@GJDS this is not a good representation of how biologists think about CD or how it functions in biology. Most simply, the common descent of man from a common ancestor with apes is a hypothesis that has been validated by fossil and genetic data. There were alternate models considered (and considered even to this day) that are refining the details. A key thing is predictivity of patterns in the data. But you are a regular here, so let’s pick this up later when things die down with Cornelius. It will be easier to get into the details of this then.
1 Like
A few replies:
-
Evolution does not require a LUCA - it could well have turned out that present surviving lineages arose separately.
-
Why would the fact that ancestral species are not found in the present day be a problem for evolution? Nothing about the theory predicts that ancestral populations would persist unchanged to the present day.
-
The branch of the tree we are on is not at all speculative. We are most closely related to chimpanzees, and then to gorillas, and then to orang-utans, among living species. The hominin tree might be a bit fuzzy in places, but no one doubts that we are more closely related to hominins than to chimps. We even have DNA evidence for extinct hominin relatives - Neanderthals and Denisovans.
3 Likes
My comment is on the way models are generally verified within the natural sciences. If evolutionary biologists use a different criteria than they should point it out - I think most scientists would be skeptical of such models.
Me thinkest thou doth protest too much. You have clarified your position–great. But it was hardly a “gross misrepresentation.” In fact, it was merely taking your words at face value. You now explain you were referring strictly to “scientific models that we know of,” and that “when doing science we are silent about God, and do not consider his influence,” and that “I am only referring to KNOWN and SCIENTIFIC models,” and that “Science cannot tell us anything about what God can or cannot do. Maybe He did, but that isn’t science.”
Great, but that was hardly obvious.
I explained what was a fairly straightforward, obvious interpretation of what you said. You said, “No, that’s not what I meant–here’s what I meant.” Great–confusion clarified.
But then there is the protest. I should have known, and there must be some nefarious agenda at work. And isn’t that a pattern after all? No, actually it is not a pattern. I’m interested in open, reasoned dialog, not hyperbole, such as your “fear of science” claim above.
In fact, taking your words at face value was the only interpretation that made sense given that what you would call “non scientific” models is what this forum is all about. This forum is a rather open-ended discussion of the interaction of God and creation, science and religion, etc. There are all kinds of comments and questions here about what God did when, etc. It is hardly clear that you are suddenly playing by your own set of narrow rules, not generally observed.
Furthermore, you were, after all, responding to me, an IDer who had just explained that naturalistic explanations don’t work and that evolution fails scientifically. Clearly any claim by you that strictly “scientific” (again, your term) models which lack CD won’t work; would be irrelevant and not contribute to the dialog.
To summarize, there would be no reason for me to expect you to be implicitly using such a narrow, unspoken, limitation on an otherwise obvious face value. It is not suggested by this forum, nor the discussion we were having, and in fact would be a non sequiter.
And then you come down on me with harsh criticism for misrepresenting you, and suggestion a “pattern” of misbehavior. If you are looking for a pattern, this is it. I’ve seen this movie before. It wasn’t pretty then and it isn’t pretty now. I, of course, forgive you for your innuendos about me.
Now, about your clarification. What you don’t seem to realize is that you haven’t escaped non biblical, metaphysical claims–you’ve just morphed them. I think I now better appreciate the extent to which you have forfeited realism. Your demarcation criteria (“when doing science we are silent about God, and do not consider his influence … Maybe He did, but that isn’t science”) would not hold up under historical or philosophical scrutiny, let alone biblical. I don’t begrudge you your own philosophy of science–let a thousand flowers bloom. But I suggest a little charity when others don’t immediately follow your narrow train of thought. As it stands, your point (“this data is particularly problematic for any model that does not accept common descent”), given the actual meaning you have now supplied, is irrelevant and does nothing to attenuate the scientific problems.
That is a constructive response, and I would be delighted to consider this seriously. But I see two problems: I do not see acknowledgement and engagement in (i) the scientific issues with naturalistic origins, and the (ii) role of metaphysics in naturalistic origins thinking.
I get it that there will be disagreement and not everything someone like me says is going to be gladly received. But what I am seeing is a complete lack of engagement. There is no contradictory evidence, or if there is, it is trivial. There is no metaphysics at work, or if there is, it is trivial, etc.
But I appreciate the thought and suggestion, and will keep it in mind.
Hi Cornelius, I hope you’re doing fine today. Earlier, you said to Ben Kirk:
I am sorry that your experience here is not one of Christian charity. I’m afraid I’m partly to blame for that, too. That’s where Screwtape wins points, unfortunately. It was not my intention to make you feel unwelcome here. My joke using that Dutch expression was not meant to come across as harsh. I also appreciated your sense of humor in your reply to it:
Your response of hitting the windmill back sure made me laugh. It actually reminded me of the story of Don Quixote. He was jousting at windmills because he erroneously thought they were evil. In a similar way, I think the enemy you’re fighting is (at least partly) imaginary. When you try to tackle the whole evolutionary paradigm, you’re tilting at windmills, so to speak.
You see, I would not say that there is no religion involved in science at all, because science is still done by people. We all have our worldview goggles. But “involvement” is a much softer description than conclusions being “religiously motivated”. The assertion that the paradigm of common descent is religiously motivated is not fair towards all the scientists of different stripes (including Christians) who work on it. Let’s consider the large number of Christian scientists working within that paradigm. Why would reductionistic naturalism or epicureanism (or anything like that) drive the agenda of these devoutly Christian people? That just doesn’t add up. There are many Christians who appreciate evolutionary theory as an adequate scientific framework, while they flat-out reject the anti-theistic ramblings of Dawkins and other reductionists.
Blessings,
Casper
4 Likes
I think it does hunt.
All of the major predictions have failed. And furthermore …
See, it hunts. Dennis you just made my point with these metaphysical / rhetorical questions. Those most beholden to metaphysics are least aware of it. Why do embryonic whales have four limbs and two nostrils? I don’t know, but I do know this type of argument has been used for centuries in a contrastive argument, saying it makes sense under evolution/CD but makes no sense under design/creationism.
I’m not saying this is not a powerful argument. It is. Nor am I saying it is not true. But it is metaphysical, and it drives the argument in spite of enormous empirical problems.
Thanks for your kind note Casper. The answer to your question is a long one, and I’ll try to get back to it later. But for starters, it really has nothing to do with reductionists, atheists, etc. This is where history can help and, in this case, most of it comes from your neck of the woods. For centuries, many “devout,” as you put it, Lutherans and Anglicans argued vigorously for a naturalistic origins narrative, for theological reasons. This is true today as well, but the history can provide a nice perspective.
[quote=“Cornelius_Hunter, post:51, topic:10729”]
I’m interested in open, reasoned dialog, not hyperbole…[/quote]
[quote=“Cornelius_Hunter, post:51, topic:10729”]* This, in a nutshell, is Epicureanism
- this new brand of Epicureanism
- Evolution is nothing more than our modern-day Epicureanism, and it is pathetic
- he is a modern-day Epicurean
- their Epicurean theory
- his fellow Epicurean
- Not only are Stringer and the evolutionists driven by religious sentiment
- The whole idea behind the evolution mythology
- Evolutionists must tell these lies
- Evolution isn’t about the science—it never was
- Evolutionists want so badly for evolution to be true they will pervert science to make their case
- These are ridiculous pseudo science lies
- It is complete gibberish[/quote]
You couldn’t make this stuff up.
1 Like
Oh my goodness… Sweeping generalizations much, Cornelius?
There are dozens of amazing cases where someone hypothesized an undiscovered connection between two species… or an as-of-yet undiscovered kind of fossil…
… and I’m not even touching the medical field.
I don’t think you’ve read nearly enough to be able to make the kind of statements you make without hesitation or qualification (or examples).
The more you post, the more you demonstrate your lack of depth in any of the multiple disciplines of Evolutionary Science…
1 Like
Cornelius, none of those are “metaphysical questions” - they are straightforward scientific questions. Do you have a scientific explanation for those observations apart from common ancestry or not?
Moreover, simply asserting that an entire field of well-supported science has had all of its “major predictions” fail - but without providing a coherent argument - is denialism. I’m not sure productive dialogue is possible here.
5 Likes
Actually they are metaphysical questions. Let me explain. You asked: “Why do embryonic whales have four limbs and two nostrils?” This is classic evolutionary thinking. Rhetorical questions such as this run all through the literature. I’ll give just a few exemplary quotes from the literature:
There are, of course, many more examples where these came from. This is not a positivistic argument. In other words, there is no compelling explanation given for how whales or rhinoceroses could have arisen from chance events and natural law–because there is none.
The form of the argument is contrastive. This is well understood. The point is that there are no good alternative explanations. Whatever weaknesses there are in evolution, they pale in comparison to the alternative. That’s why you ask me what my explanation is. This is all contrastive. It is a powerful argument, but truth claims about God are religious. For you to casually pass this off as not at all metaphysical is simply to be in denial of your own position.
The only way for you to defend your claim would be to, once again, say “I was of course referring to strictly scientific/naturalistic explanations–I of course agree God can do anything.” But that, of course, would defeat the entire point you were making. You intended no such thing. Evolutionists never did. You were asserting the veracity of evolution / common descent against against an IDer. As it stands, you are simply in denial of your own position. This is a great example of cognitive dissonance and internal contradiction.
No Dennis, I’m not the one “simply asserting” things. I provided links to the falsified predictions. Fundamental predictions. So far all I’ve heard is that I’ve provided no evidence, or they don’t count, or some such–bare assertions. So it’s really not me who is the one making bald assertions here. I can understand disagreement, but you are simply in denial here. I’m not the one “simply asserting” things.
Hello Dr. Hunter,
Your audience here includes high-profile geneticists like Drs. Venema & Swamidass, but also interested, lowly peons with MAs in other fields like me. Whenever seemingly big-name folks like you all start debating, folks like me listen in. We’re thinking, well gosh, generally I consider myself an evolutionary creationist, but maybe this new guy I haven’t seen before on BioLogos sees something I don’t! I should listen up and see what the fuss is about!
Point being, we’re willing to give you a good hearing. (I should add: I think aforementioned high-profile geneticists are similarly willing. But anyway.)
I have to say, as an interested observer, it’s frustrating to read 58 comments several of which ask you for substantial discussions of these “enormous empirical problems,” and yet you continue to dance around the issue and refuse to lay your cards on the table. If you’ve got empirical, scientific problems with evolution, why not just discuss them openly? You might win some to your cause!
Otherwise, respectfully, this is sort of a big waste of time (unless, of course, you were aiming to convince everyone that you were bluffing your hand, which is sort of the impression that comes across).
4 Likes
Here is the Table of Contents of Cornelius’s collection of failed Evolutionary predictions…
Image of the the Contents below…
1 Like
@Cornelius_Hunter… you did yourself no favor by burying all those failed predictions into a single link…
… with no commentary, no title, no examples… just a word with a light blue highlighting …
But never fear… as you see above… I took care of the heavy lifting of providing the details to the readers…
George Brooks
If this is the case that you are relying on, then it’s simply a case of someone taking the time to explain to you why you are misunderstanding the data. For example - one claim is called “similar species share similar genes”. To claim this as a failed prediction takes quite a bit of hutzpah, but, there it is.
A brief scan of your article claiming this as a failed prediction reveals that you are both cherry picking exceptions, and misunderstanding the data of other papers. There isn’t a paper more recent than 2013 in there, and most of the papers come from an even earlier time when genomes were being newly annotated, and many false positives for “genes found in species X but not in species Y” were being reported - but understood to perhaps be false positives pending further work.
Beyond that, we expect that a few de novo genes should be lineage specific. This isn’t surprising. It doesn’t even come close to swamping the clear signal of common ancestry.
Even back then there was an overwhelming correspondence known between the genes of related species. Humans and chimpanzees have 29% of their proteins that are identical at the amino acid level, for goodness sake - and the average amino acid divergence between our species is only two amino acids per protein. This was reported in 2010. The entire genome sequence of humans and chimpanzees is 95% identical to each other (also reported in 2010). You make no mention of these data in your article.
Similar problems abound in your other articles claiming that evolution has failed.
7 Likes
Hello Dr. Hunter,
Our friend @DennisVenema did not provide the full argument, so I can understand how you might take it as purely rhetorical. My understanding of the argument is this: embryonic development shows us how the genomes of different species take similar structures (inherited via common descent) and shape them in different ways (via divergent regulatory gene networks).
The interesting thing about this argument is that it is confirmed by DNA analysis. Anyone with some math aptitude and about $20 can use BLAST to compare the DNA of a blue whale with that of other mammals to verify the similarities. Moreover, the role of HOX genes in articulating limb development across the animal kingdom (fish, mammals, reptiles) has been an outstanding advance in biology over the past two decades or so.
@DennisVenema - please feel free to correct to correct any misstatements or elaborate to fill in any gaps.
Ultimately, of course, there is a philosophy of science at work in the development of any scientific theory. The Baconian motivation for the theory of evolution is also the underlying philosophy that undergirds relativity, quantum mechanics, the big bang theory, plate tectonics, organic chemistry, etc. You have a mobile phone in your pocket because of Baconian-motivated science. Your ability to post comments in this thread with a computing device is the fruit of Baconian-motivated science. Your ability to drive a motor vehicle over the river and through the woods to Grandmother’s house is the fruit of Baconian-motivated geology, which allows us to find and exploit petroleum reserves.
As you attack the Baconian roots of biological research, you are living on the fruits of Baconian science conducted by millions of scientists and engineers over several centuries. Maybe you do not appreciate the irony of your stance, but the rest of us here do.
Of course, there are even more important things that we agree on in faith, and I don’t want us to lose sight of that common ground.
Blessings,
Chris Falter
2 Likes
Like my friend @AMWolfe, I am a non-specialist following the discussion. In regard to (i), I assume that by “naturalistic origins” you mean origins that are the product of time+chance alone, disallowing the involvement of God in the process.
First, I would simply note that everyone already recognizes that evolution does not explain everything. Pointing out those areas where explanations are lacking may impress some people, but to me, it just highlights the need for further research. Your efforts here are counterproductive. The fact that the “holes” you struggle so mightily to find are so few compared to the vast amount of data that the theory does explain is remarkable. In the end, focusing so heavily on these “scientific issues with naturalistic origins” detracts from your position rather than adding to it. It is very similar to the arguments of people who reject the authority and inspiration of Scripture on the basis of a handful of perceived errors and inconsistencies. In other words, you are making the same type of argument, just coming from the opposite direction.
Second, everyone here affirms God as creator. None of us believe in purely naturalistic origins, if by that you mean time+chance is a sufficient explanation. As Christians, we may disagree exactly how and to what extent God was involved in evolution, but none of us denies that he was involved, including those of us here who actually work in the field.
In regard to (ii), if by “naturalistic origins thinking” you mean “thinking that God was not involved in our origins,” then you are correct that it is a metaphysical position. On the other hand, if you are implying that science, because it is based on methodological naturalism, is inherently atheistic and therefore biased, I would humbly suggest that you are barking up the wrong tree. Science – even evolutionary biology – is silent on metaphysics. All that it does is describe the physical world in physical terms. Our role as Christians is to keep science in its proper place and not allow it to overstep its bounds by making metaphysical claims, as per Dawkins and his ilk. That is where the problem occurs, not in the laboratory.
7 Likes
Dr. Hunter,
I see two really serious issues in this passage. I want to raise them so that you can have a chance to clarify, if you care to do so.
(1) These statements imply that Christian scientists who believe in evolution are buying into an anti-theist, Epicurean worldview. Evolutionary thinking “has an Epicurean component;” therefore, if you agree with evolution, you are agreeing with Epicureanism.
As I have previously mentioned, you are off the mark in asserting an inherent relationship between Epicureanism and evolution. Yes, neo-Epicureans embraced evolution, but that embrace does not make it wrong. Neo-Epicureans also embrace vaccines, and relativity, and quantum mechanics… Nor does it mean that evolution fails if you reject Epicureanism. The theory of evolution rests quite solidly on a Baconian foundation.
Bacon certainly was not Epicurean; he simply felt that science and theology/philosophy needed boundaries in order to function well (and in a complementary fashion). I trust that this statement is uncontroversial.
(2) You contend that “leading advocates of evolution” (presumably you mean Dawkins, Gould, etc.) should be allowed to frame the terms of inquiry and metaphysical foundation for the theory of evolution.
This is preposterous. Who appointed Dawkins and Gould, rather than Francis Collins or Pope Francis? Why must we pay fealty to Dawkins and Gould and ignore Christian scientists who agree with neo-Epicureans on the science but disagree vehemently when the neo-Epicureans misuse the science?
I hope I am misunderstanding you. But you seem to be of two minds on the relationship between evolution and faith. At times, you speak of conciliation, and advocate letting the evidence lead our scientific conclusions. At other times, you speak of the (supposed) inherent Epicureanism of evolution. I am confused about what you really think.
Best regards,
Chris Falter
3 Likes