For most of my life I was fully convinced of the narrative I had received from the Evolutionary biologists (EBs) regarding all the explanations they were providing (Ernst Mayr called much of it a constructed historical narrative). For many, many, decades prior to that, while EBs insisted on what I have come to call 'the ancestor of the gaps default' as the reason for many of the plausible discrepancies in their narrative. I did not realize that they had no actual examples whatsoever (insisting the fossil record actually demonstrated their theory when as they knew, it did not...in fact cannot). But sadly their insistence that it was true, had already been programmed in. It really took a lot of searrching through piles of articles and studies and being willing to at least consider alternative perspectives and interpretations of the data to get me to open my eyes.
Now one can mention that “Comparative anatomy, comparative genetics, phylogenies” in offering far more proof, but though some evidence from these CAN BE interpreted in this way, much of it is interpretation explained to fit what was already believed to be true (thus the conclusion interpreted the data, not the data forming a conclusion, which in my opinion is backwards thinking for science).
Others claim “It's inferred from DNA evidence, and embryonic development” and so on, but since inference is largely subjective, and I no longer see that as the ONLY possible explanation for these things. I must conclude that while I do believein Evolution some aspects of the narrative we had drilled into us is not actually established fact at all. If indisputable then okay (which in my opinion some aspects are), but some aspects are not indisputable, and some give cause for reasonable doubt (see EES and Third Way Evolution as a starting point).
Then some say that Evolution “makes predictions that reach beyond biology, like for example that the earth must be old and not young”, but it really is a Johnny come lately claim since many already believed the earth to be very old, and it was so believed for 1,000s of years before the theory of evolution. Therefore one cannot rightly claim evolution theory predicted this.
So Evolution neither predicted what was already believed, nor demonstrated what was already believed., for we already believed that we had evidence for this belief. Take for one example the Sumerian kings list. When the first ten names (or kingdom periods) are calculated according to their counting of time, we see that civilized humanity would have been over 25,000 years old at that time. The time from which we get the list being 1,000s of years later, and relative to us being written around 5,000 years ago. That makes mankind, or at least civilized man, around for about 40,000 years. This actually pans out with the most popular scientific models. This is not the time for human presence just the timeline for “civilization” or when humans emerged as cohesive social groups and/or formed communities.
So now when one is looking at the evidence, and one finds one of the claim tht was made has been demonstrated to be incorrect, or fraudulently presented, or even a little tainted by motive or bias, then all the other alleged evidences should be brought into question and be re-evaluated. In all other instances this would automatically be the case so why not here? So when I say “In the rules of evidence and proof when it is found that some of the evidence has been shown to be questionable or intentionally tainted then ALL the evidence becomes questionable and must be shown to be actual” I am speaking about understanding held in common by most people and even courts of law. For example outside of this case, when OJ was on trial for murder and they discovered that one of the detectives with white nationalist ties had intentionally tampered with some evidence (the alleged socks), then all the additional evidence had to be re-evaluated and some that had supported this piece of evidence was thrown out and no longer relied upon. So it is in the case of this alleged prediction. It simply put is a spin that was used to shape our opinion, but it is not true. That would be like ME predicting that the Sun is actually a star (a fact we already know) and then when I show it is claiming credit for having shown the evidence or proof my claim was so.
As for automatically calling addditional evidence into question as a rersult of the discovery of error or am inaccurate claim, it is NOT ludicrous at all to expect this. A forensic lab in Framinham Massachusetts found that one of their scientists had made an error in DNA testing that made the courts and lawyers re-evaluate a criminals case and he was released. After this one instance was unvieled they were forced by law to reevaluate 100s of other cases that this person and lab had been invoilved with in getting convinctions. This process and expectation are part of the way we prove things (perhaps you are familiar with falsifiability). If something (anything) can be shown to not necessarily have to have happened in the way claimed, then it merits being questioned. This is one of the very sound reasonings used by atheists in arguing against young earth creationists (so we must apply this standard to all our beliefs, not just those that oppose our own).
For another example, Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down“, and IMO this has been demonstrated over and over, but eclusion of POSSIBILITY is not an oprion one can deal with. I have found almost naything is possible. !00 years ago no one could have imagined (except in sci fi reasoning) that we would be able to use a small wireless pocket device to see and speak with another person clear around the world, but now my 9 years old gradson uses skype all the time. This is a common frame of reference in his life.
In the geo-cloumn, the soft tissue body structure of Nautilus when it first appears in the fossil record, it appears fully formed with all supporting subsystems already functional and in place. Can it be shown to have NOT POSSIBLY have been formed “by numerous, successive, slight modifications”? No of course not. One cannmot prove a negative except in math, so an absurdity is built into the statement almost creating a strawman. However that does not take away from the demonstrable, observable, fact that after almost 200 years of looking,lthere is not one iota of evidence to show that this IS how it formed. It simply is NOT there and then IS with no previous quasi- or semi- Nautilus creatures preceding it. That is just the real data (minus the narrative).
Even the fossil record, formerly claimed as proof, NOW is dismissable and must no longer rely on it as their defense (yet was relied on for so many decades as “proof “and taught as sound indicative evidence to innocently inquiring minds for decades).
Also we can look at the dopaminergic interneurons in the human brain. They do not exist in any apes of any kind (present or in the past). Yet we are innundated with the presumption of a lineal relationship. There are NO forerunners...no quasi structures...simply appearing suddenly fully functional in humans makes it difference we should account for or at the least give rise to support for those that allege the POSSIBILITY of difference! This anatomical factor has been shown by this fact (selectively excluded in most schools) to not have been formed “by numerous, successive, slight modifications”. Like so many other things, there is not one iota of evidence, other than a number of conjectural posturings, to SHOW this was indeed the case. Again this is the actual data minus the narrative attached.
By ignoring or selectively excluding al other alternative POSSIBLE explanations, one can fit the facts into the narrative attached, but by just looking at the data (the fact that it is a purely human factor that apes do not share) shows us we do not have to (and should not) accept the developed by numerous successive slight modifications theory as a general fact. There are in fact many instances where this formerly clung to and drilled in idea of gradualism has failed in the crucible of the scientific method and objective interpretation. Scientists who are being objective, using actual critical thinking, should not assume this is the case and then find things they can interpret to fit the “belief” (but alas some will do just that and without doubt these will get published and get the grant monies while those against the “belief” will not).
For another...the common ancestor default in neo-Darwinian evolution was widely accepted as accurate (not "believed" - science allegedly doesn't deal in "beliefs") long before we even knew about DNA. SO once swallowed whole before there was evidence of any sort, the belief colored the interpretations beginning ages ago. Now I agree that “SCIENCE” tries not to deal with mere belief, but some SCIENTISTS however (certainly not all) do often fall into this snare. Much of their interpretations are a form of confirmation bias and hypothesis driven interpretation.
Honest scientists usually will couch their “inferences” in the langauge of mere possibility (could be, we believe that, might have, and so on), but others declare these “beliefs” as if they are indisputable facts (which they are not, though many are very plausibilities). Herein lays a problem for the students who will be researchers of tomorrow. They MUST LEARN to discern the difference between the raw data and the historical narrative attached.
What do you say?
Now one can mention that “Comparative anatomy, comparative genetics, phylogenies” in offering far more proof, but though some evidence from these CAN BE interpreted in this way, much of it is interpretation explained to fit what was already believed to be true (thus the conclusion interpreted the data, not the data forming a conclusion, which in my opinion is backwards thinking for science).
Others claim “It's inferred from DNA evidence, and embryonic development” and so on, but since inference is largely subjective, and I no longer see that as the ONLY possible explanation for these things. I must conclude that while I do believein Evolution some aspects of the narrative we had drilled into us is not actually established fact at all. If indisputable then okay (which in my opinion some aspects are), but some aspects are not indisputable, and some give cause for reasonable doubt (see EES and Third Way Evolution as a starting point).
Then some say that Evolution “makes predictions that reach beyond biology, like for example that the earth must be old and not young”, but it really is a Johnny come lately claim since many already believed the earth to be very old, and it was so believed for 1,000s of years before the theory of evolution. Therefore one cannot rightly claim evolution theory predicted this.
So Evolution neither predicted what was already believed, nor demonstrated what was already believed., for we already believed that we had evidence for this belief. Take for one example the Sumerian kings list. When the first ten names (or kingdom periods) are calculated according to their counting of time, we see that civilized humanity would have been over 25,000 years old at that time. The time from which we get the list being 1,000s of years later, and relative to us being written around 5,000 years ago. That makes mankind, or at least civilized man, around for about 40,000 years. This actually pans out with the most popular scientific models. This is not the time for human presence just the timeline for “civilization” or when humans emerged as cohesive social groups and/or formed communities.
So now when one is looking at the evidence, and one finds one of the claim tht was made has been demonstrated to be incorrect, or fraudulently presented, or even a little tainted by motive or bias, then all the other alleged evidences should be brought into question and be re-evaluated. In all other instances this would automatically be the case so why not here? So when I say “In the rules of evidence and proof when it is found that some of the evidence has been shown to be questionable or intentionally tainted then ALL the evidence becomes questionable and must be shown to be actual” I am speaking about understanding held in common by most people and even courts of law. For example outside of this case, when OJ was on trial for murder and they discovered that one of the detectives with white nationalist ties had intentionally tampered with some evidence (the alleged socks), then all the additional evidence had to be re-evaluated and some that had supported this piece of evidence was thrown out and no longer relied upon. So it is in the case of this alleged prediction. It simply put is a spin that was used to shape our opinion, but it is not true. That would be like ME predicting that the Sun is actually a star (a fact we already know) and then when I show it is claiming credit for having shown the evidence or proof my claim was so.
As for automatically calling addditional evidence into question as a rersult of the discovery of error or am inaccurate claim, it is NOT ludicrous at all to expect this. A forensic lab in Framinham Massachusetts found that one of their scientists had made an error in DNA testing that made the courts and lawyers re-evaluate a criminals case and he was released. After this one instance was unvieled they were forced by law to reevaluate 100s of other cases that this person and lab had been invoilved with in getting convinctions. This process and expectation are part of the way we prove things (perhaps you are familiar with falsifiability). If something (anything) can be shown to not necessarily have to have happened in the way claimed, then it merits being questioned. This is one of the very sound reasonings used by atheists in arguing against young earth creationists (so we must apply this standard to all our beliefs, not just those that oppose our own).
For another example, Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down“, and IMO this has been demonstrated over and over, but eclusion of POSSIBILITY is not an oprion one can deal with. I have found almost naything is possible. !00 years ago no one could have imagined (except in sci fi reasoning) that we would be able to use a small wireless pocket device to see and speak with another person clear around the world, but now my 9 years old gradson uses skype all the time. This is a common frame of reference in his life.
In the geo-cloumn, the soft tissue body structure of Nautilus when it first appears in the fossil record, it appears fully formed with all supporting subsystems already functional and in place. Can it be shown to have NOT POSSIBLY have been formed “by numerous, successive, slight modifications”? No of course not. One cannmot prove a negative except in math, so an absurdity is built into the statement almost creating a strawman. However that does not take away from the demonstrable, observable, fact that after almost 200 years of looking,lthere is not one iota of evidence to show that this IS how it formed. It simply is NOT there and then IS with no previous quasi- or semi- Nautilus creatures preceding it. That is just the real data (minus the narrative).
Even the fossil record, formerly claimed as proof, NOW is dismissable and must no longer rely on it as their defense (yet was relied on for so many decades as “proof “and taught as sound indicative evidence to innocently inquiring minds for decades).
Also we can look at the dopaminergic interneurons in the human brain. They do not exist in any apes of any kind (present or in the past). Yet we are innundated with the presumption of a lineal relationship. There are NO forerunners...no quasi structures...simply appearing suddenly fully functional in humans makes it difference we should account for or at the least give rise to support for those that allege the POSSIBILITY of difference! This anatomical factor has been shown by this fact (selectively excluded in most schools) to not have been formed “by numerous, successive, slight modifications”. Like so many other things, there is not one iota of evidence, other than a number of conjectural posturings, to SHOW this was indeed the case. Again this is the actual data minus the narrative attached.
By ignoring or selectively excluding al other alternative POSSIBLE explanations, one can fit the facts into the narrative attached, but by just looking at the data (the fact that it is a purely human factor that apes do not share) shows us we do not have to (and should not) accept the developed by numerous successive slight modifications theory as a general fact. There are in fact many instances where this formerly clung to and drilled in idea of gradualism has failed in the crucible of the scientific method and objective interpretation. Scientists who are being objective, using actual critical thinking, should not assume this is the case and then find things they can interpret to fit the “belief” (but alas some will do just that and without doubt these will get published and get the grant monies while those against the “belief” will not).
For another...the common ancestor default in neo-Darwinian evolution was widely accepted as accurate (not "believed" - science allegedly doesn't deal in "beliefs") long before we even knew about DNA. SO once swallowed whole before there was evidence of any sort, the belief colored the interpretations beginning ages ago. Now I agree that “SCIENCE” tries not to deal with mere belief, but some SCIENTISTS however (certainly not all) do often fall into this snare. Much of their interpretations are a form of confirmation bias and hypothesis driven interpretation.
Honest scientists usually will couch their “inferences” in the langauge of mere possibility (could be, we believe that, might have, and so on), but others declare these “beliefs” as if they are indisputable facts (which they are not, though many are very plausibilities). Herein lays a problem for the students who will be researchers of tomorrow. They MUST LEARN to discern the difference between the raw data and the historical narrative attached.
What do you say?