-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 4, 2012 at 3:03 pm
Dredd,
“Again, Professor Lithgow used the term molecular machines. I quoted him. He evidently does not agree with what he would call your limited concept of machine.”
No. He understands the use of metaphor, something which apparently escapes your grasp. Mechanistic behavior in chemical compounds doesn’t make them literally machines.
===================================================
Professor Ltthgow’s words:
(quote up-thread). The “cells of all organisms” are composed of molecular machines, according to Professor Lithgow.
To avoid semantic blow-back consider the Molecular Assembler of scientist Drexler.
He envisioned a “machine” that would build “machines” out of atoms and/or molecules, in what is called nanotechnology. A few atoms or molecules put together by this entity is called a nanomachine.
I know of no microbiologist who would dispute the statement that microbes have been building molecules out of atoms or quanta for two billion years, prior to the existence of humans. Not only that, they can build many other entities using molecules instead of atoms.
Thus, microbes are examples of the oldest “Molecular Assembler” on the planet.
Talk about “back to the future.”
Note that the scientist, Drexler, calls what his Molecular Assembler would build a “machine.” A machine that builds machines made out of atoms or molecules.
Thus, a machine is an amalgam of atoms and/or molecules in this context.
Our cells are an amalgam of atoms which compose molecules, but semantically they are not “machines.”
Thus, we need a distinction, a focus on abiotic, hence, cells are an amalgam of machines, but are not called “machines” because they are not abiotic, they are biotic. If something is biotic it is not abiotic, not machine.
Word definitions in standard dictionaries are always behind science, sometimes for way, way too long. That is because the diction police tend to want to wait until the fog of controversy has passed.
Thus, we can have an amalgam of atoms / molecules that compose either a machine or a cell, depending on the nature of that amalgam.
I would argue that we must add another concept, the notion that the lowest order of machines are abiotic amalgams of atoms, but when the complexity of the machine reaches a certain apex, very complex molecular arrangements, “biotic entities” are the result.
It is a matter of definition, semantics, and a matter of new science that we can’t resolve by blowing the dust off of old dictionaries, beating our chest, then displaying our “mine are bigger than yours” fangs.
I would assert that atoms are the most “simple” machines, molecules are the next order of “simple” machines, but that cells are an order of magnitude above machine somehow, and are complex machine based organizations that must be termed “biotic.”
Thus, abiotic electrons, protons, neutrons become atom machines, and when configured a certain way become molecule machines, which can become cells if configured in “a biotic way.”
“Creation Science 101” by Roy Zimmerman
Dredd,
“Again, Professor Lithgow used the term molecular machines. I quoted him. He evidently does not agree with what he would call your limited concept of machine.”
No. He understands the use of metaphor, something which apparently escapes your grasp. Mechanistic behavior in chemical compounds doesn’t make them literally machines. The term “molecular machine” is shorthand. The only time a “molecular machine” is a literal machine is when it is designed and deployed by a nanotechnologist, otherwise it is a mechanistic compound that arose from abiogenesis; self-organization.
I’ve already defined machine and it is the standard definition of machine in the English language. Complex life build machines, which includes other creatures than humans. Go back and re-read. Not that that would improve your ability to understand what you read based on your performance to date.
“A polemic does not overcome a hypothesis. Everything I have posted here are quotes from published scientists, professors, and come from the best scientific periodicals.”
Fallacy of appeal to authority. Cites to authority when you don’t understand what that authority is saying is a fallacious appeal to authority.
“You are confusing me with them.
I have not given an opinion on any of these papers, only quoted them.”
No. You’ve offered a de facto opinion by misrepresenting what they say because you don’t really understand what you’ve read. Apes read
philosophyscience,OttoDredd. They just don’t understand it.You feel free to keep showing pictures of oranges and trying to tell us they are apples though.
It’s really funny in a sad and pathetic kind of way.
Gene H. 1, April 4, 2012 at 2:49 pm
I didn’t call a professor a dingus, but I would if he was. I called you a dingus because you’re clearly too stupid to understand the definition of a machine and the use of metaphor. Mechanistic behavior in chemical compounds does not make them a machine. A machine is built by conscious design. If you want to say you’re for ID, just say so and remove all doubt that you’re a fool.
=========================================
Again, Professor Lithgow used the term molecular machines. I quoted him. He evidently does not agree with what he would call your limited concept of machine.
I don’t know what your concept is, but if you think machines are made by humans only, say so.
I will then respond.
Gene H. 1, April 4, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Again with a concept you’ve misunderstood.
==================================
A polemic does not overcome a hypothesis. Everything I have posted here are quotes from published scientists, professors, and come from the best scientific periodicals.
You are confusing me with them.
I have not given an opinion on any of these papers, only quoted them.
If you can cite me to some of your published scientific papers on these matters, hopefully from the distinguished journals I cite to, I would be very happy to quote your works in this thread.
So far though, all you have presented are your own opinions via unfounded, overly egotistical, and somewhat ad hominem polemics.
Your beating on your chest and displaying your fangs that you declare are bigger than mine is not the kind of science or religion that will help us move forward as a species.
The microbes do much better than that.
I didn’t call a professor a dingus, but I would if he was. I called you a dingus because you’re clearly too stupid to understand the definition of a machine and the use of metaphor. Mechanistic behavior in chemical compounds does not make them a machine. A machine is built by conscious design. If you want to say you’re for ID, just say so and remove all doubt that you’re a fool.
Gene H. 1, April 4, 2012 at 10:42 am
A “molecular machine” isn’t really a machine by definition unless someone built it, dingus.
======================================
You ought not call Professors of science dingus.
Professor Lithgow, on the other hand says:
(my quote of the professor up-thread).
Again with a concept you’ve misunderstood. Sociobiology is all nature and no nurture; it is biological determinism (and therefore social Darwinism). The kissing cousin to eugenics that discounts the role environment plays in the development of organisms and preaches the primacy of the gene. Wilson was a mediocre scientist who despite his claims to the contrary had a real problem in distinguishing “is” from “ought to be” in his theoretical constructs. The truth of what is requires recognizing that environment plays just as much a role in evolution as genetics does. Environment is the sculptor and genes the clay, but the statue of complex evolving life cannot exist without them both. However, if you wish to subscribe to the ethically bankrupt and scientifically limited schools of thought behind Intelligent Design and social Darwinism, that is your choice. Just don’t expect people capable of critical thought to buy into your bullshit simply because you argue by verbosity.
It’s pretty funny that you can’t overcome “weak sophistry” since you seem to think you’re on to some deep understanding. I posit that one who clearly makes up relationships and uses metaphor as evidence for concepts they’ve clearly failed to understand and integrate into a larger understanding of science and history such as yourself isn’t qualified to judge what does or does not constitute seeking understanding.
Otteray Scribe 1, April 4, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Dredd, Knowing comes after observation and testing, not before.
=================================================
Unless it doesn’t.
Like with Gene H’s and your polemic masking as intellectual debate.
You don’t seek to understand the fundamental evolution of either science or religion.
Rather, you seek to bitch with weak sophistry.
You are two verbal bullies clinging to sophism.
What a waste of talent.
Dredd, Knowing comes after observation and testing, not before. Often the laws are in place before the mechanism is clearly understood. Newton did not know what gravity actually was, in the modern sense, but he was able to observe its effects and measure them, coming up with his laws still used in physical measurement.
The science and religion of microbes seem more advanced than the science and religion of humans.
That is, if the full impact of human science and religion, self-destruction, is realized.
Human science gives us the means to destroy life on Earth ~50 times over via a nuclear holocaust, germ warfare holocaust, or other WMD holocaust. Human religion gives us the division and conflict necessary to trigger the madness that leads to such a holocaust.
Meanwhile, the practical end of human science, big business technology, gives us another method of holocaust, the ecocidal holocaust.
Any one of several of these products of human science and religion will end The Anthropocene Epoch.
All that will be left after that, depending on how much product of human science and religion goes into that holocaust, will be microbes.
Perhaps they will then forgo becoming factors in future developments of “advanced species” like humans.
Concerning human science:
(Social Behaviour, Kevin R. Foster, Cambrige Press). The gorilla in the room that is being ignored, the largest factor, goes back before gorillas and their descendants.
Where would the microbes begin and end next time? With the evolutionary gorilla in the room?
“You are disagreeing with a team of University of Toronto scientists who publish papers in scientific journals, whom I quoted up-thread.”
“You are disagreeing with Dr. Clark, a scientist who publishes papers in scientific journals, whom I quoted up-thread:”
No. I’m disagreeing with your ability to comprehend what you read and your ignorance manifested in literalism. A “molecular machine” isn’t really a machine by definition unless someone built it, dingus. It’s a bit of self-organizing chemistry that is part of the abiogenic process. You feel free to ignore the proper definitions of tools and machines all you like though. You’re free to be as wrong as you like.
“Your inclusion of the phrase “older in human history” is a diversion, because the post and the comment stream includes events billions of years prior to humans.”
No. It’s a direct question related to the predicate of one of your earlier claims that you refuse to address because you were proven factually wrong in your assertion.
Otteray Scribe 1, April 4, 2012 at 9:02 am
Dredd, the definition I gave upthread was the standard definition of science Origin .. from scire ‘know’
========================================
So, evidently science is based on “knowing” what is going on in a particular context.
In my post up-thread, I pointed out that microbes practice the science of hermeneutics, i.e., knowing which signal is the best one out of many.
Knowing which signal is the right one out of many is a daunting problem for any branch of science:
(Microbial Hermeneutics, link up-thread). The scientists who did the paper in Molecular Cell, Volume 42, Issue 4, are saying that microbes “know” not only how to communicate, but they also have the scientific ability to know how to tell a good signal from a bad one.
If they did not have their science of communication down, they would go down themselves.
They are good scientists, having been around a couple of billions of years prior to Verizon.
Otteray Scribe 1, April 4, 2012 at 9:02 am
Dredd, the definition I gave upthread was the standard definition of science. If some folks at one university department decide to get a wild hair and redefine a broad field, let them try. It will not change the minds of many thousands of scientists who practice, you know, real science.
=====================================================
Argumentum ad populum with a little ad hominem thrown in.
And factually wrong.
I quoted two university science teams. I could quote others but your mind is made up.
Enjoy your opinion, you have every right to it.
Gene H. 1, April 3, 2012 at 11:01 am
…
Which is older in human history as a sociological phenomena, religion or science?
=============================================
Your inclusion of the phrase “older in human history” is a diversion, because the post and the comment stream includes events billions of years prior to humans.
Thus you take a narrow view of a subject that is far greater in size than that tiny, tiny slice of time.
I assert that religion developed prior to humanity. A look at the word origin:
(Online Dictiorary). The ligāre portion of the word origin, “to bind”, applies quite well to Dr. Lynn Margulis’ theory of evolution, discussed again infra.
The definition of human religion must include all religions, not just Bible thumpers:
(Wikipedia – Religion). A new book Religion for Atheists, from Alain de Botton, shows that religion is not limited to theology, but includes godless sociology as well.
There are scientists who think that religion, since it is based on cooperation and altruism, developed billions of years prior to humanity, in the oldest and most abundant Earth life, microbial entities.
A hypothesis that evolution is based on binding cooperation and altruism was advanced by Dr. Lynn Margulis for decades, rejected polemically by establishment evolution, and she was shunned by dogmatic scientists until they finally got it. Then she was given the greatest scientific awards. Yada yada.
As I showed in comments up-thread:
The phrases “being responsible for the creation of complex forms of life” and “these microorganisms still maintain current conditions” rise to the level of the first inklings of religion, even including the notion of “creation” and the living purpose of thereafter maintaining that creation.
There is a plethora of scientific papers and books dealing with how microorganism practice altruism, a tenet of religion:
(Researchers trace origin of an “altruism gene”). The Social Darwinism mythology that pervaded for a hundred years has now given way to a better theory.
A theory that accounts for the earliest origins of self-sacrifice, dying for the good of others, sharing, communicating, and mutual recognition and service – symbiosis. The origin is in the oldest microbial life.
Religion developed way before The Anthropocene Era, as did science.
Human science and human religion of course came along with humans quite recently in terms of the big picture of evolutionary time
Dredd, the definition I gave upthread was the standard definition of science. If some folks at one university department decide to get a wild hair and redefine a broad field, let them try. It will not change the minds of many thousands of scientists who practice, you know, real science.
From the Oxford Dictioonary:
Note the term “intellectual.” That means thinking; cortical activity, observation and collating data.
Source: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/science
Gene H. 1, April 3, 2012 at 11:01 am
…
You need to learn what a metaphor is, Dredd. Prions, phages, and viruses are not literally machines. Again, if you use the term machine in this context literally, you are again demonstrating your ignorance about biology and what role prions, phages, and viruses play in biology …
===============================================
You are disagreeing with Dr. Clark, a scientist who publishes papers in scientific journals, whom I quoted up-thread:
You are also disagreeing with Professor Lithgow, who publishes papers in scientific journals, whom I quoted up-thread:
What we “know” is a belief or a trust in whether or not you or they are correct, since we are not the team of scientists developing the data.
In this case I defer to their definition, and you defer to yours.
Gene H. 1, April 3, 2012 at 11:01 am
1) “It suggests that algae knew about quantum mechanics nearly two billion years before humans,” says Scholes.”
Algae didn’t and doesn’t know jack shit, Dredd. It’s not conscious. Algae utilized quantum mechanics. So what?
============================================
You are disagreeing with a team of University of Toronto scientists who publish papers in scientific journals, whom I quoted up-thread.
What we “know” is a belief or a trust in whether or not you or they are correct, since we are not the team of scientists developing the data.
In this case I defer to their definition, and you defer to yours.
Otteray Scribe 1, April 3, 2012 at 11:39 am
Dredd, natural processes at work at the molecular or cellular level are not “science” any more than a quartz crystal sticking out of a dirt bank refracting light rays are science. Speaking as a terminal degree scientist, I posit that science is the systematic observation, quantification and use of these natural phenomena.
====================================
You are, then, a scientist disagreeing with a team of University of Toronto scientists who publish papers in scientific journals, whom I quoted up-thread.
What we “know” is a belief or a trust in whether or not you or they are correct, since we are not the team of scientists developing the data.
In this case I defer to their definition, and you defer to yours.