nullasalus Makes a Point

_{Barry Arrington

February 18, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

Nullasalus writes here:

By the way – does anyone else notice that when it comes to evolution, disagreement is always translated as ‘You don’t understand evolution!’?

Larry Moran plays the card in the link I give. Everyone’s playing the card with Kaz. Dawkins and company played the card with EO Wilson. EO Wilson arguably played it right back. Jerry Fodor got the same treatment for writing What Darwin Got Wrong. Thomas Nagel got the same.

It’s as if disagreement is literally unthinkable. You’re either all on the same page or you just don’t get evolution fundamentally.

That seems about right based on my experience.

Comments

wd400, Probably unfair to call you out, but this thread just reminded me of your recent comment and your oft-used approach, which is why I mentioned it. Nick Matzke is at least as guilty, so I could have referred to him. Much of the problem is that there is no coherent, unifying theory of evolution. Rather, there is a hodgepodge of various ideas that come under the heading of "evolution", ranging from the obvious and the well-supported to the outrageous and the wildly-speculative. When someone critiques one of the wild ideas -- not based on stuff the critics made up, but based on statements or principles articulated by prominent evolutionists -- then the critic is often accused of not understanding evolutionary theory. It is true that there are some well-grounded principles that come under the heading of "evolution". But those invariably relate to minor things that hardly anyone objects to anyway -- peppered moths and finch beaks and antibiotic resistance. Look, I understand the approach. If I were trying to stand up for evolution in light of criticism of some of the wilder claims I might be tempted to say to the critics: "You don't understand evolution" -- which really means, "You're not critiquing the parts of evolutionary theory I believe in." Fair enough. But let's be willing to acknowledge that in addition to the well-grounded aspects we might feel to support there is also a lot of stuff that comes under the heading of "evolution" that is not well supported, indeed that cannot be objectively described as anything other than incoherent or wild speculations.Eric Anderson_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

wd400, Let me see if I can close the gap between where we are, and where you are. It seems clear that you are not quite aware of the qualitative difference between our critique of RMNS evolution, and what you are claiming is evidence in support of RMNS. At its root, the difference is this: 1) UD critique: there is not only no experimental laboratory support for RM gradualism, what experimental laboratory evidence that there is (e.g. e. coli., fruit fly mutations) indicates experimentally that RM gradualism doesn't work. In addition, the fossil record provides no empirical evidence for RM gradualism - it shows stasis and fully-formed "leaps" in form and function. 2) Evolutionist(wd400) defense: biologists have developed models and proposals based on molecular and morphological studies that provide a theoretical explanation of how existing life forms developed certain attributes via RM gradualism. As support for my conclusion, Exhibit A: the link you provide above. In the paper you cite, we read the following (all emphasis mine):
The purpose of this review is to consider how it may have been that photoreception in our eyes evolved.

The evidence and arguments relating to a number of major advances that occurred at successive times during vertebrate evolution will be presented in separate sections. It must be emphasized, though, that uncertainties abound, and that a good deal of speculation is involved. Finally, a scenario will be described for the overall sequence and likely timing of the principal events that led to the evolution of our retina and its photoreceptors.

The primordial ciliary photoreceptor contained a c-opsin, and is thought to have coupled to a precursor of the Gt (transducin) G-protein cascade that uses PDE6 (the cGMP phosphodiesterase) as the effector protein.

As reviewed by Nordström et al. (2004) and Larhammar et al. (2009), these branchings are broadly consistent with two rounds of genome duplication (2R) at the base of the vertebrate lineage, though the exact timing of these two tetraploidizations remains unclear. Lampreys possess five classes of retinal opsin that appear closely homologous to those of jawed vertebrates (Davies et al. 2007), whereas tunicates (e.g. Ciona intestinalis) have so far only been shown to possess a single copy of a c-opsin. It will be of considerable interest to find the opsins of hagfish, and to examine the homologies that they exhibit to vertebrate visual opsins.
And so on. To Phoodoo's point, the word "Homologous" or "Homology" appears 17 times in this one paper. Quite simply, this paper could have been, and most likely was, written without a single laboratory experiment being performed. Like any paper you would be able to provide a citation for that supports RM gradualism, it provides models and proposals, but no physical reproduction or reproducible mechanism for RM gradualism. At its core, our disagreement with you comes down to how we answer this question: "Does providing a model, proposal, or theoretical reproduction of how RM gradualism could occur or might have occurred, serve as proof that RM gradualism is a valid theory?" Your answer: yes, models = evidence. Our answer: no, some level of physical or mathematical support is required. It is not that we "don't understand evolution" - it is that we disagree with the Grecian approach to science that says if I can come up with a reasonable, logical explanation, I don't have to provide any experimental support.drc466_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that). ~ Richard Dawkins When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff. ~ Cicero Ive never seen this as a conviction, but rather a rhetorical strategy. Step One: Change the subject. Step Two: Make your opponent the topicbevets_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

Don't forget James Tour - Organic Chemist, rated one of the Top 10 Chemists in the world, he "doesn't understand evolution" either. Neither do any of his colleagues whom he testifies admit that the theory makes no sense to them either. Don't forget Didier Raoult - "the most productive and influential microbiologist in France, leading a team of 200 scientists and students at the University of Aix-Marseille.... Raoult last year published a popular science book that flat-out declares that Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong. And he was temporarily banned from publishing in a dozen leading microbiology journals in 2006." http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6072/1033.summary Who would love to see wd400 telling Raoult that he doesn't understand evolution theory? That would be an interesting discussion.lifepsy_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Phoodoo, The paper I linked to is the introduction to a theme issue, consisting of 12 papers tacklking the evolution of vetebrate vision from different angles. If you read and absorbed the details of all 12 papers in the hour since I posted then you've done very well. If, instead, you've just scanned down the intro page hopig to see a step-by-step list of how veterebrate retinas evolved you will be dissapointed. As I said, the linked issue gives you an idea of what we know about the evolution of the retina an associated cells and molecules. The quoted paragraph (which has nothing to do with " homologies in eye structures" sp far as I can tell), describes one model by which complexity increases in evolutionary time called sub-functionlisation. Other articles deal with development and molecular evolution.Biology is complex, there probably are no simple step-by-step models to find. But the articles in that issue (and many hundreds more published in many other journals) show us how evolutionary approaches can help us understand that complexity. That was the point in linking to it. Though I increasingly think there is no point inmy posting here.wd400_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

wd400, You used one of the most classic defenses to the problem of explaining step by step evolution, that exists in the evolutionists playbook. You simply quoted an article which claimed to explain the evolution of some body part, and felt this must serve the job. You clearly don't understand the article, you don't care if you understand the article, but you are satisfied that the title says something about explaining something. Here is a typical paragraph of the article you referenced: "Recently, Arendt (2008) has extended these ideas into a model for the evolution of cell types, using the powerful information that can be obtained from ‘molecular fingerprinting’ of different cell classes, and he has set out several principles for the evolution of cell types. He provides evidence that early metazoans possessed few cell types, but that these cell types were typically multi-functional and expressed numerous genes, and that in the course of evolution, cells tended to diversify by segregation of function. Thus, two descendant (sister) cell types would tend to have the original functions of the parent cell type divided between them, in a complementary manner, so that they would each become more specialized; in addition, each might gain new functions. He further proposed that functionally divergent sister cell types might tend to migrate apart spatially, but that in doing so they would tend to retain contact with each, as exemplified by neural contacts between distant cells in the nervous system. " No step by step explanations, just an article about similarities in homologies in eye structures. I guess you use the typical evolutionist dodging technique that is so classical, because you just don't understand evolution. Welcome to the club.phoodoo_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

wd400, in regards to your 'fanciful' paper that you cited,, "Recent findings shed light on the steps underlying the evolution of vertebrate photoreceptors and retina." ,, wd400 Did you know that in the recent 'Mother-Lode of Fossils' from the Cambrian Explosion that they found retinas and corneas? 'Mother Lode' of Fossils Discovered in Canada - Feb. 11, 2014 Excerpt: Retinas, corneas, neural tissue, guts and even a possible heart and liver were found. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mother-lode-of-fossils-discovered-in-canada/ Not good for your imaginary story telling wd400! “Evolution is very possibly not, in actual fact, always gradual. But it must be gradual when it is being used to explain the coming into existence of complicated, apparently designed objects, like eyes. For if it is not gradual in these cases, it ceases to have any explanatory power at all. Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to miracle, which is simply a synonym for the total absence of explanation.” Dawkins, R. (1995) River Out of Eden, Basic Books, New York, p. 83. also of note: "How came the Bodies of Animals to be contrived with so much Art…. Was the Eye contrived without skill in Opticks, and the Ear without Knowledge of Sounds?" - Sir Isaac Newton William Bialek: More Perfect Than We Imagined - March 23, 2013 Excerpt: photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/03/william-bialek-more-perfect-than-we.html Second the inverted retina, which evolutionists insist is "bad design", is now found to be a 'optimal design: Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity A. M. Labin and E. N. Ribak Physical Review Letters, 104, 158102 (April 2010) Excerpt: The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20482021 Optimized hardware compression, The eyes have it. - February 2011 Excerpt: the human visual processing system is “the best compression algorithm around”. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/optimised-hardware-compression-the-eyes-have-it/ To actually simulate 10 milliseconds of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second.bornagain77_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

We would love to evolutionary theory but no one seems to be able find it. It's as if it doesn't exist. So we relate to what evolutionary biologists say. And they usually say contradictory things. So don't blame us.Joe_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

CS, Damand they give you a detailed account of how RV+NS produced any cell type, tissue type, organ or body plan I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a "deatailed account" - surely not a mutation by mutation account? If you want an in-depth look at what we know about the evolution of one system of cell-types and tissue, approached from a range of angles, there is this issue of Transactions of the Royal Society B. (http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1531/2911.long). I would also point out cancer is precisely the evolution of a different cell and tissue type, and is also the result of random variation and natural selection. With transmissable cancers these cells can even esapce and out live their host!wd400_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

wd400 claims the Emperor is wearing cloths! "then surely it should relate to evolutionary theory as it exists," Evolution does not qualify as a valid scientific theory wd400, and is more properly classified as a pseudo-science since, number 1, it has no mathematical basis (In fact math constantly tells us Darwinism is false) Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013 Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4 and number two it has no empirical support (in fact empirics also tells us that Darwinism is false) “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/editbornagain77_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

Funny, this is one of wd400?s favorite tactics as well, as witnessed just earlier today on another thread. I belive you are talking about the thread from which this post was plucked. I'm curious though. What are we meant to do when we see critques of evolutionary biology that are not, in fact, related to evolutionary biology. Junk DNA is the obvious example here - almost every word spend on that topic in these pages get's the argument for junk DNA wrong. In fact, it reached a laugable extend in a recent thread when I had to explicitdly state the same point four times and people before anyone actually noticed what I was saying. Other prominant examples are "croc-o-duck" and reificaton of analogies from engineering/comp. sci. to biology. As I've said before, many internet-atheists defend the same cartoon versoins of evolution that IDers oppose. But if you want ID to be more that a shiboleth in USian culutre war then surely it should relate to evolutionary theory as it exists, not as is widely misunderstood?wd400_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

CentralScrutinizer @ 6 Random Variation + Natural Selection? Got it. Won't hold my breath while waiting for their valid answer. Thanks for the suggestion.Dionisio_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

And the Emperor still isn't wearing anything at all!! "The Emperor's New Clothes" (Danish: Kejserens nye Klæder) is a short tale by Hans Christian Andersen about two weavers who promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes that is invisible to those unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent. When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, a child cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes Music: Michael W Smith - "You Won't Let Go" - video Lyric: "Not a shadow comes without the light making a way" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNZusL1OHG4bornagain77_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

The best part is when evolutionists are shown to not understand what evolutionism entails. I have been accused of creating the strawman of blind watchmaker evolution- yup Richard Dawkins created a strawman. Jerry Coyne promotes a strawman too- at least that is what evos over on atbc want to believe. It's true, when IDists point out that evolutionism (ie darwinian and neo-darwinian evolution) posits blind and undirected processes (natural selection is blind and mindless with its random variation being undirected, ie happenstance), the evos over on atbc start twitching and claiming strawman- even after pages of references have been provided. Amazingly pathetic.Joe_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

Funny, this is one of wd400's favorite tactics as well, as witnessed just earlier today on another thread. Of course, I also accuse others of not understanding evolution. Namely, those who accept it as a valid explanation for all of biology we see around us. They obviously don't know what evolution can and can't do -- they just don't understand it. :)Eric Anderson_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

DionisioFebruary: If by the general term ‘evolution’ I have to assume both micro and macro evo, then things get really very difficult for me to understand
I avoid using the term "micro" and "macro" evolution because they live to weasle around those terms. The more precision the better. You want to make a Darwinist squirm? Damand they give you a detailed account of how RV+NS produced any cell type, tissue type, organ or body plan. Of course, they can never do it. They have no idea. They just seem micro changes, scale the idea and think it's a valid explanation. Engineers know better. The explanatory gap for Blind Watchmaker evolution is bigger than the Grand Canyon. We know it. And they know we know it.CentralScrutinizer_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

You just don’t understand evolution 8^>
Well I don't expect to understand it, having only spent one career in medicine - of which, as William implies, nothing made sense.Jon Garvey_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

If by the general term 'evolution' I have to assume both micro and macro evo, then things get really very difficult for me to understand, regardless of how much I try it. The more I try to understand cell fate determination/migration mapping, epigenetic regulatory networks, signaling pathways, genotype to phenotype association, the whole nine yards and their cousins, the harder it is for me to understand the macro component of the evo stories, like the magic extrapolation of the Galapagos finches adaptation to the mysterious OOL problem. I guess I must keep trying, right?Dionisio_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

I think they are all right. Nobody understands evolution. And don't forget: nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution... even if nobody seems to understand it!William J Murray_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Jon Garvey @ 1 You just don't understand evolution 8^> [Couldn't resist]dgosse_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

James Shapiro got the same from Jerry Coyne. It's a really odd theory when guys with a lifetime in molecular biology don't get it whereas every internet troll does.Jon Garvey_{February 18, 2014
February
02
Feb
18
18
2014
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply