“There is no controversy”

_{William Dembski
May 22, 2008

Evolution

1}_{Categories
Evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

“There is no controversy.” “There should be no controversy.” “It’s okay to expel those who pretend that there is a controversy.” “Academic freedom does not apply where the scientific consensus says there is no controversy.” …

The Washington Post has a ridiculous editorial that elevates evolutionary theory to the same status as gravitational theory and the truths of mathematics (go here).

Meanwhile, the Altenberg meeting coming up this summer brings together biologists who see the contemporary state of evolutionary theory as in upheaval (go here). Yes, the field is in disarray, but there is NO CONTROVERSY. What, are we living in a Kafka novel?

Comments

Both. Newton formulated a limiting law and then Einstein expanded it.CJYman_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

cjyman, which "law" of gravity is that? Newton's Law or general relativity?dmso74_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

dmso74: "I know that saying evolutionary theory is equivalent to gravitational theory sounds funny, but both of them really are in a state of flux." ... and that is about the only equivalence between gravitational and evolutionary theory. Which is why, in accordance with the subject of this post, there *is* controversy and a potentially necessary revamping of some foundational assumptions in order to "make everything actually work at a fundamental level." However, that's about where the similarities end. Evolutionary theory is not near as well founded as gravitational theory, since as I've briefly stated earlier, unlike with gravity, there isn't yet a law of evolution. Essentially, since an evolutionary process is the "production" of information at consistently better than chance performance, when there is discovered a law of evolution, it will have to take into account laws of the flow of information. Thus, before a law of evolution can be postulated, a complete 4th law of thermodynamics (a conservation of information) will most likely need to be in place.CJYman_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

DaveScot, I know that saying evolutionary theory is equivalent to gravitational theory sounds funny, but both of them really are in a state of flux. There are 6 alternative theories of gravity in the peer-reviewed literature right now! If you are referring to the layman's version of "gravitational theory", i.e. stuff doesn't fly everywhere, that is is true in a practical sense. but the theory behind that observation is in some ways in an even greater state of flux than evolutinary theory.dmso74_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

Benn (#139): First of all, it took probably much less than 80 million years for the phyla to appear in the Cambrian explosion. Most phyla probably appeared in a few million years. the same can be said for the Ediacara explosion. You can discuss either to call that a "blink" or not, but that's certainly not nearly the time required to allow evolution to perform that kind of feats. Regarding the designer, you are right: we don't know if he is/was interested in problems of time and money, just the same as we don't know the reasons for the timetables we apparently observe in the appearance of living beings on earth, as far as we know it today. In a recent post on another thread I observed that the known timetable is very strange, both if you analyze it form a darwinian point of view and if you look at it from the perspective of design. And yet, that timetable is a fact (as far as it is accurate), and we have to reason on it, whatever our favourite theory is. The only honest approach is to admit that the distribution of fossils in time is still a mystery, however you look at it. At #137 you say: "Some humans sit around eating and do nothing worthwhile. Others build spaceships. Does that mean that the “eaters” are utterly limited and only the others are capable of momentous and epic things?" I would not underestimate the differences between humans and chimps as species. They are great and important. Humans are constantly producing abstract thought, for one thing. Their brains are much more developed, the complexity of their central nervous system is really huge. One of the practical cdonsequences of that is that humans constantly generate CSI: even the "eaters", as you call them, are immense sources of CSI any time they interrupt eating to speak. That should be relevant, shouldn't it? We know of no other source for CSI, except in biological information, whose source is at present, in case you have not noticed, controversial... The fact that the genetic difference between humans and chimps may appear not so big (but again, according to what criteria? some vahue percentages?) is probably only further evidence that we do not understand how genomes control the complexity in multicellular beings, a subject often discussed here at UD. For instance, we have no idea of which genetic (or non genetic) information is responsible for the "hardwiring" of our CNS (about 10^11 neurons, for a total of about 10^14 ordered connections), and that would be exactly what makes us different from chimps.gpuccio_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

lol! ^ I guess that's funny.Frost122585_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Benn: "Care to make a prediction of when you think that will come to pass? Just interested…" Five - ten years.gpuccio_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Benn says,
"Well, who are you to say “the designer” will not interfere with their DNA and make them capable of even more then humanity is?"
I am not making any such claim? and Benn said,
"Some humans sit around eating and do nothing worthwhile. Others build spaceships. Does that mean that the “eaters” are utterly limited and only the others are capable of momentous and epic things?"
Your comment is funnier than you know. The intellectual speak is beginning to degrade though. No apes build spaceships but most humans know what one is and does. No ape has been shown to even possess the conceptual tools to appreciate space travel. The worthless humans are still way ahead of the chimps. Chimps just don't have the genes. Everybody knows that. Yes some humans are lazy or damaged or under privileged but no amount superior breeding, excellent training or admirable attitude is going to get ANY chimp into Cambridge. That supposed little 2% difference in the genome sure is a big one. It may be only 2% but it’s the biggest damn 2% you’ll ever see. :PFrost122585_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

Benn says,
"I’m simply saying that if a better explanation for observed data is available then people will eventually have no choice but to accept it."
Sorry to jump on ya- but better safe then sorry. I’m happy to say that they tow a hard line here at UD. I disagree. Look at Hitler and the Nazi's. I believe what I think is a quote attributed to Joseph Gorbels which is something like "if you repeat something enough times it doesn't matter what it is, people will believe it. Now there is no doubt here in evolution and origins sciences that the questions are foggy and confusing- I need not go into paleontology, anthropology or God forbid first cause cosmological origins to make this point manifest. There will always be missing links and I do not think gaps present an argument but like all gaps in stories they do present a place where an argument must be made and it is here that we ask the questions of "how" especially regarding the sufficiency of mechanisms. As far as the origins of man I'm willing to go back as far as we have good architecturally evidences that show either a first design or creation or a clear separation in the evolutionary lineage. The oldest known pottery dates from about 10,500 to 500 bc. I think pottery is a good marker of modern man. Sorry to be so conservative but that is my sense and intuition. As far as how much time we have left I have no idea. If those mutations are as random and beneficial as the Darwinists tell us then maybe forever. We might even mutate a gene that can survive the black hole implosion of the sun or w/e is predicted to happen. After all evolution was kind enough to somehow get us to the moon and probably Mars next- :PFrost122585_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

I prefer to think that it will affirm itself through the (designed) work of intelligent and openminded people, and as soon as possible.
Care to make a prediction of when you think that will come to pass? Just interested...Bennith Karlow_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

Bornagain
First, the chimpanzee genome was not built from scratch. In a likely bid to save money and time, it was assembled using the human genome as a scaffold.
You say that like you have a video recording of the event. On what are you basing that, exactly? And what evidence do you have that "the designer" was concerned with either money or time? After all, it took 80 million years for some things to appear in the Canbrian explosion and according to some here that is a mere "blink" in time, not nearly the time required to allow evolution to perform the same feats. So, what concern does a being have that can spend 80 million years on a project with time? Or money? Are you seeing this in visions BornAgain?Bennith Karlow_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

Benn: "I’m simply saying that if a better explanation for observed data is available then people will eventually have no choice but to accept it. It happens naturally, even if it takes generations." You may be confident that scientific truth will affirm itself "naturally", maybe in countless generations. I prefer to think that it will affirm itself through the (designed) work of intelligent and openminded people, and as soon as possible. Maybe that's the difference between a (darwinian) deterministic perspective and the approach of those who believe in intelligent design...gpuccio_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

Whether we share a common ancestor or not is not as obvious and important as the fact that one species is utterly limited and the other is capable of momentous and epic things.
Well, who are you to say "the designer" will not interfere with their DNA and make them capable of even more then humanity is?
One eats bananas and swings from trees, the other flies flags on the moon and builds aircraft carriers.
Some humans sit around eating and do nothing worthwhile. Others build spaceships. Does that mean that the "eaters" are utterly limited and only the others are capable of momentous and epic things?Bennith Karlow_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

That is a cool site Frost!bornagain77_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

Born wrote,
"Second, the chimp genome is about 12% larger than the human genome. At the risk of sounding overly simplistic, this would seem to indicate at most an 88% DNA similarity from the outset. How was this 12% difference taken into account in the overall percentage similarity, or was it ignored?"
Interpretations and minor details. Don't bother us with details because we have something to prove. That’s the way all things are that revolve around politics and money. When my Uncle worked in a high position in the government he use to joke about the pollsters that would come in (i.e. Gallop) and how the first question they would always ask is "what do you want your poll to show?" Well this is the similar line of inquiry the "chimps to humans DNA similarity argument" uses. Whether we share a common ancestor or not is not as obvious and important as the fact that one species is utterly limited and the other is capable of momentous and epic things. One eats bananas and swings from trees, the other flies flags on the moon and builds aircraft carriers. It also isn't as important as the explanation that is capable of accounting for those differences. Call it 99.9% the same in each, you still have to get from swinging from a tree to flying at super sonic speeds. So when an article reads "similarities" between chimps and humans beware. It's loaded. Make sure you read along side it the article that is titled "differences* between chimps and humans." Or as Stephen Meyer always quips "beware the sound of one hand clapping."Frost122585_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

Calm down Frost. I'm simply pointing out that if somebody claims something then their claim stands or falls on the evidence they provide. If the Genome is deteroriating then either a) It's true and the evidence has been provided but is being ignored by big science b) It's not true. I'm simply saying that if a better explanation for observed data is available then people will eventually have no choice but to accept it. It happens naturally, even if it takes generations. Would you not agree? So anyway Frost, how long has the human race been around and how long has it got left, in your opinion?Bennith Karlow_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

Frost: Our friend Benn seems to intervene when and if he is comfortable, and stay silent about all the important things. An interesting strategy...gpuccio_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

Thanks Born, check this out... http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=are-there-missing-piecesFrost122585_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

Born: To express homologies in generic percentages is nonsense. One should always specify percentage of what, at least, and if possible also the methodology which has been used to assess that percentage. Otherwise, we will go on talking about unrealities, in a field which is already controversial enough...gpuccio_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

Benn you wrote,
"The books been out almost 4 years, at least as far as I can tell, and yet it has scant acceptance in the wider scientific community. If the evidence is so obvious what is the reason it has not become standard knowledge?"
Which book were you referring to? If it is the one that comes out on the first of the month you have got to be kidding calling us or the author the "bias ones" when you are trashing a book you haven't read that isn't out yet. Maybe I misunderstood what you were referring to- it wasn't clear to me- but we had to recently remove a loon by the name of "Freemind" who was speaking in a similar tongue- so I recommend that you slow your roll. You are not going to get very far here using arguments like "The Fallacy By Authority" which is when you say “the majority of the scientific (or any) community doesn’t accept this view.” This site exists because many of us DON’T think the consensus (or perceived one) is correct in it’s assessments and commitments. Ideas and theories should be taken up on the grounds of arguments and evidence not popularity. This site is not a democracy nor is it American idol. Darwinism and global warming are to us clear manifestations of politics masquerading as science and that is what we talk about on this blog; not Jesus. The reason that Bornagain brought up Jesus is because this book which is supposedly scientific co-opts the science and interprets it as evidence for Christianity. That is not the part of the book we would be interested in here at the site (unless the science was VERY strong). We want to know here if he is going to make any good “scientific” arguments for Design. Design is not religious but it does usually require a nonmaterial world view which is hypothetically perfectly acceptable in science if that is where the evidence points. The enigma of “origins” both cosmological and biological, is clearly a place where a nonmaterial hypothesis is reasonable but we make that argument from a preponderance of evidence not biblical writings from 2000 years ago or a “God of the gaps” argument. Of course if a gap exists in the materialistic explanation of al things it just may be that no such explanation exists- this is where design can prove more plausible an explanatory tool. If you have a bias against any non-material explanation I seriously doubt whether you will last here. We mainly converse with those who are open minded at looking at the evidence of a given explanation or argument whether that be materialistic or no. A simple fallacy by authority, or a “that's not science” mantra is not going to work or prove valuable unless it's very well thought out and argued which is close to never. I doubt whether “The Cell’s Design” will be 375 pages of biblical manuscript. You should know better as well.Frost122585_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

Frost for your sake I dug a little deeper to find relevant studies: Here is an excellent site for finding those studies. http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5111 excerpt from site: Different studies claim different percentages of DNA similarity Although we are frequently told that chimps and humans share between 98–99% of their DNA, a number of studies reveal a smaller percentage of similarity. A 2002 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) analyzed about one million DNA base pairs and discovered an approximately 95% similarity.3 The human genome is composed of about 3 billion base pairs, so this comparison involved less than 1% of the genome, but it was of sequences already considered to be common to chimps and humans (‘homologous’). A 2003 study, also in the PNAS, compared about 1.9 million base pairs in immunologically critical areas of the chimp and human genomes. This study took into account insertions and deletions (indels) and derived a low 86.7% similarity.4 When the chimpanzee genome was mapped in 2005, scientists announced a 96% similarity.5 Another study, in 2006, revealed a 94% genetic similarity.6 Obviously, these results are all considerably lower than the still widely touted 98–99% statistic. These different studies reveal that the degree of genetic similarity is highly dependent on the particular regions being analyzed, the amount of DNA being compared and the computational techniques used. The 2006 study claiming a 94% similarity creates a big problem for evolutionary geneticists who just sequenced the Rhesus macaque genome and declared a 93% DNA similarity between these monkeys and human beings.7 It is highly problematic because these monkeys supposedly branched off from our common ancestor about 25 million years ago, while chimpanzees supposedly diverged about 6 million years ago. So we have supposedly diverged from chimps some four times faster than we have diverged from Rhesus monkeys. Simply stated, there should be a more significant gap between humans and the monkeys if evolution and its dating were true. Many uncertainties surround the recently sequenced chimpanzee genome In 2005, scientists announced that the entire chimpanzee genome had been successfully sequenced and it had confirmed evolutionary predictions (of course!). However, there are critical flaws to this declaration.8 First, the chimpanzee genome was not built from scratch. In a likely bid to save money and time, it was assembled using the human genome as a scaffold. This also reveals the evolutionary presuppositions of the scientists who started the genome project with the critical assumption that humans and chimps are close evolutionary cousins and would tend to bias the results towards greater similarity. Second, the chimp genome is about 12% larger than the human genome. At the risk of sounding overly simplistic, this would seem to indicate at most an 88% DNA similarity from the outset. How was this 12% difference taken into account in the overall percentage similarity, or was it ignored?bornagain77_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 (#116 and 119): Good posts! I have no definite opinion about ERVs, and probably we have to wait for better evidence to really understand their meaning. As I am open to common descent, I have no reason not to believe that ERVs may be non functional, but only if the evidence goes in that sense. If common descent will be proved false, I will not suffer particularly for that. Perhaps we should be careful to distinguish always, in our talks, between the theory of common descent and the theory on non designed evolution (aka neo darwinian evolution). They are two completely different issues. The single word "evolution" is completely ambiguous, it can refer to both theories, or even, in its minimal definition (descent with modification) to a completely trivial concept, which is not even a theory. ERVs are, at best, possible evidence for common descent. Not necessarily good evidence, and certainly not conclusive evidence. But they are evidence just the same. ERVs are not, definitely, evidence for non designed evolution. Indeed, I really don't know what darwinists could call evidence for that. The few pieces of evidence they have (ERVs, homologies, etc.) are only possible evidence for common descent, and they say nothing of causal mechanisms. The few experimental models they have (mutations in bacteria or similar, antibiotic resistance, and so on) are at best evidence for a minimal form of microevolution, able only to indirectly protect from an aggressive environmental menace (antibiotics) at the expence of existing function, and absolutely non complex (usually single point mutations). I am really waiting for any evidence of real, complex beneficial mutations, possibly from the lab, and not from vague homology considerations which are, at best, bad philosophy.gpuccio_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

Benn at 122, I will check it out- but I must say that my comments respecting Born's posts were about substance and effort- of course it is far more important whether that substance is accurate or not, of which I currently do not know. So I was impressed with the novel effort. However you can count on me to check out the back story before pontificating. As far as proving the resurrection of Jesus I doubt whether the Christian God would even want this. There is a meaning and a purpose to "faith" which applies to the religious and secular alike and "knowing" the absolute truth would erase faith's place. That however does not mean that there couldn't be more or new scientific evidence that points towards or away from a particular religious belief.Frost122585_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

Thanks gpuccio, As usual your work is very informative.bornagain77_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

obviously will not believe in a transcendent Creator even if dug through all my books and cited a mountain of compelling evidence
If it's proven then there is no need for belief. And Tipler proves it, right?Bennith Karlow_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

As far as I’m concerned you are beyond reason.
From you I take that as a complement. Bennith Karlow_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

Bennith Karlow, I've met your type numerous times before and You obviously will not believe in a transcendent Creator even if dug through all my books and cited a mountain of compelling evidence. You obviously have a chip on your shoulder and I will not waste my time, or paitence, with you. I do this mainly because you came out desparately swinging in spite of the detrimental mutation work I have already cited on this thread. As far as I'm concerned you are beyond reason.bornagain77_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

Frost, I doubt you will heed this, but do check out some of the critiquies of Tiplers books. There are some serious flaws that basically eviscerate his arguments. Do you really think that physics can be used to prove the ressurection of Jesus is a fact?Bennith Karlow_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

Born, Nice posts. I will check out the book. Thanks for the info!Frost122585_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77, a) Got any citations for this "peer reviewed" work? b) Got any references that don't come from people who don't have obvious theistic connections, such as "reasons to belive"? Many people don't like their science mixed with religion. If you could seperate the two perhaps you'd have a better chance of convincing people on the sidelines that it's not really all just about conversions and saving souls and is in fact soley about the nature of reality with expermental proof backing it up.
it is increasingly apparent that Genetic Entropy is the overriding foundational rule for all of biology
Care to make a prediction as to when "increasingly apparent" becomes "so obvious only a deluded fool who refuses to change their mind in spite of Overwhelming Evidence to the contrary would contine to believe it"? The books been out almost 4 years, at least as far as I can tell, and yet it has scant acceptance in the wider scientific community. If the evidence is so obvious what is the reason it has not become standard knowledge? If everything is "winding down" then it can't be that old in the first place? Does it then, in your mind, support a YEC POV?Bennith Karlow_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply