-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.
Gene H. 1, April 1, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Wow, Dredd. I never pictured you as a Luddite. However, your entire premise here:
“Religion as we know it is a fairly recent development too.
So is the religion of science, which is more prevalent that science itself.
That is my focus, the phony religion of science, and the phony science of religion.”
Is simply wrong.
===================================================
I have never before pictured you as a Luddite either.
There are, without doubt Luddites who see no more than the tree, losing the vision of the forest.
My whole premise, which you mentioned but did not get, is based on that reality.
Biological evolution in terms of Gorilla, Orangutan, and human is of very recent origin in evolutionary, cosmological terms.
This post is about recent biological events in that sense, therefore “religion of science” and “science of religion” are inventions among those said recent events.
Cock sure evolutionary nuts, of the sort Dr. Lynn Margulis severely criticized for making a religion out of biological evolution, do not know the difference between religion and science.
They hounded her with names and dishonorable dogma for years. Then she won the big science awards, her theories became what is taught is schools now, and they slithered away sucking on their shame.
She stated about them:
(links up-thread).
Frustrate?
On the contrary. The presentation of ignorant and wrong theories provides the chance to teach. Unfortunately, you chose to present theories that are both ignorant and wrong and appealed to non-authority authority to do so. Also, one is only stupid when one refuses to learn. Learning is a perpetual process.
LFM, it is based on statistical probability. Probability is more than a theory, it is a science unto itself. We can predict with a high degree of probability that in a sample of a certain size, that X% will survive exposure to an insecticide or antibiotic. To increase the likelihood of a survival rate of some of the exposed bacteria, for example, we have the behavior of people who do not take the full ten day course of medication. That means that the hardiest specimens will survive. And why are they hardy? Because they carry a gene that makes them that way. Same with an insecticide. Some insects will get a low or partial dose, and some of those will survive. And carry the survival gene.
Save your sarcasm for someone who doesn’t believe in the manifest and well documented validity of the scientific method as properly applied and the value of logic and evidence, lovingfamilyman.
Also, you should learn the difference between post hoc analysis (a proper way to formulate theories and experiments based on prior observation) and the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc wherein correlation is assumed to be causation without any evidence other than temporal relation. There is plenty of evidence that the process described by the term “natural selection” both works as Darwin described it and it a real phenomena that can be demonstrated by repeatable testing (for example in breeding fruit flies or bacteria).
Gene — I am chastened, ashamed, humbled, and, obviously, more stupid than I ever realized. I shall exit now, for I am obviously beyond the point of help, and can do nothing but frustrate you if I proceed here. Again, my thanks.
Thanks, Otteray. So it is entirely post-hoc, then? How the heck can it be a useful scientific theory, if one can’t make predictions with it? It’s like “We have to pass the bill, before we can know what’s in it.” This does not sound like science to me — but then, as Gene so magnificently demonstrated, I am but a peon among giants here.
Gene:
Thanks for such a courteous, professional response to a minion who is far less evolved than you. As an idiot, hack, and know-nothing — and as one who, despite his protestation to the contrary, must obviously be an ID-er, because you, oh Gene, have pronounced it — I am utterly honored that you have stepped down from your throne to pay me some slight attention. you have forever changed my life, and I thank you deeply, even though I doubt that my punk thanks can ever reach your majestic ears.
LFM, it is not possible to predict ahead of time which individual bacterium or insect will become resistant. It is those who survive, that carry the resistant gene, whose offspring become resistant. That is how natural selection works. We can identify them IF they survive.
lovingfamilyman,
“Rather, I commented about natural selection, which strikes me as sort of a post-hoc explanation for observed phenomena, rather than a testable hypothesis for future mutations.”
Actually, you don’t know what you commented on. Natural selection is intimately tied to mutation. If you agree to the process of mutation, then you agree with natural selection whether you believe you do or not. Natural selection isn’t a post hoc fallacy. It describes a process by which beneficial mutations result in a generation surviving to breed and pass on those beneficial mutations because they are, duh, beneficial and thus result in some survival advantage. The logic is sound. Major premise: advantageous mutations allow for a greater chance to survive long enough to breed. Minor premise: successfully breeding means nature has selected your species for survival into subsequent generations. Conclusion: because advantageous mutations lead to greater chances of survival to breeding age and successful breeding means your species gets to survive into the next generation, beneficial mutations drive the process of natural selection. It’s a basic syllogism. A logical and rational process.
The weakness in ID is that it relies on mystical causation, not rational causation. It is fundamentally unscientific because it is a faith based assertion and not a logical or evidentiary based assertion. The scientific method properly applied requires both logic and evidence and that the theories they present be verifiable or falsifiable by repeatable testing. Because ID relies on an unprovable assertion – the intervention of a divine being which can neither be proved nor disproved – it is inherently not science.
The only post hoc fallacy being exhibited here is by you, the ID crowd, in assigning a mystical causation where none exists.
It is not an error to call a hack a hack. It is accurate.
As to the rest of it, you’re lucky I didn’t refer to those who believe in the pseudo-science of Intelligent design by what they are rightfully called: scientifically illiterate morons.
Anti-bacterial resistant bacteria (superbugs) are an example of natural selection at work and entirely predictable by the theory of natural selection.
Insecticide resistant insects are another example.
Thanks, Nal. I still wonder: Does natural selection make it “entirely predictable” which bacteria will, and will NOT, become superbugs? If one has previously made such predictions, where can I find testing data to gauge the accuracy of those predictions? Another thought: How does one determine, beforehand, if a mutation is a good adaptation that will last and lead to a change in species? This has always confused me, hence, my earlier “post hoc” comment.
Same with your insects example. Not all will become resistant to insecticide, correct? So how does natural selection enable us to predict, now, which insects will, and won’t, become resistant? And how do we determine, now, whether the resistance is a permanent, adaptive mutation, that eventually will lead to a change of species, or instead something less like natural selection?
Thanks for indulging me. My intentions, and questions, are honest.
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/03/its-not-your-imagination-republicans-really-dont-science?utm_source=feedburner
This is the 21st Century even if the Roman Catholic Church and the evangelical “sexual” counterrevolution fundamentalists deny it! Why do the religious right think anything unknown or a mystery is somehow a mythical god phenomenon? If not for science, then everything is a divine act of a god, a divine miracle or a mystery! The level of ignorance of the American public is well expressed in that 44% of Americans in 2008 believed that a mythical deity created all life as present within the last 10,000 years and 42% believing that all life on earth has always existed in its present form! Evolution is fact, mythical Christianity is fiction! The Republican parade of clowns are proud to express their ignorance by denying evolution or manmade global warming! Oh well!
lovingfamilyman,
There is no disagreement in the biological sciences about mutation. Transcription errors in DNA/RNA transactions are quite well documented as are environmentally induced forms of mutation. Genetic drift is a well documented phenomena and the evidence for punctuated equilibrium grows by the day – no one really disagrees that it happens but rather to what extent it happens and whether or not mass migration or mass extinction can explain some of what appears to be punctured equilibrium in the fossil record.
David Berlinski is a mathematician, not an evolutionary biologist or a molecular biologist. He’s an unqualified quack who works for an (not so) Intelligent Design pimping think tank (the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture). He’s a scientific hack and putting faith in anything he says is simply that: an exercise in faith, not science.
Thanks for your reply, Gene, but I wasn’t focused on mutation (which even I, as a “hack” non-scientist, accepts). Nor am I focused on genetic drift or punctuated equilibrium. Rather, I commented about natural selection, which strikes me as sort of a post-hoc explanation for observed phenomena, rather than a testable hypothesis for future mutations.
Incidentally, your tone — “quack” and “pimping think tank” — is, sadly, the kind of quasi-Dawkinsesque venom that so routinely spews from those who mock and dismiss even well-intentioned questions (and questioners), instead of offering an intelligent, thoughtful, or respectful answer. I am no creationist, as you seem to have assumed. I merely assert that genuine questions — even from those you pre-reject as “hacks” — deserve genuine answers. If a weakness or gap exists in any theory, that weakness or gap should be honestly acknowledged. Conversely, if an inquirer is incorrect in some way, the error should be demonstrated with real evidence and through scientific means, instead of attacked with polemic.
I am late to this thread, which has really veered from the article, but I have a comment. Evolutionary theory has two main components, at least as I understand it. The first, common descent (to which the article pertains) is not seriously questioned by any thinking scientist or intellectual. The second, natural selection by random mutation, is far less established and not universally accepted. Why? Because the evidence demonstrates the first component quite well, and the second not so much. Lots of non-creationists (e.g., David Berlinski) have raised questions about natural selection that have not been (rationally) answered.
haha, got to show my daughter that one. she still hasn’t gotten over seeing leonard nemoy singing about bilbo baggins.
pete,
That is truly . . . disturbing. lol
So I am afraid you’ve left me no choice . . .
Wow, Dredd. I never pictured you as a Luddite. However, your entire premise here:
“Religion as we know it is a fairly recent development too.
So is the religion of science, which is more prevalent that science itself.
That is my focus, the phony religion of science, and the phony science of religion.”
Is simply wrong.
Religion is one of the oldest inventions. It predates agriculture. It predates writing. It probably predates neolithic construction too. In fact, recent archaeological discoveries in Turkey at Göbekli Tepe indicate that a fundamental change in religion is in part responsible for the shift from nomadic neolithic culture to agrarian neolithic societies. This change appears in that the religion practiced at Göbekli Tepe was transitional and the first known religion to differentiate man from nature by putting man in a superior position to animals. There are several iterations of the temple there and over time the animals depicted change from the frightening and intimidating to food animals and domesticated species. If you’re not familiar with Göbekli Tepe, a neolithic structure that predates Stonehenge by 6,000 years, here is an interesting article from Smithsonian (it’s a little light on the religions aspects of the megaliths as they changed over time, but it’s a good overview article). Religion has been around since before writing. More time passed from the building of Göbekli Tepe and the creation of Sumerian cuneiform than between the age of Sumer and now . . . just to put things in perspective.
Also, religion is not science by definition nor is science a religion. One is a set of superstitious beliefs and the others is a methodology of systematically testing the nature of reality. Religion is what to believe, but science is a way of thinking. Science arguably has its roots in ancient Greece and China, but really the first two modern scientists were Alhazen (965-1040 CE), widely considered the father of the scientific method, and Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), the first European scientist to apply the scientific method to observation and experimentation. Anyone who thinks science is a religion is nuts. This isn’t to say some people don’t think of science as a religion. They’re simply wrong about the nature of science and the scientific method in action. In that respect, you are right, some follow the “phony religion of science”. The inverse is true with those who mistake belief for scientific knowledge. Equally nuts, equally wrong.
However, your statement about the origins in time of religion versus science are simply wrong, Dredd. Even if you include the Greeks and Chinese, religion is still thousands of years (maybe many thousands of years) older than science.
Gene H. 1, April 1, 2012 at 6:26 pm
Dredd,
So what? The issues was repression of science by religion or conversely religion by science. That comparison is not even remotely fair as religion has a far longer and more robust history of repressing science than science does of repressing religion. If you want to move the goal posts to argue which has been more repressive on society as a whole, science or religion? I’m going to have to call that one a tie, but only because of the truly horrific things done and rationalized under the name of eugenics in the 20th Century and the scale which those atrocities were committed. Religion, over time, would otherwise win simply because of opportunity and the function of the time scales involved. We know for a fact religion has been messing with society since society began. Science, as we know it, is a fairly recent development.
==================================
Religion as we know it is a fairly recent development too.
So is the religion of science, which is more prevalent that science itself.
That is my focus, the phony religion of science, and the phony science of religion.
Scientists persecute and oppress other scientists.
One example is Dr. Lynn Margulis, harrassed for years for criticizing segments of the theory of evolution:
(Wiki).
I feature a video of her explaining that there is much nonsense passing as “science”, especially in evolutionary circles, in a video at the end of one of the earlier links I posted up-thread.
Dredd,
So what? The issues was repression of science by religion or conversely religion by science. That comparison is not even remotely fair as religion has a far longer and more robust history of repressing science than science does of repressing religion. If you want to move the goal posts to argue which has been more repressive on society as a whole, science or religion? I’m going to have to call that one a tie, but only because of the truly horrific things done and rationalized under the name of eugenics in the 20th Century and the scale which those atrocities were committed. Religion, over time, would otherwise win simply because of opportunity and the function of the time scales involved. We know for a fact religion has been messing with society since society began. Science, as we know it, is a fairly recent development.
idealist707 1, April 1, 2012 at 4:05 pm
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?
=====================================================
Standing on shoulders is what Chinese acrobats do.
Lets not go acrobatshit, lets be intellectually honest.
If knowledge is really faith and/or trust, then Epistemology can be ignored.
So ask yourself about what scientists say about the Sun … it will destroy all life on the Earth in the future …