evolutionary biologists, including a non-trivial portion of evolutionary biologists that are Christians. See, this is where you lose me. Either there's a massive conspiracy among evolutionary biologists to hide this truth, or people who have spent most of their lives studying this subject somehow missed things that uneducated hacks were able to pick up on and continued to miss them for years even as the uneducated spread their message, or the uneducated hacks lack the knowledge to know what they're talking about.

I think that last one conforms pretty well with history, personally, with countless misconceptions, lies, and downright inanities (have you ever watched Hovind's old clips? The man is a nutter!) being revealed as such time and time again. I mean, even today, the most popular creationist faction doesn't spend a lot of time making the claim that the old earth model is supportable by science. Instead, it tries to claim that all science not immediately repeatable is somehow "historical science" and fundamentally different from "observational science" - a claim that anyone with a knowledge of the philosophy of science would instantly tell you is total bunk!

No, what's going on here is that people clearly don't understand the evidence for evolution and are trying to twist any little thing into fear, uncertainty and doubt (look at whois's first few posts in this thread for a prime example - he's clearly talking about something he knows next to nothing about, yet feels perfectly comfortable claiming it makes it impossible for us to say anything about our recent ancestry) when in reality there's simply no reasonable doubt left to be had.

But I'm not a biologist. I'm not a geneticist. I'm not quite sure what effect transposons would have on the genome, or whether epigenetics causes a problem for the theory of evolution. So what do I do instead? I turn to the experts. You can bet your bottom dollar that just about any geneticist has heard of epigenetics. At what rate do they believe in the current models of common descent? What's that? They're almost completely unanimous? Huh. Weird.

 

[The Cadet]

Interpretation of the "whale transition" has been notoriously ambiguous, fraught with erroneous conclusions, and generally dominated by subjective imagination of what the researchers want the animals to be. There's really no reason to assume the current classification interpretations are correct.

What an interesting claim! Care to back that up with either some serious credentials, or some peer-reviewed science papers, or anything of substance? Because as far as I can tell, that's completely wrong. The whale lineage belongs near the Homo lineage as a lineage we understand phenomenally well. It was hypothesized even before the fossils were known about that whales were mammals, and most likely descended from terrestrial mammals - as early as the 1690s. This was confirmed first with a fossil lineage, then with genetic analysis, and numerous other fields of independent research. This is not "ambiguous". This is not "dominated by subjective imagination". At least, none of the biologists working on the subject seem to think so.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is a matter of indifference to me whether the life on earth started naturally (due to a universe that could "grow" life) or started as a miracle (due to God creating a miraculous living cell at the time life started). Either way, I give God full credit for life. But I suspect He used the natural method.

Regardless, ID may not be discernible but ID is necessary if one agrees with Scripture and God being responsible for the creation of the universe and all life in it. Your claim:
Its easy to see evolution as the reason for this situation. Hard to see this as the work of an intelligent designer.
Seems to convey the concept that God was not involved and evolution is the creative impetus rather than God. I was interested in your position on that.

 

[sfs]

A suggestion for anyone who believes a so-called "scientific consensus" proves something correct, or at least beyond questioning: Evolve a brain, get an education, and use it.

Throughout history, the "scientific consensus" has been wrong more often than right. Consensus is built on groupthink and peer pressure; not exactly the most stable of foundations.

Throughout history, "scientific consensus" has been repeatedly toppled by minorities, sometimes as small as a single person. After all, scientific advancement is the product of new data and/or new interpretations of old data, not the spoon-feeding and regurgitating of current ideas (i.e., consensus).

This is why those of us who truly understand science and its history can only roll our eyes at the simpletons who sing the praises of the "scientific consensus!" like braindead cheerleaders at a football game.

Put me down as one of the simpletons -- you must be much better educated than I am. But I'll still venture to disagree with you on a point or two.

First, sure, scientific consensus can be wrong and can be overthrown. It's actually quite rare, though, for a mature, well-tested major theory to be proven simply wrong. It can be modified, or shown to be a special case or an approximation of a more fundamental theory, but just tossed out? What examples are there of that happening? Also, you might note that when scientific consensus is overthrown, it generally happens because of people with expertise in the field. When was the last time that outsiders overthrew a major scientific theory?

As for evolution, and how accurately it describes reality: It depends entirely on how one defines evolution.

One of the go-to rhetorical tricks of evolutionists is to give the term evolution several meanings, which allows them to throw out baits-and-switches like they're going out of style.

For example, that you look different from your parents can be called a form of evolution. This evolution is a directly-observed fact; it's true.

However, this observed fact is a far cry from the claim that mutations engineered all of the living world. Yet, by calling both claims "evolution," with no clear distinction between the two, evolutionists can use the undeniable proof for the former as undeniable proof for the later.

I'm pretty sure I've never done that. In fact, I wrote a post just a day or two ago explicitly distinguishing between the two. Of course, in the post I also pointed out that both of those aspects of evolution -- change within a species and common descent -- were so well supported by the evidence that they could be treated as facts. But I'm just a scientist, so what do I know?

The general public, being mostly naive idiots, eat it up like a fat kid with a banana split.

What evolutionists must do is prove that their "theory" is compatible with the origin of life, and prove that it's capable of producing the vast high-tech engineering found in life. Then, and only then, will we skeptics accept it.

We don't really have to prove that evolution is compatible with the origin of life (whatever exactly you mean by that), since it doesn't much matter to us where life came from: we just worry about how it's changed while it's been here. As for convincing the skeptics, well, I've seen a lot of skeptics of evolution, and they generally show very little interest in actual scientific data or reasoning. So call me skeptical that you're willing to be convinced

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Besides the point. Flippers evolved first, so even under evolutionary theory there is no reason to assume that the flipper is a vestigial of the leg.

Why are you still trying to debate a point I never raised?

 

[sfs]

Delineated ecologically or biologically? This is the problem with the word "species", with multiple meanings you can never know exactly what is being claimed. I don't think biologists should have ever started classifying distinct species simply by geographical/ecological separation.

Here is at least one account of a honeycreeper hybrid between the Apapane and the I'iwi.

http://phys.org/news/2011-08-native-hawaiian-birds-survive-fragmented.html

Yes, I've read the paper that described that hybrid; that's why I said hybridization was rare -- that's the only known case. The species (and sometimes genus) assignments here were made long ago, based primarily on morphology. They've subsequently been supported by genetic studies. The genetic distance between the most diverged honeycreeper species is roughly half that between humans and chimpanzees.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Regardless, ID may not be discernible but ID is necessary if one agrees with Scripture and God being responsible for the creation of the universe and all life in it. Your claim:
Its easy to see evolution as the reason for this situation. Hard to see this as the work of an intelligent designer.
Seems to convey the concept that God was not involved and evolution is the creative impetus rather than God. I was interested in your position on that.

God was clearly not involved in the design phase directly; otherwise, we would not see such things as I and others have pointed out. However, it is my faith that God set the parameters of our universe so that life would arise and evolve naturally. You cannot undo my direct perception of the problems with a uretha running straight through the prostrate gland.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Keeping the function seen in the ancestral group and other evolutionary branches is not vestigial.

Sorry, you still haven't got that right. You can't make up things as you go along every time you want to tell us what something is or isn't.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vestigial_structure

Evolving new function is not an example of a vestigial structure.

The whale never evolved a new structure since flippers evolved long before legs did. It at most regressed in evolution theory. A throwback - even if it survives to this day

You haven't shown that those species are misclassified.

I've shown you many times, you just make up excuses to ignore them.

You've already ignored this.
And this.
And the fact that you call finches that can interbreed separate species, because you didn't know they interbred before you named them. And now they don't even bother to correct their mistakes.

All you people are showing me is mistake built upon mistake because the first one was never corrected or any of the ones after in the name game.

I've given you enough in breeds alone to make any rational person at least look at the possibility. Stasis in the fossil record with sudden fluxes and appearances? Not a problem. The Husky remains Husky until mated with another breed, which interbreeds back into the other breeds and eventually it too sets - and within a few generations a new breed is seen.

But no, we couldn't possibly accept real world observations. Instead you insist that Husky evolved through intermediate forms through the process of mutations to get to the Chinook. When nothing of the sort happened and we both know it.

Am I the same breed Adam was? Not by a long shot. Do I expect to see different structural changes in the human Kind? Of course I do. I expect to see them in everything. The only difference is I don't pretend it happened in the long ago differently than it happens today. I accept the fossil record for what it is. Snapshots of time of breed mating with breed in the natural world producing new breeds. And in no part do I need to pretend anything is missing or throw in gap theory - merely accept how life propagates. I need make no excuses for the fossil record, merely accept at face value what it tells us, that life propagated in the past just like it does today.

I need not make excuses for incorrectly classifying finches that interbreed as new species, then when it is discovered they can interbreed, refuse to correct the classification. Or Tigers and Lions. And I am sure many others if we pushed them together as might happen in nature over longer periods of time due to geological factors.

No, all evolutionist's have always done is show they are unwilling to correct their mistakes and want to continue on as if nothing has happened. When evolutionists decide they want to be scientific again, let me know.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, I've read the paper that described that hybrid; that's why I said hybridization was rare -- that's the only known case. The species (and sometimes genus) assignments here were made long ago, based primarily on morphology. They've subsequently been supported by genetic studies. The genetic distance between the most diverged honeycreeper species is roughly half that between humans and chimpanzees.

So what? The divergence between individuals in the human race (breed) is greater too. The divergence between different dog species is greater too.

Assignments were made due to supposed similarities - then you want to claim that the genetic divergence in H.C.'s is half that between Chimps and Humans. And you wont even accept that those H.C.'s all belong to the same species as Darwin's finch, but keep trying to ram down our throats that humans and chimpz have to be related, because we are greater in differences than a species you wont accept as one species?

You may think your reasoning is sound, but it is flawed from the start.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Sorry, you still haven't got that right. You can't make up things as you go along every time you want to tell us what something is or isn't.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vestigial_structure

He posted this definition:

"Keeping the function seen in the ancestral group and other evolutionary branches is not vestigial."

That is consistent with the link you posted which says this:

(biology) A structure in an organism that has lost all or most of its original function in the course of evolution, such as human appendixes.

Shouldn't you post links that support you instead of reaffirm the statement made by the one you seek to refute?

The whale never evolved a new structure since flippers evolved long before legs did. It at most regressed in evolution theory. A throwback - even if it survives to this day

Well its nice to see you supporting evolution even if you do bicker about the wording.

No, all evolutionist's have always done is show they are unwilling to correct their mistakes and want to continue on as if nothing has happened. When evolutionists decide they want to be scientific again, let me know.

If evolution happens as scientists postulate it does - that is, gradually over many generations until one breeding population finally becomes a different species from another - then it is not surprising to see hybreds between closely related species. The hybredization is expected to be possible for a while, and then later, no longer possible.

Oh, and here is your official notification that evolutionary scientists are doing real science.

 

[lifepsyop]

What an interesting claim! Care to back that up with either some serious credentials, or some peer-reviewed science papers, or anything of substance?

It is common knowledge that evolutionary paleontologists have shown a tendency to insert imaginary traits not found in evidence in order to help sell their transitional model. The traits they do have usually amount to ambiguous interpretation at best.

It was hypothesized even before the fossils were known about that whales were mammals, and most likely descended from terrestrial mammals - as early as the 1690s.

All that shows is the motive for evolutionists to try and force-fit a transitional model, to fudge and tweak whatever they can to help portray the sense of the animal "trending" in a certain direction. Subjectivity and confirmation bias are guaranteed.

 

[The Cadet]

It is common knowledge that evolutionary paleontologists have shown a tendency to insert imaginary traits not found in evidence in order to help sell their transitional model. The traits they do have usually amount to ambiguous interpretation at best.

Yes, and since then they've found a far more complete skeleton, which has largely falsified that drawing of Pakicetus. What's your point? That Gingerich was wrong? Yeah, he was. But let's not pretend that it's all just "making stuff up". There are actually methods in paleontology to piece together what an animal must have looked like from incomplete skeletons. I'm not entirely sure what those methods are; I recommend talking to someone who is a, bringing this back to the topic of the thread...

...professional paleontologist.

Because they, unlike you or I, will probably be able to offer some useful insight into the methods used by Gingerich, and other paleontologists.