-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
One common tactic in the creationist’s war against evolution is to falsify evolution by demonstrating a counterexample. If such a counterexample existed, it would indeed spell the demise of evolution. The Precambrian Rabbit would be such a counterexample. After failing to find even one counterexample, some creationists have given up trying to falsify evolution and now seek to disabuse evolution by claiming it is not falsifiable. Other creationists, unable to falsify evolution, get all metaphysical and point out that the principle of falsifiability is not falsifiable.A recent paper in the journal Nature, Insights into hominid evolution from the gorilla genome sequence, after sequencing the western lowland gorilla genome, it was found that “in 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other.”
Creationists pounced, noting that depending on which DNA fragment is used for analysis, humans are more closely related to gorillas than to chimpanzees. Although this was termed “Bad News” for evolution, it would have been worse news for probability theory. While the genomes of humans and chimpanzees show a mean genetic difference of 1.37%, and a 1.75% difference between humans and gorillas, the key word is “mean.” These probabilities do not imply that there is a uniform genetic difference across all genes. Of the tens of thousands of genes, some are more similar and some are less similar. On average, humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than to gorillas.
On the genetic path from our Most Common Recent Ancestor (MCRA) to humans and gorillas, different genes mutated at different times. Although cladograms, like the one below for Humans, Chimpanzees, Gorillas, and Orangutans, show a single branch to each species, this does not imply that all the genetics differences occurred simultaneously. One would have to be a creationist to believe that all the mutations occurred simultaneously.
One would also expect to find that certain DNA fragments would more similar between humans and orangutans. This is exactly what was found in this report, based on a complete orangutan genome, published in Genome Research, in which the authors said that “in about 0.5% of our genome, we are closer related to orangutans than we are to chimpanzees.”
Even the well-funded BioLogos, a group dedicated to trying to accommodate Christianity and science, sees the errancy of these arguments:
This is exactly what one expects from the species tree: humans and chimps are much more likely to have gene trees in common, since they more recently shared a common ancestral population (around 4-5 million years ago). Humans and orangutans, on the other hand, haven’t shared a common ancestral population in about 10 million years or more, meaning that it is much less likely for any given human allele to more closely match an orangutan allele.
Creationists are engaged in a desperate, but lucrative, attempt to pull a Precambrian Rabbit out of their hat. This attempt is particularly pathetic.
H/T: Pharyngula, John Wakeley (pdf), Pharyngula.
idealist707 1, April 1, 2012 at 4:20 pm
Dredd,
Medical scientists? An oxymoron.
============================
You must be thinking of military science, but here is food for thought:
(Harvard Division of Medical Science).
Gene H. 1, April 1, 2012 at 4:22 pm
Dredd,
I’ll see your only tangentially related blog article (yours) and link that does not work (the other) and raise you a . . .
Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, stem cell research, prophylactics and other methods of birth control, the germ theory of disease and genetics.
======================================================
Link One, Link Two …
Google Blogger is slow today … click retry …
The germ theory was developed by Dr. Semmelweis, rejected by the science of the day, which believed that germs appeared out of thin air. Dr. Semmelweis was committed to a mental institution by them for his crazy ideas, where he died of a germ infection. It was decades later that scientists figured out he was correct.
Now I raise you a few names: hydrogen bomb, atomic bomb, germ weapons, weapons grade anthrax, weapons grade other germs, every weapon of mass destruction, and the capacity to destroy all life on the planet 50 times over.
Science provided these to the state, not religion.
Dredd,
I’ll see your only tangentially related blog article (yours) and link that does not work (the other) and raise you a . . .
Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, stem cell research, prophylactics and other methods of birth control, the germ theory of disease and genetics.
Dredd,
Medical scientists? An oxymoron.
If it were not for real scientists, doctors would still be running around dishing out opium derivatives, alcohol, and the third one they had in their big black bag.
Something for hysterical women. Talk about sexism.
Did you know that the pacemaker was developed by two Swedes?
A cardioulogist and a techie. In those olden times, they could still converse.
Dredd, (a little late today)
Epistem—wha’?. Always hated that word and the intros to the ideas.
But you make it sound interesting.
One cliché, ie once a good saying, is:
“Standing on the shoulders of giants”. Which is kinda related, huh?
But standing on Einstein’s shoulders is still to big a climb for me.
Although it is fun trying to understand 5 dimensions with only 4 available to us. And his (brag brag) reference free solutions, which Smolin points out, is even more fun. Of course, beyond 2+2 is beyond my horizon.
Shall we discuss neutron stars instead. Shall we guess the mass of a cubic centimeter?.
In conclusion, if you say shit, then I am obliged to repeat it as proof of …..?
Do I get a PhD for that?
Gene H. 1, April 1, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Dredd,
“Those who know the history of science know that it has done great oppressions in the past, equaling religionists in bigotry at times.”
Seriously, man. Even though technically true?
====================================
Example. Dr. Semmelweis.
Medical science is done by scientists.
In general, scientists all too often tend to be jingoist servants of the state.
Do I need to go further than WMD developed by scientists for the state, or eugenics practiced on immigrants by scientists?
Agent Orange, Roundup, …
Anyway, lets get back to the Gorilla …
*scientists have and do work*
Dredd,
“Those who know the history of science know that it has done great oppressions in the past, equaling religionists in bigotry at times.”
Seriously, man. Even though technically true? The magnitude of the inverse relationship (religion oppressing science) is simply greater on a scale that defies fair comparison. You are also discounting that in addition to being a priest, Georges Lemaître was an engineer, mathematician and cosmologist. Many scientists work have and do work in and under the supervision of religious bodies, including the father of genetics Gregor Johann Mendel (an Augustinian monk).
rafflaw 1, April 1, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Great job David. I get tired of those who think that the Bible is a scientific document, instead of a story book as the good Benedictine nuns taught us in grade school.
===================================
We ought not be too cocky, of course.
Those who know the history of science know that it has done great oppressions in the past, equaling religionists in bigotry at times.
Quite recently in fact.
The Big Bang Theory is spouted often by such bigots posing as scientists, not realizing that a Belgian Priest first set forth the Big Bang Theory, not a “scientist.”
idealist707 1, April 1, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Being extremely experienced and knowledgeable (one evening course for laymen) let me opine over …
====================================
Which makes you like the rest of us. A subject studied by the science of Epistemology.
A basic tenet is that what we say we “know” is in reality belief in what someone else says they know.
None of us study all of these things, instead, we rely on others who study these things, and we choose someone to believe, then we say we “know” thus and such.
We really have faith and trust in other people, but we call it knowledge.
HAPPY APRIL FOOLS’ DAY: Sorry Nal, this was the only post today I could slip in today’s greeting and in honor of our host ( 50% Irish/50% Italian/Sicilian):
In Italy children (and adults, when appropriate) traditionally tack paper fish on each other’s back as a trick and shout “april fish!” in their local language ( “pesce d’aprile!” in Italian).
I enjoyed your post, Frank
rafflaw:
Great job David. I get tired of those who think that the Bible is a scientific document, instead of a story book as the good Benedictine nuns taught us in grade school.
Thanks Nal,
Being extremely experienced and knowledgeable (one evening course for laymen) let me opine over:
“One would have to be a creationist to believe that all the mutations occurred simultaneously.!
And one would also be stupid. Correct me, etc.
Mutations, as opposed to meiotic crossings, occur relatively seldom.
They are essentlally “noise” effecting the replicatory process in the meiotic process. They occur randomly, and are seldom positive in a fitness (=survival) poiint of view. Since eyes are not created in one big mutation (or selection process) a macro fitness genotype is even less likely.
Of course creationists say, why this inlikeliness “proves” the hand of the maker,. While this expression only “proves” they don’t understand science, or anything else except simple legends.
Another difficulty is the evolution of messaging, a key development.
In Microbial Hermeneutics the issue of microbial communication is discussed:
Note that bad communication can be fatal to living things at the cellular level, and can likewise be destructive to machines that would have had to develop communication well before organics evolved from those machines.
Great article on the arrogance of ignorance that some of these folks like to hold up like a banner. Too lazy to learn the science or even attempt to apply logic to the observations, they resort to fallacies of so-called common sense propped up with a Christian world-view to demagogue for their all-to-willing audience. Critical thinking is not very important to this crowd;group-think works so much better for the suckers.
The biological case is not where the difficulty lies.
The real difficulty is the chemical abiotic phase long before the evolution of any organics.
The question “what is life” focuses on that area:
(Putting a Face On Machine Mutation). Machines mutating into organic life is more challenging evolution than biological evolution:
(… Machines or Organisms?). It is very interesting science.
My creationist argument: If the universe had existed for millions of years, the rabbits would have eaten all the broccoli by now.
So the question remains…. Are we descendants of the chimp, monkey, orangutan or alien life form planted in this vast oasis of oblivion…….
We are what we are and we ain’t what we ain’t…… Signed…. Just looking…..John Prime….
A few counter examples of creationism would be pedophile priests, tea party republicans, George Wallace, George Bush, George III, Ann Rand, Koch Brothers……