Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design

Darwin’s fossils freak out over ID in Brazil

Spread the love

Marcos Eberlin got their goat, we don’t doubt. Open access:

From the Final Remarks: Science, as a process, starts with the acceptance of our ignorance about a natural phenomenon and by seeking natural explanations for it. Hence, ignorance drives the engine of Science. Even if evolution were, hypothetically, rejected, contested by new data, scientists would have to study hard to find an alternative natural explanation that was able to explain everything that evolution explains today plus the new data that contested it.

Evolution is a fact and a well-supported scientific theory. It has endured daily and rigorous testing, and it stands as the unifying theory in biology (Rutledge and Warden, 2000). This says nothing about whether God created or did not create the world, as science is unable to distinguish a divinely guided evolution from a materialistic evolution. God may well have created the biological world through natural selection, mutation, speciation, extinction, etc. Still, evolution and Science would remain unscathed as Science is not concerned with why or who, but only with how.

Some creationists say that we must bring the evolution versus creationist debate to the classroom and claim that the opposition to the debate is anti-scientific. However, science is not about blind criticism (Meyer and El-Hani, 2013). Blind criticism is just as naïve as blind acceptance. Scientists must weigh the evidence before questioning a theory. The idea that all debates are equally scientific is misleading and it explains the sad emergence of flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers. A debate on what is the shape of our planet is not only pointless, but it is also dangerously harmful to the minds of the young students. A fruitful debate in a science class is restricted to those issues that lie within the scientific realm (Baltzley, 2016, Branch, 2016).

A recent study has suggested that science concepts, more than evolutionary basics, are critical to promoting evolution (Dunk et al., 2017). One way to reinforce these fundamentals would be the requirement of evolution and science fundaments in admission policies for biology professionals, particularly teachers (Larkin and Perry-Ryder, 2015; see Rutledge and Warden, 2000 for statistics). Claudia A.M. Russo and Thiago André, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Print version ISSN 1415-4757On-line version ISSN 1678-4685 Genet. Mol. Biol. vol.42 no.1 Ribeirão Preto Jan./Mar. 2019 Epub Feb 28, 2019 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-4685-gmb-2018-0086 More.

It’s those orchids, right? We always said, in the Uncommon Descent News virtual coffee room, it was those orchids that did in Darwin in Brazil. Oh yes, and Marcos Eberlin, of course.

See also: Jerry Coyne is already mad at Marcos Eberlin

and

Marcos Eberlin shouldn’t exist/

50 Replies to “Darwin’s fossils freak out over ID in Brazil

  1. 1
    AaronS1978 says:

    OK again, don’t understand the title of this op but
    Was a much better read then the dna downhill op and I’m starting to like Marcus Eberlin

  2. 2
    SmartAZ says:

    Before we discuss evolution you must tell me something you know. Not something you heard, or something you read in a book, or something you are commanded to believe. You must tell me an observable fact, something you can point to and say “That is evolution.” After all, the first step in the scientific method is “Observe something.” And don’t try to change the subject to “evidence”. Evidence only applies if you first assume that your subject is real and testable.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    From the abstract, they claim:

    “In this paper, we emphasize why evolution is the most important theory in biology. Evolution explains every biological detail,”

    Aside for the fact that evolutionists can’t even demonstrate the origin of a single protein and/or gene, (which is arguably the smallest detail to be explained in biology), the science of biology itself can get along quite well without Darwinian presuppositions.

    To repeat what I posted a few days ago,,,

    As Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, stated, “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”

    “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
    Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

    Or as A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, stated, “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”

    “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
    A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

    Darwinian Evolution simply has nothing to do with the science of biology. Materialists like to claim evolution is indispensable to experimental biology and led the way to many breakthroughs, yet in an article entitled “Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology”, this expert author begs to differ.

    “Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
    I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
    In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,,
    Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”
    Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005

    Again, the science of Biology itself owes nothing to Darwinian presuppositions. Darwinian evolution is simply a metaphysical belief, i.e. atheistic materialism, that is, as the late Dr. Skell alluded to in the preceding article, added onto, even forced onto, biological discoveries as a ‘narrative gloss’ after the discovery was made.

    At the 7:00 minute mark of this following video, Dr. Behe gives an example of how positive evidence is falsely attributed to evolution by using the word ‘evolution’ as a narrative gloss in peer-reviewed literature:

    Michael Behe – Life Reeks Of Design – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdh-YcNYThY

    Jonathan Wells weigh in here:

    Darwinian ‘science’ in a nutshell:
    Jonathan Wells on pop science boilerplate – April 20, 2015
    Excerpt: Based on my reading of thousands of Peer-Reviewed Articles in the professional literature, I’ve distilled (the) template for writing scientific articles that deal with evolution:
    1. (Presuppose that) Darwinian evolution is a fact.
    2. We used [technique(s)] to study [feature(s)] in [name of species], and we unexpectedly found [results inconsistent with Darwinian evolution].
    3. We propose [clever speculations], which might explain why the results appear to conflict with evolutionary theory.
    4. We conclude that Darwinian evolution is a fact.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ilerplate/

    Ann Gauger weighs in here:

    Rewriting Biology Without Spin By Ann Gauger – Jan. 12, 2014
    Excerpt: It’s a funny thing—scientific papers often have evolutionary language layered on top of the data like icing on a cake. In most papers, the icing (evolutionary language) sits atop and separate from the cake (the actual experimental data). Even in papers where the evolutionary language is mixed in with the data like chocolate and vanilla in a marble cake, I can still tell one from the other.
    I have noticed that this dichotomy creates a kind of double vision. I know what the data underlying evolutionary arguments are. By setting aside the premise that evolution is true, I can read what’s on the page and at the same time see how that paper would read if neutral, fact-based language were substituted for evolutionary language.
    Let me give you an example.,,,
    http://www.biologicinstitute.o.....thout-spin

    In fact, not only does Darwinian evolution have nothing to do with the science of Biology, advances in quantum biology have now shown that Darwinian evolution, with its reductive materialistic framework, is not even on the correct theoretical, i.e. metaphysical, foundation in order to properly understand biology in the first place:

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

    How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate – video (27:15 minute mark, how quantum information theory relates to molecular biology)
    https://youtu.be/4f0hL3Nrdas?t=1634

    By any reasonable measure one may wish to invoke to determine whether a hypothesis is scientific or not, Darwinism simply fails to qualify as a science.

    “There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.”
    – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17
    Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw

    The main reason that Darwinian evolution fails to qualify as a science is that, although falsification is considered the gold standard to judge whether a theory is scientific or not, Darwinists themselves simply refuse to accept any reasonable falsification criteria for their theory:

    As Karl Popper stated, “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”

    “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
    Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge

    Here are a few falsifications of Darwinian evolution that Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory:

    Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are found to be ‘directed’.

    Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute.

    Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke.

    Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever.

    Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late).

    Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species.

    Charles Darwin himself stated that “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.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”

    Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.”

    Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.”. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’.

    Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place!

    Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!.

    The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy.

    Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science!

    Darwinist’s, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

    On top of all that, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on intelligent design and is certainly not based on methodological naturalism as is presupposed by Darwinists.
    From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science, (i.e. that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results, from top to bottom science itself is certainly not ‘natural’.
    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever just found laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analysed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.

    In fact, (as I have pointed out several times now), assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft).
    Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    – Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video – 39:45 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387

    Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    Moreover, since science itself was born out of the Christian worldview itself, by men who were, by and large, devoutly Christian in their beliefs, then Christians certainly have nothing to fear from all the bluff and bluster coming from Darwinists, (i.e. from their false claim that only their worldview is the supposed ‘scientific’ worldview, and that Christianity is a anti-scientific myth). The reality of the situation turns out to be quite the opposite from what Darwinists constantly try to portray to the general public. The reality of the situation is that, as shocking a it may be for some people to hear, Christianity is the scientific worldview and Darwinian evolution is the anti-scientific myth!

    The Importance of the Warfare Thesis – Cornelius Hunter, PhD in Biophysics – July 26, 2015
    Excerpt: Historians have understood for the better part of a century now that this Warfare Thesis (between science and religion) is a false history. It was constructed by evolutionists to frame the origins debate in their favor. In fact the conflict is the exactly the opposite—it is between the metaphysical foundation of evolutionary thought and science. That metaphysical foundation of naturalism is unyielding and unbending, and it makes no sense on the science. It is the evolutionists who have a conflict between their religious beliefs and science. The Warfare Thesis is an attempt to turn the tables and turn the attention away from the obvious problems with evolutionary thought.
    Evolutionists say that their skeptics suffer from bad religion and bad science. In fact, the metaphysical foundation of naturalism is not biblical (in spite of the fact that it comes from Christians), and evolutionary theory is not scientific. Science does not indicate that the world spontaneously arose.,,,
    Clear scientific evidence for evolution? Abundant genetic and fossil evidence for evolution? Yes, the scientific evidence is clear, and the genetic and fossil evidence is abundant, but it does not support evolution. Not even remotely.
    Of course Scripture can have different interpretations. But the science leaves no such wiggle room. It does not prove, indicate or suggest that the species arose spontaneously, as a consequence of natural laws and processes. That is a metaphysical mandate that is in conflict with the science.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co…..logos.html

    Christians – Not the Enlightenment – Invented Modern Science – Chuck Colson – Oct. 2016
    Excerpt: Rodney Stark’s,,, book, “For the Glory of God,,,,
    In Stark’s words, “Christian theology was necessary for the rise of science.” Science only happened in areas whose worldview was shaped by Christianity, that is, Europe. Many civilizations had alchemy; only Europe developed chemistry. Likewise, astrology was practiced everywhere, but only in Europe did it become astronomy.
    That’s because Christianity depicted God as a “rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being” who created a universe with a “rational, lawful, stable” structure. These beliefs uniquely led to “faith in the possibility of science.”
    So why the Columbus myth? Because, as Stark writes, “the claim of an inevitable and bitter warfare between religion and science has, for more than three centuries, been the primary polemical device used in the atheist attack of faith.” Opponents of Christianity have used bogus accounts like the ones I’ve mentioned to not only discredit Christianity, but also position themselves as “liberators” of the human mind and spirit.
    Well, it’s up to us to set the record straight, and Stark’s book is a great place to start. And I think it’s time to tell our neighbors that what everyone thinks they know about Christianity and science is just plain wrong.
    – per cns news

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    Test all things; hold fast what is good.

  4. 4
    ET says:

    Evolution is a fact and a well-supported scientific theory.

    That is a lie.

    It has endured daily and rigorous testing, and it stands as the unifying theory in biology (Rutledge and Warden, 2000).

    That is also a lie, unless you want to restrict the definition of “evolution” to mere change within a population over time.

    This says nothing about whether God created or did not create the world, as science is unable to distinguish a divinely guided evolution from a materialistic evolution.

    Of course science can determine natural from artificial. Materialistic evolution doesn’t make any predictions and doesn’t have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes, and it has to be given starting populations of bacteria. Materialistic evolution has not helped us to find any new cures nor has it advanced our understanding of biology.

    Still, evolution and Science would remain unscathed as Science is not concerned with why or who, but only with how.

    And yet forensic science and archaeology refute that nonsense. And materialistic evolution isn’t close to determining the how. Materialistic evolution is a total failure.

  5. 5
    Claudia Darwin Russo says:

    Hello All,

    I am Claudia Russo, author of the paper cited above. I am very happy to be able to join this discussion. I am certain we will be able to maintain a debate that will be beneficial for all of us.

    Hello @ET!

    The definition of Evolution is change within a population over time. What would be your definition?

  6. 6

    “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”
    “The cake is a lie.”
    “I’m doing science and I’m still alive.”

  7. 7
    Claudia Darwin Russo says:

    Not sure I get your point, @Robert.

    @ET. Materialistic evolution does make predictions for all characteristics and all organisms. Each new genome sequenced is a test of evolutionary theory, each new phylogeny reconstructed is also a test. How come the pesticide that you buy in the market works for the cockroach in your house that has never been tested in? The answer is that the pesticide was tested in roaches that share common ancestors (and thus characteristics) with the roaches in your place. If it worked in the lab it will work in your place.

    Best, Claudia

  8. 8
    Claudia Darwin Russo says:

    Not sure I get your point, @Robert.

    @ET. Materialistic evolution does make predictions for all characteristics and all organisms. Each new genome sequenced is a test of evolutionary theory, each new phylogeny reconstructed is also a test. How come the pesticide that you buy in the market works for the cockroach in your house that has never been tested in? The answer is that the pesticide was tested in roaches that share common ancestors (and thus characteristics) with the roaches in your place. If it worked in the lab it will work in your place.

    Best, Claudia

  9. 9
    asauber says:

    “The definition of Evolution is change within a population over time”

    Hello Claudia,

    The problem with this definition is that it’s too general. I think it needs to be more specific to be be considered a scientific definition. Not all changes are the same or are the result of the same process. Population is too general also. We need specifics as to who makes up the population and why. I don’t think the science starts with “any changes in any group.” It takes little to no science to generalize.

    Andrew

    P.S. and “time”. How much time?

  10. 10
    Brother Brian says:

    Welcome to UD Ms. Russo. I am sure that you will receive the same civil and professional welcome that I and others have received here. If people like ET, KF, WJM, BS77, Andrew and SA make any attempts to seriously discuss the issue of evolution with you, this should be very informative and educational.

  11. 11
    asauber says:

    “over time”

    And the more I think about it, the more “over time” sounds like an awful lot like poetry to me. As opposed to what? “Over lunch”?

    Andrew

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    The Meanings of Evolution by Stephen C. Meyer and Michael Newton Keas
    Excerpt: Principal Meanings of Evolution in Biology Textbooks
    1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
    2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
    3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
    4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification; chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations
    5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
    6. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.

    Let us unpack these six definitions of evolution.,,,
    http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/.....lution.pdf

  13. 13
    Silver Asiatic says:

    BB

    If people like ET, KF, WJM, BS77, Andrew and SA make any attempts to seriously discuss the issue of evolution with you, this should be very informative and educational.

    Thank you. Unless you’re being sarcastic and saying that the discussion will not be informative and educational.
    But if not sarcastic, then yes. I always find discussions on this site extremely educational, thanks in a large part to the people you identified above (myself excluded). It is good to see you validate and praise the same.

  14. 14
    Silver Asiatic says:

    CDR

    “The definition of Evolution is change within a population over time”

    Every time a baby is born, the human population changes. So that’s evolution?

    So evolutionary theory predicts that populations will change over time? Again, living organisms change every second, obviously any population of organisms will change.

    If that’s the theory, it doesn’t say much for the science of evolution.

  15. 15
    Silver Asiatic says:

    CDR

    How come the pesticide that you buy in the market works for the cockroach in your house that has never been tested in? The answer is that the pesticide was tested in roaches that share common ancestors (and thus characteristics) with the roaches in your place. If it worked in the lab it will work in your place.

    Yes. Why do cockroaches have 6 legs? Because they breed with each other and are part of a species of common ancestry.
    So the cockroach I see here is strangely similar to the cockroach my neighbor just saw. They both have six legs. And they both die when coming into contact with certain pesticides.

    That said something about evolution?

  16. 16
    Brother Brian says:

    SA

    Thank you. Unless you’re being sarcastic and saying that the discussion will not be informative and educational.

    Nope. I am perfectly honest in stating that Ms. Russo debating people like ET, BS77 and KF will be very informative and educational.

  17. 17
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Claudia

    I am Claudia Russo, author of the paper cited above. I am very happy to be able to join this discussion. I am certain we will be able to maintain a debate that will be beneficial for all of us.

    Greetings, welcome and thank you for joining! (I should have said that sooner). We take a somewhat oppositional view here towards Darwinian theory, but I hope you’ll know that your participation is very much appreciated.

  18. 18
    Silver Asiatic says:

    BB

    I am perfectly honest in stating that Ms. Russo debating people like ET, BS77 and KF will be very informative and educational.

    That is good and unless information and education are bad things, that sounds like a very positive result from the discussions here on UD.

  19. 19
    Brother Brian says:

    SA

    So the cockroach I see here is strangely similar to the cockroach my neighbor just saw. They both have six legs. And they both die when coming into contact with certain pesticides.

    That said something about evolution?

    But the speed with which they can become pesticide resistant does

    https://www.google.ca/amp/s/nationalpost.com/news/world/cockroaches-can-quickly-develop-a-resistance-to-insecticides-study-finds/amp

  20. 20
    vividbleau says:

    Hi Claudia and welcome!

    Hopefully I will learn from your area of expertise.
    “The definition of Evolution is change within a population over time.”

    I’m down with that but this is hardly controversial is it?

    Vivid

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    per CDR at 7:

    Each new genome sequenced is a test of evolutionary theory, each new phylogeny reconstructed is also a test.

    It failed

    “The genomic revolution did more than simply allow credible reconstruction of the gene sets of ancestral life forms. Much more dramatically, it effectively overturned the central metaphor of evolutionary biology (and, arguably, of all biology), the Tree of Life (TOL), by showing that evolutionary trajectories of individual genes are irreconcilably different. Whether the TOL can or should be salvaged—and, if so, in what form—remains a matter of intense debate that is one of the important themes of this book.”
    Koonin, Eugene V. (2011-06-23). The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (FT Press Science) (Kindle Locations 76-80). Pearson Education (USA). Kindle Edition.

    A New Model for Evolution: A Rhizome – Didier Raoult – May 2010
    Excerpt: Thus we cannot currently identify a single common ancestor for the gene repertoire of any organism.,,, Overall, it is now thought that there are no two genes that have a similar history along the phylogenic tree.,,,Therefore the representation of the evolutionary pathway as a tree leading to a single common ancestor on the basis of the analysis of one or more genes provides an incorrect representation of the stability and hierarchy of evolution. Finally, genome analyses have revealed that a very high proportion of genes are likely to be newly created,,, and that some genes are only found in one organism (named ORFans). These genes do not belong to any phylogenic tree and represent new genetic creations.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....izome.html

    Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution – May 28, 2018
    Excerpt: Darwin perplexed,,,
    And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between.
    “If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”
    The absence of “in-between” species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.
    https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html

    Logged Out – Scientists Can’t Find Darwin’s “Tree of Life” Anywhere in Nature by Casey Luskin – Winter 2013
    Excerpt: Many papers have noted the prevalence of contradictory molecule-based phylogenetic trees. For instance:
    • A 1998 paper in Genome Research observed that “different proteins generate different phylogenetic tree[s].”6
    • A 2009 paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution acknowledged that “evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns.”7
    • A 2013 paper in Trends in Genetics reported that “the more we learn about genomes the less tree-like we find their evolutionary history to be.”8
    Perhaps the most candid discussion of the problem came in a 2009 review article in New Scientist titled “Why Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life.”9 The author quoted researcher Eric Bapteste explaining that “the holy grail was to build a tree of life,” but “today that project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence.” According to the article, “many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded.”,,,
    Syvanen succinctly summarized the problem: “We’ve just annihilated the tree of life. It’s not a tree any more, it’s a different topology entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?” ,,,
    “battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life,” leaving readers with a stark assessment: “Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology.”10,,,
    A 2012 paper noted that “phylogenetic conflict is common, and [is] frequently the norm rather than the exception,” since “incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species.”12,,,
    http://www.salvomag.com/new/ar.....ed-out.php

    Toward a Consensus: An Open Letter to BioLogos on the Genetic Evidence – Cornelius Hunter – May 27, 2016
    Excerpt: One of Venema’s basic points (see here and here) is that the genomes of different species are what we would expect if they evolved.,,,
    What Does the Evidence Say?
    For starters, phylogenetic incongruence is rampant in evolutionary studies. Genetic sequence data do not fall into the expected evolutionary pattern. Conflicts exist at all levels of the evolutionary tree and throughout both morphological and molecular traits.,,,
    As one evolutionist explained, “The tree of life is being politely buried.”,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02879.html

    Reviewing The Evolution Revolution, the NCSE Offers Uninformed Criticism that Misses the Point – Lee M. Spetner – January 13, 2016
    Excerpt: Some researchers in the life sciences, who are not necessarily knowledgeable about evolution (including Levin), think that the various trees based on different biological systems or on protein- and DNA-sequence data yield the same tree. Life scientists once thought that trees based on anatomy and on the molecular sequences of proteins and DNA would be the same, but they were wrong (Nichols 2001; Degnan and Rosenberg 2006; Degnan and Rosenberg 2009; Heled and Drummond 2010; Rosenberg and Degnan 2010). They thought at least there would be consistency among the trees based on the DNA sequences of different genes, but again they were wrong. They then hoped that if they used the whole genome instead of individual genes, the data might average out and things would be better. In fact, it only made matters worse (Jeffroy et al. 2006; Dávalos et al. 2012). All this is discussed in my book. Levin is mistaken about what he calls the “cornerstone” of the evidence for common descent.
    He criticizes my rejection of common descent. I reject common descent because it is based on only circumstantial evidence. The drawback to circumstantial evidence is that it needs a valid theory to connect the evidence with the conclusion, and evolutionary theory is invalid, as I explain at length in my first chapter. There is thus no valid evidence for common descent — and certainly not what Levin calls its “cornerstone.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02281.html

    Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution – Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree. – Elie Dolgin – 27 June 2012
    Excerpt: “I’ve looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can’t find a single example that would support the traditional tree,” he says. “…they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants.” (Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution, Nature 486,460–462, 28 June 2012) (molecular palaeobiologist – Kevin Peterson)
    Mark Springer, (a molecular phylogeneticist working in DNA states),,, “There have to be other explanations,” he says.
    Peterson and his team are now going back to mammalian genomes to investigate why DNA and microRNAs give such different evolutionary trajectories. “What we know at this stage is that we do have a very serious incongruence,” says Davide Pisani, a phylogeneticist at the National University of Ireland in Maynooth, who is collaborating on the project. “It looks like either the mammal microRNAs evolved in a totally different way or the traditional topology is wrong.
    http://www.nature.com/news/phy.....on-1.10885

    UCEs – Another Big Failure (For Darwinism) – Cornelius Hunter Dec. 20, 2012
    Prediction
    Evolution predicts that more distant species should have greater differences in their genomes.
    Evolutionists were astonished to discover these highly similar DNA sequences in such distant species. In fact, across the different species some of these sequences are 100% identical. Species that are supposed to have been evolving independently for 80 million years were certainly not expected to have identical DNA segments. “I about fell off my chair,” remarked one evolutionist. [1],,,
    Reaction
    “It can’t be true” was one evolutionist’s reaction to the UCE findings in recent years. [6] The findings falsify predictions of evolution, but they are true and they have been verified independently.,,,
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....thing.html

    Finally, a 2009 article in New Scientist titled, “Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life,” states:
    “For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,” says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,” says Bapteste.

    etc.. etc.. etc..

  22. 22
    Brother Brian says:

    BS77

    It failed.

    Except for the thousands and thousands of concrete examples published in the literature. Darwin’s God and YouTube videos aren’t exactly credible sources.

  23. 23
    Brother Brian says:

    VB

    “The definition of Evolution is change within a population over time.”

    I’m down with that but this is hardly controversial is it?

    No rational being would deny this. I don’t think Ms. Russo said this in an attempt to be controversial. The only thing really open for debate is how evolution occurs. And, to be frank, other than the fine details, it is not being seriously debated by any credible scientist knowledgeable in the subject.

  24. 24
    Brother Brian says:

    VB

    “The definition of Evolution is change within a population over time.”

    I’m down with that but this is hardly controversial is it?

    No rational being would deny this. I don’t think Ms. Russo said this in an attempt to be controversial. The only thing really open for debate is how evolution occurs. And, to be frank, other than the fine details, it is not being seriously debated by any credible scientist knowledgeable in the subject.

  25. 25
    AaronS1978 says:

    So I read that definition and I immediately responded exactly the same way, this is something that’s really not debatable, because it’s so broad and nobody honestly is going to disagree with that

    I agree with the fact that the real debate is whether it happened the way it did, whether it used natural selection viva Darwinian method or other methods or mixture of them. Much like in the thread about hybridization. For me I was debating what honestly was more prevalent.

    My objections are normally against strict natural selection that somehow managed to create everything we see and know. An over emphasis of Darwinian evolution. I don’t think natural selection is the star of the show, I honestly believe life is the real star it is far more intelligent than we gave it credit for, And I see intelligent design supports my view better then Darwinian natural selection evolution.

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    BB, perhaps you should check my sources a little more carefully???

    Eugene V. Koonin
    Senior Investigator
    National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)
    National Library of Medicine (NLM)
    National Institutes of Health (NIH)
    Bldg. 38A, Room 5N503
    8600 Rockville Pike
    Bethesda, MD 20894, USA

    Didier Raoult – most cited microbiologist in Europe

    Eric Bapteste
    Institut de Biologie Paris Seine; Department of evolutionary biology; University Pierre et Marie Curie
    Bapteste owns a PhD in evolutionary biology and a PhD in philosophy of biology. He is Directeur de Recherche at the CNRS.

    Kevin J. Peterson
    Academic Appointments
    Professor of Biological Sciences
    Professor in the Ecology, Evolution, Ecosystems and Society Graduate Program
    Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences

    Noah A Rosenberg – Stanford University

    James H Degnan
    University of New Mexico | UNM · Department of Mathematics & Statistics

    etc.. etc… etc…

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    Here is a paper from last year:

    This Could Be One of the Most Important Scientific Papers of the Decade – July 23, 2018
    Excerpt: Now we come to Dr. Ewert’s main test. He looked at nine different databases that group genes into families and then indicate which animals in the database have which gene families. For example, one of the nine databases (Uni-Ref-50) contains more than 1.8 million gene families and 242 animal species that each possess some of those gene families. In each case, a dependency graph fit the data better than an evolutionary tree.
    This is a very significant result. Using simulated genetic datasets, a comparison between dependency graphs and evolutionary trees was able to distinguish between multiple evolutionary scenarios and a design scenario. When that comparison was done with nine different real genetic datasets, the result in each case indicated design, not evolution. Please understand that the decision as to which model fit each scenario wasn’t based on any kind of subjective judgement call. Dr. Ewert used Bayesian model selection, which is an unbiased, mathematical interpretation of the quality of a model’s fit to the data. In all cases Dr. Ewert analyzed, Bayesian model selection indicated that the fit was decisive. An evolutionary tree decisively fit the simulated evolutionary scenarios, and a dependency graph decisively fit the computer programs as well as the nine real biological datasets.
    http://blog.drwile.com/this-co.....he-decade/

    Bayesian model selection
    http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~t.....earn/demo/

    New Paper by Winston Ewert Demonstrates Superiority of Design Model – Cornelius Hunter – July 20, 2018
    Excerpt: Ewert’s three types of data are: (i) sample computer software, (ii) simulated species data generated from evolutionary/common descent computer algorithms, and (iii) actual, real species data.
    Ewert’s three models are: (i) a null model which entails no relationships between any species, (ii) an evolutionary/common descent model, and (iii) a dependency graph model.
    Ewert’s results are a Copernican Revolution moment. First, for the sample computer software data, not surprisingly the null model performed poorly. Computer software is highly organized, and there are relationships between different computer programs, and how they draw from foundational software libraries. But comparing the common descent and dependency graph models, the latter performs far better at modeling the software “species.” In other words, the design and development of computer software is far better described and modeled by a dependency graph than by a common descent tree.
    Second, for the simulated species data generated with a common descent algorithm, it is not surprising that the common descent model was far superior to the dependency graph. That would be true by definition, and serves to validate Ewert’s approach. Common descent is the best model for the data generated by a common descent process.
    Third, for the actual, real species data, the dependency graph model is astronomically superior compared to the common descent model.
    Where It Counts
    Let me repeat that in case the point did not sink in. Where it counted, common descent failed compared to the dependency graph model. The other data types served as useful checks, but for the data that mattered — the actual, real, biological species data — the results were unambiguous.
    Ewert amassed a total of nine massive genetic databases. In every single one, without exception, the dependency graph model surpassed common descent.
    Darwin could never have even dreamt of a test on such a massive scale. Darwin also could never have dreamt of the sheer magnitude of the failure of his theory. Because you see, Ewert’s results do not reveal two competitive models with one model edging out the other.
    We are not talking about a few decimal points difference. For one of the data sets (HomoloGene), the dependency graph model was superior to common descent by a factor of 10,064. The comparison of the two models yielded a preference for the dependency graph model of greater than ten thousand.
    Ten thousand is a big number. But it gets worse, much worse.
    Ewert used Bayesian model selection which compares the probability of the data set given the hypothetical models. In other words, given the model (dependency graph or common descent), what is the probability of this particular data set? Bayesian model selection compares the two models by dividing these two conditional probabilities. The so-called Bayes factor is the quotient yielded by this division.
    The problem is that the common descent model is so incredibly inferior to the dependency graph model that the Bayes factor cannot be typed out. In other words, the probability of the data set, given the dependency graph model, is so much greater than the probability of the data set given the common descent model, that we cannot type the quotient of their division.
    Instead, Ewert reports the logarithm of the number. Remember logarithms? Remember how 2 really means 100, 3 means 1,000, and so forth?
    Unbelievably, the 10,064 value is the logarithm (base value of 2) of the quotient! In other words, the probability of the data on the dependency graph model is so much greater than that given the common descent model, we need logarithms even to type it out. If you tried to type out the plain number, you would have to type a 1 followed by more than 3,000 zeros. That’s the ratio of how probable the data are on these two models!
    By using a base value of 2 in the logarithm we express the Bayes factor in bits. So the conditional probability for the dependency graph model has a 10,064 advantage over that of common descent.
    10,064 bits is far, far from the range in which one might actually consider the lesser model. See, for example, the Bayes factor Wikipedia page, which explains that a Bayes factor of 3.3 bits provides “substantial” evidence for a model, 5.0 bits provides “strong” evidence, and 6.6 bits provides “decisive” evidence.
    This is ridiculous. 6.6 bits is considered to provide “decisive” evidence, and when the dependency graph model case is compared to comment descent case, we get 10,064 bits.
    But It Gets Worse
    The problem with all of this is that the Bayes factor of 10,064 bits for the HomoloGene data set is the very best case for common descent. For the other eight data sets, the Bayes factors range from 40,967 to 515,450.
    In other words, while 6.6 bits would be considered to provide “decisive” evidence for the dependency graph model, the actual, real, biological data provide Bayes factors of 10,064 on up to 515,450.
    We have known for a long time that common descent has failed hard. In Ewert’s new paper, we now have detailed, quantitative results demonstrating this. And Ewert provides a new model, with a far superior fit to the data.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/new-paper-by-winston-ewert-demonstrates-superiority-of-design-model/

  28. 28
    Brother Brian says:

    AaronS1978

    My objections are normally against strict natural selection that somehow managed to create everything we see and know.

    I don’t have a problem with natural selection being a huge driving force of evolution. What I think is still poorly understood is the source of genetic variation that selection can work on. In Darwin’s day nobody knew about DNA and mutations. Since then we have discovered DNA, mutations, meiosis, inversions, transpositions, gene duplication, HGT, epigenetics and other sources of variation. In my mind, the more sources of heritable genetic/phenotypic variation we find, the more viable selection becomes as a driving force. It is a long way from what Darwin envisioned, but it still comes down to differential survival/reproduction due to the variation of heritable traits in the population.

  29. 29
    Brother Brian says:

    BS77

    BB, perhaps you should check my sources a little more carefully???

    Combining a Gish gallop fallacy and an argument from authority fallacy at the same time. I am impressed. But, no thanks. I have better things to do with my time.

    However, if you are willing to make a concise argument, in your own words, I will respond to it. Until then, I will continue to follow my own advice and ignore you.

  30. 30
    Ed George says:

    BB

    Combining a Gish gallop fallacy and…

    Debasing someone who is no longer with us is completely inappropriate. And repeatedly referring to BA77 as BS77 is just childish. I understand why you do it, but doing so just lowers you to his level. I think that you are better than that.

  31. 31
    bornagain77 says:

    BB. you are severely confused. First and foremost I appealed to the evidence itself. You yourself were the one who disparaged my sources, i.e. “Darwin’s God and YouTube videos aren’t exactly credible sources.”

    In response, I listed a few of the sources. Eugene V. Koonin, Didier Raoult and Eric Bapteste, etc.. etc… (And could have listed many more of the same caliber). All of them, contrary to what you tried to imply about my sources, are highly credible sources for genomic evidence. Moreover, if anything, they are biased towards Darwinian presuppositions, not Design presuppositions. Which makes their critique all the more devastating.

    An argument from authority would have been to say something like, “so and so says Design is true therefore Design must be true”, without any appeal to the evidence whatsoever. I did not do that, I appealed directly to the evidence itself first and foremost, Moreover, my supposed ‘authorities’ are themselves of the evolutionary mindset and are biased against Design being true. And yet, even though they themselves are biased against design, they are the ones who are adamantly claiming that the evidence itself does not match Darwinian predictions.

    The truth is that you yourself do not like what they have found in the evidence and therefore you just threw anything on the wall that you could think of to try to avoid accepting the evidence as it is.

    Moreover, Ewert’s paper “wasn’t based on any kind of subjective judgement call. Dr. Ewert used Bayesian model selection, which is an unbiased, mathematical interpretation of the quality of a model’s fit to the data.”

    Please understand that the decision as to which model fit each scenario wasn’t based on any kind of subjective judgement call. Dr. Ewert used Bayesian model selection, which is an unbiased, mathematical interpretation of the quality of a model’s fit to the data. In all cases Dr. Ewert analyzed, Bayesian model selection indicated that the fit was decisive. An evolutionary tree decisively fit the simulated evolutionary scenarios, and a dependency graph decisively fit the computer programs as well as the nine real biological datasets.

    ,,, Ewert amassed a total of nine massive genetic databases. In every single one, without exception, the dependency graph model surpassed common descent.

    So BB, perhaps you now want to argue that Bayesian model selection is “arguing for authority”?

    I would not put it past you to try to do so.

    After all, you already resort to Ad Hominem when you disparage me personally as “BS77” instead of ever honestly addressing any of the evidence that I present (as you currently are doing).

    You said this debate “will be very informative and educational.”

    And I guess so far it is “informative and educational.”. Right off the bat we learn that you yourself are severely biased in how you are willing to interpret the data. And we also learn that you will ignore evidence at the drop of a hat, with any flimsy and self-refuting excuse that you can find, if the evidence does not fit your desired narrative.

    Thanks for teaching unbiased observers that lesson about your personal character.

  32. 32
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 –
    I’m amused at a claim that Bayesian methods aren’t based on any “subjective judgement call”. The one thing that makes Bayesian methods Bayesian in that they explicitly incorporate subjectivity.

    Also, Ewert’s paper has an important disclaimer:

    Critics will be quick to point out that there are a variety of mechanisms to explain deviations from the hierarchical pattern, such as incomplete lineage sorting, gene flow, horizontal gene transfer, convergent evolution, and gene resurrection. These mechanisms occur in nature, but are not included in this model. Recall that we are testing predictions about whether a particular dataset will more closely fit a tree or the dependency graph. Mechanisms which produce deviations from the tree are not relevant to that prediction

    IOW a dependency graph will be favoured even without design, because of mechanisms that we already know about.

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob is basically claiming that Ewert’s own bias bled over into his analysis. That claim is not true. If anything, Ewert bent over backwards to be as fair as possible and to not let ‘mechanisms we already know about’ influence the results.

    Response to a Critic: But What About Undirected Graphs? – Andrew Jones – July 24, 2018
    Excerpt: The thing is, Ewert specifically chose Metazoan species because “horizontal gene transfer is held to be rare amongst this clade.” Likewise, in Metazoa, hybridization is generally restricted to the lower taxonomic groupings such as species and genera — the twigs and leaves of the tree of life. In a realistic evolutionary model for Metazoa, we can expect to get lots of “reticulation” at lower twigs and branches, but the main trunk and branches ought to have a pretty clear tree-like form. In other words, a realistic undirected graph of Metazoa should look mostly like a regular tree.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/response-to-a-critic-but-what-about-undirected-graphs/

    Thus, being as careful as possible to not unduly favor the design model over common descent,, Ewert still found that the design model was overwhelming favored over common descent. Favored to an overwhelming degree over common descent.

    As Dr. Huneter noted:

    Wikipedia page, which explains that a Bayes factor of 3.3 bits provides “substantial” evidence for a model, 5.0 bits provides “strong” evidence, and 6.6 bits provides “decisive” evidence.
    This is ridiculous. 6.6 bits is considered to provide “decisive” evidence, and when the dependency graph model case is compared to comment descent case, we get 10,064 bits.
    But It Gets Worse
    The problem with all of this is that the Bayes factor of 10,064 bits for the HomoloGene data set is the very best case for common descent. For the other eight data sets, the Bayes factors range from 40,967 to 515,450.
    In other words, while 6.6 bits would be considered to provide “decisive” evidence for the dependency graph model, the actual, real, biological data provide Bayes factors of 10,064 on up to 515,450.
    We have known for a long time that common descent has failed hard. In Ewert’s new paper, we now have detailed, quantitative results demonstrating this. And Ewert provides a new model, with a far superior fit to the data.

    He is a more detailed defense of the ‘unbiased’ nature of Ewert’s paper. As the article notes “Bayesian reasoning is important in that it gives us some hope of escaping from the tyranny of fundamentalist presuppositions, whether evolutionist/naturalistic fundamentalism or creationist/biblical fundamentalism (though interestingly Thomas Bayes was a clergyman).”

    The Dependency Graph Hypothesis — How It Is Inferred – Andrew Jones – July 23, 2018
    Excerpt: In Bayesian Model Selection, the best model is the one that makes the data most probable. There is no point in having a simple model if it does not explain the data (if the probability of the data is zero). Likewise there is no point in having a model that is more complex (and thus even less improbable) than the data it needs to explain. That would be overfitting. The overall complexity is the probability of the model combined with the probability of the data given the model. In Ewert’s paper, there are two overarching models that we want to distinguish: the ancestry tree, and the dependency graph, but there are myriad possible sub-models, each contributing to the overall probability of the overarching model.
    Average Values and Bayesian Priors
    Unfortunately, both models (the tree of life and the dependency graph) are extremely complex, with a very large number of adjustable parameters. This might seem to make the question undecidable: We often argue that the tree of life is a terrible fit to the data, requiring numerous ad-hoc “epicycles” to make the data fit. We might further argue that a particular dependency graph is a better fit to the data. But a believer in common descent might reasonably respond that our theory is also not parsimonious; if you add enough modules you could explain literally anything, even random data. It seems that deciding between the two models can never be a rational decision; it seems it will always involve a good deal of intuition or even faith. Fortunately, however, there are ways to tame the complexity enough to get objective and meaningful answers.
    The main strategy for coping with the complexity is summation (or mathematical integration) over all possibilities. Ewert handles many of the parameters by integration: these include the edge probability b (the expected connectivity) of the nodes and the different propensities to add ? or lose ? genes on each of the n nodes. This may seem strange, but it is standard probabilistic reasoning. If the probability distribution of Y (for example, the actual number of gene-losses) depends on X (for example, ?), but you don’t know X, you can still calculate the probability of Y if you have the probability distribution of X. In many cases we don’t even know what the true distribution of X would be. In such cases, Ewert assumes that every possibility has an equal probability (a flat distribution) because this should introduce the least bias. This may also seem strange, but it is quite common in Bayesian reasoning, where it is called a flat prior. Although the prior distribution of X is technically a choice, and yes that choice has some influence on the result, the way Bayesian reasoning works is that the more data you add, the less the particular choice of prior matters. The important thing is to choose a prior that is not biased; a prior that allows the data to speak, if you like. Bayesian reasoning is important in that it gives us some hope of escaping from the tyranny of fundamentalist presuppositions, whether evolutionist/naturalistic fundamentalism or creationist/biblical fundamentalism (though interestingly Thomas Bayes was a clergyman).
    The idea is that we want to make sure that the many things we don’t know don’t stop us from making reasonable inferences using what we do know. ,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/07/the-dependency-graph-hypothesis-how-it-is-inferred/

  34. 34
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 –

    Bob is basically claiming that Ewert’s own bias bled over into his analysis. That claim is not true.

    The second sentence is right – the claim in first sentence is false.

    And thank you for providing a link to a blog post that backs up my point – there are well known evolutionary mechanisms that would make a dependency graph structure more likely.

  35. 35
    bornagain77 says:

    ” there are well known evolutionary mechanisms”

    Give me a friggin break. Calling horizontal gene transfer an evolutionary mechanism certainly does not make it so. You can’t even account for one piece of the intricate molecular machinery that would be involved in horizontal gene transfer.

    Moreover, the paper I listed stated that “Ewert specifically chose Metazoan species because “horizontal gene transfer is held to be rare amongst this clade.”

    Thus, somehow in the mind of a Darwinist, even giving evolution every benefit of a doubt, evidence is simply never allowed to falsify the theory.

    Darwinism, at least how Darwinists treat it, is NOT a falsifiable science! It is a pseudo-scientific religion for atheists.

  36. 36
    Bob O'H says:

    Thank you for conceding that HGT occurs. But it’s not obvious how omitting an evolutionary mechanism that would lead to the pattern you find is “giving evolution every benefit of a doubt”. If you don’t include the evidence, it can’t falsify a theory can it?

  37. 37
    Silver Asiatic says:

    BB

    But the speed with which they can become pesticide resistant does …

    It seems you agree that her response was very poor. So, you decided to answer for her and correct it. I’d prefer to hear her explanation, to see how she deals with the question. It helps to see how familiar she is with the dialogue on this. In my experience, many evolutionary academics are sheltered from debate. So, they speak in generalizations and can sometimes seem very ill-informed and incapable of explaining their own view, as Claudia did here.

  38. 38
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Bob O’H

    there are well known evolutionary mechanisms that would make a dependency graph structure more likely

    I think you’re conceding that you’d need to rely on HGT to rescue that situation. If so, I don’t think that hurts Ewert’s findings.

  39. 39
    Silver Asiatic says:

    BB

    Since then we have discovered DNA, mutations, meiosis, inversions, transpositions, gene duplication, HGT, epigenetics and other sources of variation. In my mind, the more sources of heritable genetic/phenotypic variation we find, the more viable selection becomes as a driving force. It is a long way from what Darwin envisioned, but it still comes down to differential survival/reproduction due to the variation of heritable traits in the population.

    A question we often raise here something like “what is the evolutionary origin of epigenetic relationships”?
    So, while proposing other sources of variation helps explain the origin of new traits (conceding that mutations cannot do it), in some cases, as with epigenetics, the new source of variation has to have an evolutionary explanation, and that only makes the situation more complex and difficult to explain.

  40. 40
    Bob O'H says:

    SA @ 37 – I agree.

  41. 41
    ET says:

    Brother Brian:

    I don’t have a problem with natural selection being a huge driving force of evolution.

    If it is then your position is in BIG trouble as natural selection is impotent with respect to universal common descent.

    Since then we have discovered DNA, mutations, meiosis, inversions, transpositions, gene duplication, HGT, epigenetics and other sources of variation.

    And still nothing that can have bacteria evolving into eukaryotes and nothing that can produce new body plans and new body parts.

    In my mind, the more sources of heritable genetic/phenotypic variation we find, the more viable selection becomes as a driving force.

    LoL! Natural selection is a process of elimination. You mischaracterize it by calling it selection. But we all know why evos do that.

    Also natural selection requires that the genetic changes be random/ happenstance. And no one has figured out a way to make that determination.

    It is a long way from what Darwin envisioned, but it still comes down to differential survival/reproduction due to the variation of heritable traits in the population.

    And with that mechanism you are stuck in populations of bacteria.

  42. 42
    ET says:

    Bob O’H:

    there are well known evolutionary mechanisms that would make a dependency graph structure more likely.

    But are they blind watchmaker evolutionary mechanisms and how do you know? Or are you happy to just equivocate and never back it up?

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    SA per 37:

    I think you’re conceding that you’d need to rely on HGT to rescue that situation. If so, I don’t think that hurts Ewert’s findings.

    Exactly! It concedes the very point under debate. Namely that genomic evidence, contrary to what Claudia was trying to claim, does not support the evolutionary scenario. The genetic evidence is severely discordant to what Darwinists originally predicted. Thus they resort to ad hoc excuses to avoid falsification of their theory.

    An Enzyme’s Phylogeny Reveals a Striking Case of Convergent Evolution – Jonathan M. – February 11, 2013
    Excerpt: The authors attempt to account for the incongruity by positing that “the STC gene has been laterally transferred among phylogenetically diverged eukaryotes through an unknown mechanism.” They thus attribute the shared genes to horizontal gene transfer (with no offered mechanism), a proposition that has become a catch-all to explain away severe conflicts between evolutionary phylogenies.,,,
    “phylogenetic conflict is common, and frequently the norm rather than the exception”
    (Dávalos et al., 2012).
    Is it possible that the real reason for such striking and widespread phylogenetic discordance is that evolutionary biologists are looking at biology through the wrong lens? Could the reason that there is so much difficulty in correlating organisms to a tree be that no such tree exists?
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....68911.html

    Again, contrary to what Claudia was trying to claim, the genetic evidence is severely discordant to what Darwinists originally predicted.

    ‘The theory makes a prediction (for amino acid and nucleotide sequence studies); we’ve tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely.’
    Dr. Colin Patterson Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the Paleontology Department at the British Museum

    “Incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species.”
    (Liliana M. Dávalos, Andrea L. Cirranello, Jonathan H. Geisler, and Nancy B. Simmons, “Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from phyllostomid bats,” Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, Vol. 87:991-1024 (2012).)

  44. 44
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob O’H @ 39
    SA @ 37 – I agree.

    Knock me over with a feather!

  45. 45
    ET says:

    Claudia Darwin Russo:

    Materialistic evolution does make predictions for all characteristics and all organisms.

    It doesn’t make any predictions.

    Each new genome sequenced is a test of evolutionary theory, each new phylogeny reconstructed is also a test.

    Nonsense. For one there isn’t any scientific theory of evolution. And for another there isn’t a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes given populations of bacteria. Endosymbiosis doesn’t help.

    How come the pesticide that you buy in the market works for the cockroach in your house that has never been tested in?

    It has nothing to do with evolutionism- ie the claim of universal common descent via blind and mindless processes.

    The definition of Evolution is change within a population over time.

    That is the definition equivocators use, yes.

    Look, Claudia, do you have something of substance to say?

  46. 46
    ET says:

    “Evolution” has several meanings:

    1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature

    2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population

    3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.

    4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.

    5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.

    6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

    It is definition 6 that ID argues against and it is definition 6 that is being taught in public schools and universities, albeit without any supporting evidence. Materialistic evolution is definition 6.

    What say you, Claudia?

  47. 47
    ET says:

    Brother Brian:

    The only thing really open for debate is how evolution occurs.

    The starting point is still open. The extent that evolutionary processes can take a population is still open- as in what changes can genetic change actually produce? Heck we don’t even know what makes a human a human beyond a baby human is born after a successful mating between a male and female human. And without that knowledge universal common descent is an untestable concept devoid of science.

    So there are at least a few things that are really open for debate. But Brian cannot debate them as he doesn’t know anything about it.

  48. 48
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Bob O’H @39

    That was bold and very good. Thank you. Yes, I think just a modest concession that does not mean more than we said, but still …
    It shows a lot of integrity. I appreciate it!

  49. 49
    Silver Asiatic says:

    BB

    The only thing really open for debate is how evolution occurs. And, to be frank, other than the fine details, it is not being seriously debated by any credible scientist knowledgeable in the subject.

    I don’t follow that. You’re saying that how it occurs is open for debate. The theory was supposed to tell us how it occurs.
    But you’re saying here that there is some legitimate debate (“it’s open for debate”). Or are you saying that the topic is debatable but nobody should debate it because we know how it occurs? So, it’s not open for debate? It’s open for debate by people who do not know how it occurs, but everybody else knows how it occurs therefore debate should be closed? Or, perhaps you are saying, “nobody really knows how it occurs so it should be debated”? That seems like what you’re saying. If so, that is good. It is “open for legitimate, and therefore, necessary debate, because we do not know”. Yes, the theory claimed to have the answer, but it does not.
    You follow this by saying “it is not being seriously debated by any credible scientist knowledgeable in the subject”.
    Ok, it should be debated because we do not know how it occurs. Yes. It is necessary to debate it because the question is open. Yes.
    And, no credible scientists debate it.
    Ok.
    I think you’ve identified the problem here.
    I don’t think we should consider those scientists to be “credible” or “knowledgeable” when they do not debate an issue that needs to be resolved. There an open and necessary debate, and they don’t deal with it. Can someone point out to those scientists that they do not know how it happened, and that their theory has failed?

  50. 50
    hnorman42 says:

    Darwin’s Fossils. LOL! I just got it.

    That would be a great title for a show on cable in the year 2030. It’s about a group of professors who comprise the lone holdout for the neo-Darwinist paradigm.

    Wishful thinking I know — but still.

Leave a Reply