"Kremlinology"? Discovery Institute's Glass House

Understood. It’s just jarring to hear such seemingly scientifically literate discussion (rRNA and whatnot), presented furthermore in a pretty gentlemanly, non-trolling fashion, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, to realize that it seems to be being used to present what is by all accounts a completely illogical position that twists some evidence and hand-waves away mountains (indeed, whole mountain ranges) of other evidence. So I just wanted to make sure I was hearing straight…

If by this you mean that it’s possible that all living species descend not from a single common ancestor, but from a reticulated network of single-celled organisms, then great, you’re part of the conversation. On the other hand, if you mean that you don’t think humans share a common ancestor with amoebas, or with chimpanzees, then you’re not part of the same conversation as evolutionary biologists, and you’re not just an outlier – you’re not even in the same dataset.

5 Likes

Think about it.

Suppose one is using a molecular character (such as ribosomal RNA) to provide phylogenetic guidance for – let’s say – the monophyly and branching order of the Metazoa (animals). Turns out, however, that rRNA probably evolved multiple times independently lower in the TOL (which wouldn’t actually be a Tree of Life at that level, but rather a mangrove or forest).

Ribosomal RNA then becomes “phylogenetically uninformative,” and one must try another character. The problem is, any molecular character shared universally among the animals and also present in a relevant eukaryotic outgroup is going to arise at a similarly deep position in the TOL, where one is already worried about multiple independent origins.

The logic of phylogenetic inference, taken generally, requires singularities – monophyletic (unique) origins of complex characters. “Given its complexity, character X could not have evolved more than once.” This logic goes to pieces, and again, there’s no stopping the fracturing, once one allows that character X evolved more than once.

Hi AM,

I have previous commitments this afternoon and must leave the thread. If you contact me privately, however, I can send you materials that will help you understand my position. Please use nelsonpa@alumni.uchicago.edu or paul.alfredp@gmail.com to reach me via email.

3 Likes

I was asking who has suggested that ribosomal RNA evolved independently multiple times.

1 Like

Oops, sorry, Steve – misunderstood your question.

“One of the primary indications that the RNA signatures are, in fact, remnants of an evolutionary saltation is their discrete character. There is no signature continuum between the domains of life; organisms either have the bacterial, archaeal, or eukaryal character, with a sizeable two-domain signature that links the archaeal and eukaryal domains.” (emphasis added)

From Woese’s group; paper is open access, here:

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/37/13953.full

1 Like

How many is “many”, and what does “doubt universal common descent” mean in this context? Does it mean something like this? I am reminded of the time you told Jerry Coyne that Eric Davidson, Michael Lynch, Andreas Wagner, John Gerhart and Marc Kirschner, and Scott Gilbert, were all examples of people who have “expressed frank doubts about selection” (your description). On that occasion, Jerry contacted each individual and was told in very direct terms by each of them that you had completely misrepresented them.

  1. “Of course I would not disagree for one second about the importance of adaptive selection for species specific characters of all kinds, whether on protein or regulatory sequences. I admire your willingness to take on creationists in public; I find their views so antediluvian that I can only ignore them.” (Eric Davidson)

  2. “You are correct that it is wrong to characterize me as someone who doesn’t believe in the efficacy of natural selection.” (Michael Lynch)

  3. “I do believe that natural selection is essential for evolutionary adaptation.” (Andreas Wagner)

  4. “I haven’t tracked down what Dr. Nelson said we said about natural selection—presumably that we don’t think it’s important. We do think it’s important, and our writing about the means by which organisms generate phenotypic variation wouldn’t make any sense without it.” (John Gerhart)

  5. “I really do not know why any thinking person would believe that I question natural selection or the role of genetic change in evolution as agreed upon by population biologists.” (Marc Kirschner)

Details here. I note that you are a Young Earth Creationist. This does not encourage me to trust your understanding of science.

3 Likes

So ignore me, Jonathan.

3 Likes

I am perfectly willing to listen to evidence based commentary from you. You could start by presenting all the evidence for a young earth.

2 Likes

That paper says nothing at all about independent origins of the ribosomal genes.

3 Likes

I have always thought that this is what Einstein and Hawking meant when they said that their work was so enjoyable because it was ‘like finding out what was in the Mind of God’. They saw something like a superior intelligence was ‘behind’ the discoveries their human intelligence was able to unravel. However, they did not use this ‘gut feeling’ to guide their research. Even so, they were unwittingly following the advice the old Baltimore Catechism gave me in 1st grade: God made me to KNOW Him……
Al Leo

Don’t be ridiculous, Jonathan. That’s like saying, “I’m perfectly willing to listen to your commentary on Romans 5:12. But first, present all the evidence you have for the existence of God and the reliability of Christian Scriptures.” No, no one has to defend their entire worldview in order to throw their two cents into the mix. If you think someone’s worldview disqualifies them from having anything worthwhile to contribute to the discussion, then you are free to ignore them.

3 Likes

I am not saying anything like that. I am not saying “I am perfectly willing to listen to your commentary on X, but first show me all the evidence for Y”. I made a specific request for specific information, no strings attached. I already listened to his commentary on universal common descent, without any strings attached at all. I’ve made it clear I am willing to listen to any evidence based commentary from him.

2 Likes

Fine. It’s not analogous at all. Saying “present all the evidence for a young earth” is still obnoxious.

2 Likes

Why is it obnoxious?

Not agreeing with Christy, but you could even just say “present evidence for a young earth” and it would probably suffice. The point is, “Is there positive evidence for a young earth, or just cherry-picked evidence against the scientific consensus?” Right?

Maybe I’ve totally misjudged you. But to me it sounds more like a silencing tactic than an actual invitation to share.

Exactly. If we’re having an interesting discussion about horizontal gene transfer at the base of the tree, that’s legitimate. If we’re discussing if humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, that’s a very different story. Using the first to try cast doubt on the second is very misleading.

7 Likes

Most scientists hold to provisional methodological naturalism. As do I.

Ask for positive evidence for a young earth to make things extra obnoxious. But Ann Gauger has said here that the Discovery Institute accepts an old earth, so maybe the age of the earth is now settled at the DI?