
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/
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
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.
From the abstract, they claim:
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.”
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.”
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.
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:
Jonathan Wells weigh in here:
Ann Gauger weighs in here:
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:
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.
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.”
Here are a few falsifications of Darwinian evolution that Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory:
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.
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!
Verse:
That is a lie.
That is also a lie, unless you want to restrict the definition of “evolution” to mere change within a population over time.
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.
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.
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?
“You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”
“The cake is a lie.”
“I’m doing science and I’m still alive.”
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
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
“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?
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.
“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
BB
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.
CDR
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.
CDR
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?
SA
Nope. I am perfectly honest in stating that Ms. Russo debating people like ET, BS77 and KF will be very informative and educational.
Claudia
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.
BB
That is good and unless information and education are bad things, that sounds like a very positive result from the discussions here on UD.
SA
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
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
per CDR at 7:
It failed
BS77
Except for the thousands and thousands of concrete examples published in the literature. Darwin’s God and YouTube videos aren’t exactly credible sources.
VB
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.
VB
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.
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.
BB, perhaps you should check my sources a little more carefully???
Here is a paper from last year:
AaronS1978
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.
BS77
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.
BB
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.
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.”
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.
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:
IOW a dependency graph will be favoured even without design, because of mechanisms that we already know about.
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.
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:
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).”
ba77 –
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.
” 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.
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?
BB
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.
Bob O’H
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.
BB
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.
SA @ 37 – I agree.
Brother Brian:
If it is then your position is in BIG trouble as natural selection is impotent with respect to universal common descent.
And still nothing that can have bacteria evolving into eukaryotes and nothing that can produce new body plans and new body parts.
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.
And with that mechanism you are stuck in populations of bacteria.
Bob O’H:
But are they blind watchmaker evolutionary mechanisms and how do you know? Or are you happy to just equivocate and never back it up?
SA per 37:
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.
Again, contrary to what Claudia was trying to claim, the genetic evidence is severely discordant to what Darwinists originally predicted.
Knock me over with a feather!
Claudia Darwin Russo:
It doesn’t make any predictions.
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.
It has nothing to do with evolutionism- ie the claim of universal common descent via blind and mindless processes.
That is the definition equivocators use, yes.
Look, Claudia, do you have something of substance to say?
“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?
Brother Brian:
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.
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!
BB
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?
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.