In a previous post here at TSZ Mark Frank asked why people doubt common descent.
A more interesting question is why did Charles Darwin doubt common descent?
Stephen Meyer has written two books which I think adequately answer both questions.
Those two books are:
In this thread I am willing to discuss either book, but I’d prefer to limit discussion to Meyer’s most recent book, Darwin’s Doubt
While Signature in the Cell concentrated on the origin of life, Darwin’s Doubt concentrates on the “Cambrian Explosion,” the sudden appearance of numerous distinct phyla and their subsequent diversification.
Neo-Darwinism offers no realistic account of origins, with the difference being that Darwinists can in the case of the origin of life assert that their theory does not apply while that excuse fails to apply to the appearance of different animals in the Cambrian and their subsequent diversification.
Just to prove I can – [Edited 09/15/2013]
Deleted from the OP – [Edited 09/201/2013] – Just to prove I can. “The arguments are the same for both:”
Not content with lying and quote-mining in his other thread, Mung decides to continue the quote-mining with petrushka here.
Of course processes like evolution can be stochastic and still have non-uniform probability distributions which make long term predictions (like the house in casinos making money) a virtual certainty. New buildings in Vegas can be and are built with the profits of such non-uniform chance events.
It’s hard to tell if Mung is really that slow or just basically dishonest. I suppose the two aren’t mutually exclusive.
It certainly doesn’t predict it. And there is no evidence for sudden appearance of organisms outside the overall nested hierarchy.
I just posted a paper on the topic here
WJM: “Chance is not an explanation. It is the abandonment of an explanation.”
EL: ““Chance” is not explanatory at all. It is a “place holder” for what we don’t know.” [e.g., ignorance]
EL:
My reply was a direct refutation of that claim. Evolutionists do not offer “chance” as “the explanation” for the reasons I gave. And the mechanisms they do offer are not “deceptive, semantic placeholders for ‘chance’.”
You didn’t refute anything, Elizabeth, you agreed with him. “Chance” is no explanation.
The assertion that William was arguing that “chance is the explanation” came from someone pretending to quote William. It’s not what he actually wrote.
The person even accurately quote William before pretending that William wrote something else:
“WJM: Chance is not an explanation.”
Yep, that’s what William wrote. Quoted by the alleged critic. No doubt a true “skeptic.” I laugh.
Why do Creationists like Mung think that lying by out of context quote-mining will win arguments?
What WJM wrote:
“All Darwin offers is a **chance** that X occurs; it doesn’t predict it, and cannot predict it. In fact, an almost infinite number of other things could have occurred besides X, including not-X (convergent & divergent evolution, stasis & rapid change, common ancestry & orfan genes, complexity & simplicity, high and low birth rates, etc.).
Chance is not an explanation. It is the abandonment of an explanation. Darwinism doesn’t explain any data, it just allows a big enough pool of chance for virtually any data to fit in.”
I’ll never understand this lying for Jesus thing.
Thanks for the headsup, thorton. So it’s all just mainstream science. Mung’s talk of a particular hypothesis made me think there was such a hypothesis and it was controversial.
Alan Fox:
That’s right Alan. And that’s exactly what William said.
So? Got to love those qualifications!
But there is evidence for sudden appearance of organisms inside the overall nested hierarchy?
Unlikely.
Alan Fox:
so? Do you think Meyer is a YEC?
OMAgain:
Elizabeth:
Not that Darwinists rely on probabilities. Oh no, they would never do that. Especially if it involved events in the distant past!
Not if I add in your original qualification. I think evidence suggests that organisms that reproduce sexually generally are the offspring of parents who were quite similar to them.
You must know nothing of the methods used to infer states of ancestors in phylogenies.
How does that even follow? You mentioned “deep divergence hypothesis” and the only reference I found was a cryptically brief note on the defunct ISCID website which talks about a billion years for the timescale for the appearance of phyla found in the Cambrian strata. I mention 630 mya as the apparent current consensus figure and you ask me if I think Stephen Meyer is YEC. Bizarre!
If it interests you,If he’s discussing the Cambrian fauna, presumably he must agree that the Earth is al least 500 million years old.
Not sure what you mean by this, Mung. I mean, clearly you are making some kind of sarcastic point, but I don’t know what it is.
Can you explain?
Some posts moved to Guano. This is a reminder that the game rules here are that you assume, for the purposes of discussion, that the other posters are posting in good faith, and therefore that they believe themselves to be telling the truth.
You don’t have to believe it, you just have to adopt that premise for the purposes of discussion here.
Interesting that you did not quote what I was responding to in the first place.
William said:
Lizzie said:
I see no specific prediction there, just a discussion of the place of probability distributions.
So, want to try again? Just because you are on the same side as William does not make him automatically right about everything. And I will not let this one go.
It follows because now Mung has distracted from the point you made and has “technically” answered it, or rather he has an answer under the text itself, and so can ignore the actual point. I’m sure that in his internal accounting system that’s a tick and counts just as much as a real, responsive answer.
Well, if Meyer is honest, then that’s what he agrees with. And who knows, in spite f his disreputable hucksterism, he may be honest in that sense.
But not if Meyer is like the shitwit Andrew Snelling. He’s the infamous geologist who wrote non-creationist journal articles and book sections such as this:
while earning consulting fees from uranium mining interests, who of course needed accurate scientific data about the ages and locations of geologic strata so that they could pursue mining claims effectively.
At the same time, Snelling worked for Answers In Genesis, who as you may know, require a loyalty oath that specifies adherence to 6-day creation, young Earth, and Noah’s flood, among their other anti-science garbage. AiG has been happily giving Snelling a paycheck for thirty years. No idea how happy the mining interests are, or were, I should say, with Snelling’s last years of “mainstream” work.
No idea how many brain cells he lost when he decided t drink the Ham Kool-aid.
No idea if there will ever be an example of something too low for the fundies to stoop to.
Honestly, I have zero evidence that Meyer is dishonest on the scale of Snelling.
Mung, read through the exchange carefully again.
I agree with William that Chance is not an Explanation.
However, William claimed that the mechanisms offered by evolutionary theory are mere “placeholders” for “chance” and therefore not explanations.
His reasoning appeared to be that the proposed mechanisms are not predictive (as “Chance” is not).
My response was that the mechanisms offered ARE predictive, and are therefore explanatory, not merely “placeholders for chance”.
If Darwinism could offer even basic probability distribution outcomes, then one might be able to argue that even though it is a chance system, they can model probabilistic outcomes (like distribution of gas molecules). But, they cannot. They cannot tell you what Darwinism cannot do. They cannot tell you what it is more likely to do in any given circumstance. They cannot even tell you what Darwinism has done, because most of what it has done cannot be seen.
Therefore, not knowing the limitations of what Darwinism can and cannot do, and via extinction and a poor fossil record not know even what Darwinism has done (or even what it has mostly done or not done), it cannot be possible to model a probability distribution for Darwinistic outcomes.
Therefore, Darwinism is nothing but a bald chance system clung to out of anti-theistic and/or materialist faith.
Lizzie,
There’s some spill to clean up in the “What is Science?” thread with foul language and similar accusation.
Thanks,
Gregory
Lizzie,
If Darwinism is predictive in any meaningful way, please tell me what will likely be the next new kind of organ or other macroevolutionary feature any species (your pick) will develop over the next few million years.
If Darwinistic mechanisms are to be claimed as predictive, then the very least they should be able to predict is what is not reasonably possible under the predictive model. If they cannot even predict that, then calling the mechanism “predictive” is ludicrous.
So, somone please tell me: under Darwinism, what is not reasonably possible? What are the limitations of Darwinistic evolution?
William J. Murray,
It could be from the 7 uses of the term in 3 short paragraphs and many other uses above, but does it seem like WJM perhaps, just maybe, on the off chance I’m guess correctly, has some kind of problem with ‘Darwinism’? 😮
This thread focussed in particular on the various meanings of that term, which might help WJM realise what he is facing: http://theskepticalzone.fr/?p=2815
Elisabeth Liddle says she doesn’t know any ‘Darwinist’ idealogues [sic]. Neil Rickert and Allan Miller do not consider themselves ‘Darwinists.’ Robin doesn’t care if you call him a ‘Darwinist’ or not. No one else in that thread specifically focussed on Darwinism answered the simple, direct question: “Yes or No – do you consider yourself a ‘Darwinist’?”
So, what makes WJM and Mung think there are *any* ‘Darwinists’ here at TSZ to answer them?
Scientists do infer evolutionary trees. There are probabilistic distributions, based on molecular (not fossil) evidence. It is very much possible, William.
William, your ignorance is astonishing. The inability to read DNA sequences for meaning or effect is precisely why design is impossible without evolution.
Chemistry does not allow predicting the effect of a novel code sequence, nor the consequence of any change or mutstion. Ask mung. He’s read Shapiro and knows that mutations do not anticipate need, even when an ID friendly author is writing about them.
Understanding the impossibility of foresight is kind of of an IQ test in these discussions.
Clearly, if the theory of evolution doesn’t do what William J Murray wants it to do, then the theory should be rejected.
I see you are studiously avoiding answering the question. I’ll ask again. You are insisting that we can only use 140 year old science. Answer the question. Has science acquired more and better data in the 140 years since Agassiz died. YES or NO?
These recent threads have opened my eyes to how profoundly ignorant are the critics of evolution. They seem to have a private language in which words mean whatever they want them to mean.
Random
chance
phylum
prediction
design
In particular, they have an odd definition of the word design. They ignore what people do while designing and apparently mean magic.
How are orfan genes accounted for in your probabilistic distributions via evolutionary trees?
Until you can tell me what Darwinism cannot reasonably produce via it’s “mechanisms”, Darwinism has no value as a scientific theory. A theory that allows everything explains nothing.
OK. But first you have to give us the environmental factors our hypothetical future species will face. All of them – all potential predators, all potential prey or other food sources, climate, wildcards like diseases or natural catastrophes, etc.
Over to you.
You seem to understand virtually nothing about evolutionary theory. The primary purpose of the theory is to explain mechanisms for events that have already happened. To that end ToE can predict what the gaps in our knowledge should look like, i.e. tiktaalik. It can also predict that we won’t find animals that don’t fit the phylogenetic tree – six legged mammals for instance.
As far as predicting future evolutionary changes, that can only be done in a general manner as such results are dependent on unknown future environments. ToE can predict trends like insular dwarfism – species on islands tend to reduce body size – but can’t predict specific mutations or adaptations.
It’s not my job to gather up the information you need to inform your prediction. Either you can make such a prediction, or you cannot. I take this to mean you cannot.
OK, I predict that in a new environment where birds can easily find and eat all red colored bugs, the red colored bug population will evolve to be harder to see – either through a change of color or through a camouflaged shape.
There, prediction done. Anything else you want?
@ thorton
And factor in the possibility of another large meteor hitting Earth.
It’s hard to know where to start with this, William. Maybe here: there are many ways in which a prediction can be “meaningful” without being specific.
To give a well-known example: I cannot tell predict at all whether the coin you are about to toss will be heads of tails. However, I can predict with near certainty that if you toss 100 coins, at least one of them will be heads. In fact I can even quantify the probability that at least one of them will be heads to a large number of decimal places. That second prediction is a perfectly meaningful prediction, and I can even more meaningfully predict the range of percentages the number of heads you toss is likely to fall in, and I can also tell you what percentage of heads should give you pause for alarm that the coin is not a fair one. In other words, the theory “this coin is fair” makes extremely precise predictions about the proportion of heads you will get in 100 tosses, even though it makes no prediction at all about what the next toss will bring.
So, secondly :asking me to tell you:
is like asking me to tell you what your next coin toss will bring. That doesn’t mean that Darwinian evolution makes “no meaningful predictions”. Darwinian evolution predicts that currently extant organisms will continue to diverge and diversify, down lineages, forming ever more nested hierarchies, unless something (us for instance, interferes) and starts intelligently transferring genetic material with intended phenotypic effects from one lineage to another, resulting in pigs with fluorescing noses, for example, or possibly cows that produce human milk.
Thirdly: this phrase “macroevolutionary feature” – what is it supposed to mean? In biology, the word “macroevolution” simply refers to the study of evolution above the level of the species. There aren’t some features that are “macroevolutionary” and some that are “microevolutionary”. For instance, the panda’s thumb – is that macroevolutionary or microevolutionary?
It is possible that we will discover that there were a few very important non-incremental events in the course of the history of life – symbiosis, for instance, or the first hox genes, and perhaps rather more specific genetic novelties that led to offspring with substantially, rather than incrementally, advantageous phenotypic features. There is some evidence, for instance, that three rather crucial genetic changes may have combined to set homo sapiens on the road to language and bootstrapped the way to a lineage with substantially greater intelligence than her forebears. And that is a perfectly testable hypothesis – in other words, it makes predictions not necessarily about what will happen in the future, but about what we will find in new data.
I wrote some of them, particularly in one post, but also in other posts.
You ignoring them doesn’t mean that you weren’t already answered.
You only want to disagree with, not understand, not reasonably discuss, what you dislike and dismiss with prejudice.
Glen Davidson
No, I think it’s more like asking what you will roll given a die that has at least a billion sides, but that you don’t even know how may different sides there are, or what could be on them.
IOW, it’s chance without any known or predictable parameters – unless, of course, you can tell me (1) what darwinism is capable of (no, you cannot, that is a huge, incomplete unknown), and (2) what darwinism is not capable of (nobody here has even tried).
Without those things, you don’t have a “probability distribution” that can be demonstrated to be producible via your mechanisms; all you have are facts (genetic and fossils) that represent a “probability distribution” that you assume can be generated by your mechanisms.
All you have are assumptions based on faith in your model that it can – by undefined, non-parameterized chance – produce the evidence we have at hand.
A change in color is not a new organ or macroevolutionary feature. I’m talking about a change in kind – the next new big thing, like wings, stereoscopic vision, air-breathing lungs, etc.
And we have no evidence that any of these things evolved other than incrementally. i.e. by “microevolutionary” steps.
A cat giving birth to a dog is not realistically possible (absent any heroic implantation intervention).
A prehistoric rabbit in the Cambrian.
Pretty much any saltational step.
The list is endless.
William, if you can’t predict what effect a change will have, how do you design?
Complain away, but what is science is not decided by one solipsistic creationist.
CREATIONISM.
Give us a demonstration that such novelties can be designed. A proof of concept.
Without demonstrating that design is even possible, it’s probability is zero. But it isn’t possible.
Are you using the word “kind” as Baraminology uses it?
As it’s not a term I hear in connection with real biology.
William,
Why do you think that a change in color is any less important in then anything else? If you think about it a “mere” color change has lots of components pieces. What if the new color is toxic under sunlight? Etc etc to many dimensions. How are the patterns on (say) a Tiger produced? Do you know? That’s a “change in color”. Camouflage would appear to be near the top of concerns for any prey animal.
Yet William dismisses all that with a “just a color change? Show me something meaningful”
It seems that you have a list of things you are willing to accept as true, changes in color, small changes in function and so on (microevolution) but then draw a line and say “no more”. Anything beyond that line is inaccessible to evolution, correct?
What you don’t realize is that just having the merest, smallest delta from one generation to the next is all it takes. By “allowing” microevolution you’ve already given away the shop.
It’s logical really.
Evolution works in small steps because big steps typically equal death.
Therefore only nearby states can be explored.
Therefore “macro” evolution is lots of “micro” evolution over time.
Therefore admitting any level of evolution at all, even micro-micro you’ve already lost the argument.
Sure, you can retreat into “protein space is big man, have you ever really looked at your hand?” and blind the credulous with “pseudo-math” and that’s exactly what KF etc has done. But ever wonder why if their “math” is so solid they publish at UD and nowhere else? I’d be banging the doors down, if not Nature then certainly the ID journals. And yeah, Mr Axe showed that a cat->dog is not possible. Woo. Wake up man!
Sorry Mung, but if Meyer had 18 chapters of actual science, he should have published it in a peer-reviewed journal that could then be critiqued in a professional manner. He chose a popular (well…not very popular) fiction venue instead. That doesn’t give me a lot of incentive to care about Meyer’s alleged “scientific work”.
No, it isn’t. William is saying that the Theory of Evolution does not predict the data. Unless you are somehow befuddled enough to think that the some total of Evolutionary Theory is “chance”, then clearly that is not what William was saying at all. Well…not until he tried to evade is original misstatement that is…
Also a mere “change in color” can lead to all sorts of things. For example, I could imagine that a “change in color” led to a patch of skin reacting differently under sunlight.
Let’s call that a “light sensitive spot” for the sake of argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
So, William, if we can get from a light sensitive spot to a human eye in a series of step by step changes, none of which would individually satisfy your demand for a ‘new organ or macroevolutionary feature’, then isn’t it possible that your question itself is actually what’s wrong here?
You ask for big steps, get told that they don’t happen and say “ah-ha – evolution is not science”? Where did you learn that novel trick I wonder? Strawman much?