Not Even Wrong

_{Cornelius Hunter
July 2, 2009

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

The great physicist Wolfgang Pauli once criticized a scientific paper as so bad that it was “not even wrong.” It was so sloppy and ill conceived, thought Pauli, that to call it merely wrong would be to give it too much credit–it wasn’t even wrong. Today such a condemnation applies well to the theory of evolution which relies on religious convictions to prop up bad science. It seems that every argument for evolution wilts under scrutiny. Here is a classic example.

Continue reading here.

Comments

David Kellog wrote:
Evolution predicts that a 23-pair species (humans) descends from a 24-pair species
Really? We know the "common ancestor" now, and have shown it had 24 chromosome pairs? Humans did not descend from modern apes, so what modern apes have is irrelevant. You obviously didn't mean what your logic appears to assume/argue. What the fusion event tells us is that ancient HUMANS probably had 24 pairs. Whether or not humans were fully "human" until after the fusion event is a separate question. Proto-Adam and Proto-Eve could very well have had 24 pairs and yet been fully human. Now, we then have humans with 24 pairs and apes with 24 pairs. Is this evidence for common descent? No more than both having two arms and two legs is. Simple similarity is not evidence for common descent, since homoplasy (convergence) and common design (reuse) can also result in similarity. (See successive years of a single model of car, or cars of the same make, both showing similarity based on reuse of design patterns.) At best, similarity is consistent with common descent, as well as consistent with common design. We've been down this road before on UD (arguing about the fusion event) and the conversation died off. Perhaps you have something new to bring to the discussion? So far you've simply re-tread the existing arguments that were made (and answered) in the previous discussions. AtomAtom_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PST}

hoki, the replies may be convincing to you, but they seem remarkably weak to me. Why 2 centromeres? Why telomere DNA in the middle? What's the design explanation? Haste? Carelessness?David Kellogg_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PST}

Joseph,
The theory of evolution did not predict a chromosomal fusion.
Evolution predicts that a 23-pair species (humans) descends from a 24-pair species. Fusion is the best natural explanation.
Chromosomal fusion could very well be one way to reproducitively isolate two otherwise very similarly designed populations
I suppose if the species weren't reproductively isolated anyway, as the other great apes are from each other. Also, you could take the same information and cram it into 23 pairs if you were designing them separately and wanted to create a 23-pair organism using the same basic information. But then there'd be no reason to have telemere DNA in the middle and two centromeres. Lousy design, but a prediction of common descent.David Kellogg_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PST}

David Kellogg,
If this is explained by design, it seems that the designer manipulated great ape DNA to create humans with 23 chromosomes and left evidence that would be the kind predicted by common descent. Sounds like a lousy designer who keeps planting false leads.
Interestingly, that same poster has an excellent reply to your point:
Your claims are fascinating because it reveals a side of the evolutionist's thinking I did not expect. ... You on the one hand say: "Chromosomal fusion WITHOUT descent with modification involves postulating a supernatural Creator to have made chimps and humans separately in the first place. It also involves a Creator that makes them so it seems to be closely related by common descent."
which he then goes on to take down quite convincingly.herb_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PST}

Chromosomal fusion is only evidence for common descent to those would already believe common descent.Joseph_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PST}

David Kellogg, Your evolutionary "explanations" are unconvincing. For one you don't seem to understand the implications. The theory of evolution did not predict a chromosomal fusion. Chromosomal fusion could very well be one way to reproducitively isolate two otherwise very similarly designed populationsJoseph_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PST}

IRQ conflict:
Formatting seems fine. However the background is black rather than white/tan if there are more then ~100 posts it seems.
That's what I get too. This also makes the preview comments on the side unreadable.David Kellogg_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PST}

hoki:
The ID position is that yes, a fusion event likely occurred
Why? Because the data are unambiguous. But ID has no way of saying why the event occurs, or when, or what it means. Evolution, however, says that a fushion even should have occurred, and that it should have occurred between humans and other great apes. Not only can ID not predict it, ID can't say anything about it except "maybe it's not evolution."David Kellogg_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PST}

hoki, secular forum it may be, but the only person arguing against relatedness has a religious beef against evolution. And his explanations are unconvincing. Hypothesis: humans share an ancestry with other great apes. Potential confounding data: 23 pairs of chromosomes in humans, 24 pairs in other great apes. Likely explanation: two chromosomes got stuck together. Data: chromosomes have recognizable centromeres in the middle and telemeres at the end. Prediction: we should find a chromosome with two centromeres and with telemere DNA in the middle. Is there a design hypothesis that woudl predict such a chromosome? If this is explained by design, it seems that the designer manipulated great ape DNA to create humans with 23 chromosomes and left evidence that would be the kind predicted by common descent. Sounds like a lousy designer who keeps planting false leads.David Kellogg_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PST}

Hoki
Your anger is righteous.
Except that I am not righteous and I am not angry. Ya see I don't care that some people want to be related to chimps.Joseph_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PST}

Hmmm---borked the link again. Here it is, for your viewing pleasure: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=1158002#post1158002herb_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PST}

David Kellogg, There's a nice in-depth discussion of this alleged chromosome fusion issue in this thread (warning: It's a secular forum). The post I've linked to says this, in part:
The existence of a fused chromosome does not call for evolution as an explanation. It calls for a fusion event. Your claim that prior to the fusion event the two chromosomes were derived from the chimp, is irrelevant to the fusion event and the subsequent fused chromosome.
The ID position is that yes, a fusion event likely occurred, but that tells us absolutely nothing about whether humans and chimps share a common ancestor.herb_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PST}

I will wager that I can take any "evidence" for a common descent relationship between chimps and humans and use it in a hypothesis for common design and/ or convergence. IOW universal common descent does not offer up any exclusive data- data that points exclusively to UCD.Joseph_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PST}

OK Hoki stick with science and produce a testable hypothesis for the premise that chimps and humans share a common ancester and diverged via an accumulation of genetic accidents.Joseph_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PST}

David Kellogg, The people who say humans and chimps share a common ancestor have to explain the physiological and anatomical differences. All similarities can also be explained by common design and/ or convergence. Chromosomal fusion could very well be one way to reproducitively isolate two otherwise very similarly designed populations. Do you even understand what kind of bottle-neck you are talking about to go from 48 to 46- all with the same fusion? Also what was so special about the fusion that allowed it to take over the population? And for the record I do not deny humans and chimps are related. I say they are related via a common design.Joseph_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PST}

Formatting seems fine. However the background is black rather than white/tan if there are more then ~100 posts it seems.IRQ Conflict_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PST}

Off-topic: have any other Firefox users found that the formatting of this site goes haywire after updating to Firefox 3.5?David Kellogg_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PST}

A nice discussion of human-chimp relatedness by John Tierney at the New York Times (relaying work by Ken Miller).
We humans have 46 chromosomes – 23 pairs. All of the other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. So how is it that we are missing a pair of chromosomes that all these recent relatives actually have? Is it possible that a pair of chromosomes just got lost in our lineage? Well, no. There are so many important genes on every chromosome that the loss of both members of a homologous pair would be fatal, wouldn’t even get past embryonic development. So the only possibility is two chromosomes that are still separate in other primates must have gotten accidentally stuck together to form a single fused chromosome in us. And that’s the explanation that exists in evolution. Here is why evolution is science and not conjecture. If that’s true, we want to be able to find that fused chromosome. So if we can, that is a powerful confirmation of an evolutionary prediction. Well, can we find it? It turns out it is much easier to recognize a fused chromosome than you might think. The tips of all chromosomes are covered with a very special DNA sequence, in a region called the telomere. It is really easy to recognize. Near the center of every chromosome is an equally recognizable region called the centromere. If one of our chromosomes was formed by the fusion of two primate chromosomes, you know what it would have? It would have telomere DNA at the center, and it would have two centromeres. Should be very easy to recognize. We scanned the human genome. Do we have a chromosome like that? The answer is, you bet we do. It is called human chromosome number two. Our second chromosome has telomere DNA at the center. It has two centomeres. We have placed it as being from primate chromosomes 12 and 13 and so exact is the correspondence that people who work on the chimpanzee genome now call the chromosomes they used to call 12 and 13 2A and 2B, because they correspond to those two halves of the human second chromosome.
Discounting the fact that Miller is a Bad Man(TM) for testifying at Dover, how do folks (like Joseph) who deny human-chimp relatedness explain this?David Kellogg_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PST}

Just for clarification- I do not require proof. However I do require something that links the genetic changes with the morphological changes required. For example we don't even understand eye/ vision system development and therefor when it comes to eye/ vision system evolution all we can say/ teach is "we don't know". As in "we don't know if mutational accumulation can do the things the theory requires." We have observed mutations giving rise to diseases. We have observed mutations giving rise to abnormalities. We have never observed mutations accumulating in such a way as to give rise to novel protein machinery and novel body plans. As a matter of fact everything we have observed falls in line with the Creation baraminology. However that leaves me in a bind because I do not accept the Bible as anything other than a collection of books. I am not a Christian. I am not religious. I am bound by observation(s), evidence and data. So I say that we are here-ie our existence on this planet- is due to ancient colonizers from a distant (or noty so distant) now dead planet or planets. And I don't care about how they came to be because I cannot study them in their original environment. So I concern myself with what is here, on Earth, biologically speaking. IOW I say you have to fisrt figure out what is in front of you before moving on. And saying "it evolved" doesn't help in figuring out anything.Joseph_{July 6, 2009
July
07
Jul
6
06
2009
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PST}

Joseph:
And it is a fact that all observations and experiments demonstrate humans beget humans and chimps beget chimps.
Yes, we have never observed anything intelligent designing neither humans nor chimps.
So if we stick with science…
Why don't we.
But you can prove that I am an idiot just by substantiating your claims with actual scientific data.
I was never trying to prove that you were an idiot. I thought that much was pretty obvious...
I can live with a chimp calling me an idiot (as he plays with his feces).
Your anger is righteous.Hoki_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PST}

jerry, Nicely put:
The anti ID people who come here assume common ancestry and immediately assume Darwinian gradualist processes to explain the mechanism. But that is an assumption that has never been shown. And there is good logic to indicate it may not have happened in this way.
Which brings us back to the OP, and what Cornelius has been arguing for in these recent posts. The Darwinists (and perhaps a handful of IDers) have plenty of faith in common ancestry, but don't understand that their position is based on religion, not evidences.herb_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PST}

Here is my support for Hoki. He has been generally polite since coming here. I do not think he understand the impasse he and Joseph are in. People look at the commonality of the various genomes, for example humans and chimpanzees, and they are very similar. But they are different. How did these differences arise if in fact there was a common ancestry. The anti ID people who come here assume common ancestry and immediately assume Darwinian gradualist processes to explain the mechanism. But that is an assumption that has never been shown. And there is good logic to indicate it may not have happened in this way. Joseph asks for proof and he knows there isn't any and most anti ID people assume it must have happened by gradualistic means but really have no proof for it. It is that leap of faith that Will Provine says you must have to be a Darwinist. ID supporters believe there are too many leaps of faith required.jerry_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PST}

Hoki, I don't care what you call me- I just consider the source. I can live with a chimp calling me an idiot (as he plays with his feces). But you can prove that I am an idiot just by substantiating your claims with actual scientific data. IOW what you call someone has only as much meaning as the reasoning behind it. And it doesn't mean much of anything if you can't say it to their face.Joseph_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PST}

Nakashima-san:
When is it convenient for you to meet? I have always been interested in meeting someone from UD face to face.
I just had ACL reconstruction so it will be a while before I go anywhere. But I will keep that in mind...Joseph_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PST}

And it is a fact that no one even knows if the changes required are even possible. Hoki:
And it is a fact that no one even knows if chimps or humans could be designed by something intelligent.
And it is a fact that all observations and experiments demonstrate humans beget humans and chimps beget chimps. So if we stick with science...
Argument from authority: Michael “chimp” Behe accepts that humans and apes are related.
I prefer observations, evidence, data- anything less isn't science.Joseph_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PST}

Hoki, ------"I only wish that you had read mine and Joseph’s previous exchanges." I did read them.Clive Hayden_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PST}

Clive Hayden:
Qualifies you for moderation.
Thank you for making my point to Joseph. I only wish that you had read mine and Joseph's previous exchanges. I wan't being nasty to anyone. I was simply echoing Joseph's behaviour.Hoki_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PST}

Hoki, ------"Argument from authority: Michael “chimp” Behe accepts that humans and apes are related." ------"Is it alright if I call you idiot or not? Or, perhaps, you don’t think that all humans are related." Qualifies you for moderation.Clive Hayden_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PST}

Joseph:
And it is a fact that no one even knows if the changes required are even possible.
And it is a fact that no one even knows if chimps or humans could be designed by something intelligent. Great point, Joseph. Argument from authority: Michael "chimp" Behe accepts that humans and apes are related.
It says that in the Bible? Can you provide a chapter and verse?
If people believe it, does it matter? Is it alright if I call you idiot or not? Or, perhaps, you don't think that all humans are related.Hoki_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PST}

PaulBurnett (19):
Basic orbital mechanics apparently precludes planetary systems with contra-rotating planets from lasting very long - they self-destruct in a relatively short time. (Planetary system software easily demonstrates this.)
Well I wouldn't call that "Basic" orbital mechanics. Can you suggest a software package? Thanks,Cornelius Hunter_{July 5, 2009
July
07
Jul
5
05
2009
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply