Misinformation About Evolution

What is the conflict in ID? Most laymen would be hard pressed to explain ID much less be conflicted by it.

I am very much a layman in terms of biology. My last biology course was in 1967 if you can believe it. Even though evolution wasn’t mentioned, that I remember, the layout of the course actually gave me a very strong sense that there was an order to life that I would latter find to be called common descent. With a fairly limited amount of reading I have come to a pretty good understanding of evolution. Why else do you think I am here?

When you say “mechanisms explain only adaptation” are you making the microevolution vs macroevolution argument? Microevolution is a made up term AFAIK.

Common descent is a pattern in the data that is seen and needs to be explained. Evolution does the best job of doing this, again AFAIK.

2 Likes

What explains common descent is the theory of intelligent design. The trouble with this explanation is that there is no evidence for it. ID is irrational. The confusion comes about because people who hate ID are dishonest about the matter. They don’t want to admit ID is the only explanation for common descent. The quote from Behe is correct and honest science. The quote from Kenneth Miller is dishonest because he doesn’t admit Behe is right. The other side of the line is not ID. The other side of the line is that we don’t understand where complex molecular machinery comes from. There is no disagreement between Behe and Miller about evolutionary biology.

P. falciparum, HIV, and E. coli are all very, very different from each other. They range from the simple to the complex, have very different life cycles, and represent three different fundamental domains of life: eukaryote, virus, and prokaryote. Yet they all tell the same tale of Darwinian evolution. Single simple changes to old cellular machinery that can help in dire circumstances are easy to come by. This is where Darwin rules, in the land of antibiotic resistance and single tiny steps…There is no evidence the Darwinian process can take the multiple, coherent steps needed to build new molecular machinery, the kind of machinery that fills the cell. (Michael J. Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, 2007, page 162)

In Behe’s view, these are examples of nothing more than a kind of “trench warfare” in which the two species have progressively disabled or broken parts of themselves in order to survive. Nothing genuinely new, novel, or complex has resulted from this struggle, and we shouldn’t expect otherwise. The reason, according to Behe, is that the sorts of changes we see in this well-studied interaction represent the limit, the “edge” of what evolution can accomplish. They can go this far and no further. A line in the sand is drawn, and the other side of that line is intelligent design. How does Behe know where to draw that line? (Kenneth Miller, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for the American Soul, 2008,page 67)

@davidroemer

Oh my goodness… Sincerely and honestly, the confusion has extended right to your very premise.

I already pointed to this in my first post on your thread.

You say: “They don’t want to admit ID is the only explanation for common descent.”
This is all topsy-turvy my good sir.

  1. Speciation is the explanation for common descent; when a sub-population separates from a parent population because of Speciation, you have common descent. And when it happens several times over an extended period of time, you have a long chain of common descent.

  2. One might ask: what does or doesn’t drive Speciation.

  3. Or one might ask: what does or doesn’t drive Natural Selection.

But one cannot say that ID is the only explanation for Common Descent.

Many, many ID folks don’t even allow for Common Descent, because they don’t believe in Speciation. So your statement is like saying Europe is the only explanation for Nuclear Powered Airplanes.

Are you following me, David? Can you provide us your definition for Common Descent? It is a term that refers to the connection between species… and it presumes Speciation. If there is no Speciation, there is no Common Descent.

1 Like

Hi @davidroemer, please let me address a couple of things here. First, many of us here agree with ID proponents on many things that truly matter. We believe in an omnipotent and omniscient God that is the author and sustainer of His creation. We acknowledge our sinful natures and our need for Christ’s atonement in order to restore a relationship with Him now and for eternity.

Where we differ is much less meaningful. While most of the “regulars” in the forum see the wonder of creation as a sign of the existence of a Creator, we stop short of the claim that there is scientific evidence proving the existence of a Creator. For me personally, the evidence for God’s existence is suggestive, but not proof - there is still a requirement for personal faith in the existence of a Creator.

Although I do not agree with the assertions made by ID proponents, I certainly don’t hate their premise or anything about them. Even if I were wrong, and they were right would not mean I was dishonest, it would merely mean we have a difference of opinion.[quote=“davidroemer, post:22, topic:35721”]
The quote from Kenneth Miller is dishonest because he doesn’t admit Behe is right.
[/quote]

Again, there is a difference of opinion. Just because I believe Miller is right and Behe is wrong does not mean that Behe is dishonest. As an admittedly ridiculous example – if you prefer vanilla ice cream and I prefer chocolate, it does not make you dishonest in my viewpoint to assert that vanilla is better.

If you want to discuss science, we’d be happy to do that. Asking for specific quotes to say what you want them to say really isn’t much of a dialogue.

4 Likes

For the second time, if you are referring to the quote I provided above it is NOT, I repeat NOT by Ken Miller.

Now Dr Miller is a Christian Biologist who is very outspoken against ID. He did testify at the Dover trial and I have found youtube videos of his talks to be very informative. I actually might have a Biology textbook he co-authored but I haven’t dug it out of my pile to check.

I will just have to say this statement is rich. Only those of a certain age will understand what I mean by that, but it sure seems to fit.

What I have see of ID world is many accept evolution and common descent. The only disagreement they have is what drives evolution. From my perspective if you start with “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” then you know what controls evolution and gives you the appearance of design. That seems to be so much simpler. And I have it on good authority that it is “in the book.” The only problem is then you can’t teach it in the public schools.

1 Like

We observe the existence of fossils of extinct animals. We ask the question: Where did those fossils come from? The theory, judged to be true by rational people and supported by the evidence, is that life started as bacteria 100 million decades ago and descended with modification into elephants. This theory, which can be called a fact or an observation, is called common descent. This gives rise to the question: What caused common descent? If you say it is caused by speciation, that just raises the question: What caused speciation?

One way of seeing that there is no explanation for common descent, apart from ID, is to consider the primary structure of a protein. Hemoglobin is 600 amino acids long, which is like a English sonnet since there are 20 different amino acids

By comparison, if we question how long it would take a high-speed computer to write randomly a specific Shakespearean sonnet, we are asking that all the letters of the words of the sonnet will come up simultaneously in the correct order. It is an impossible task, even if all the computers in the world today had been working from the time of the big bang to the present. Even to compose the phrase, “To be or not to be,” letter by letter, would take a typical computer millions of years. (Marc Kirschner and John Gerhart, The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma, 2005page 32)

Kirschner and Gerhart pointed out that the model used for this calculation for getting “to be or not to be” did not correspond to evolutionary biology. To do this, you should use dictionary words instead of letter and stop the computer when you get part of phrase correct. If you do this, the million years is reduced to a “short time.” This raises the question of how long it would take a computer to produce a sonnet? Nobody knows because nobody cares. The primary structure of a protein does not even begin to describe the complexity of a living organism. Anyone going to the trouble of doing the calculation would look like he was trying to explain common descent.

@davidroemer

Thank you for responding to my postings. It should help move things along quite nicely.

Let’s look at this sentence of yours:

“One way of seeing that there is no explanation for common descent, apart from ID, is to consider the primary structure of a protein.”

Again, you are putting the cart before the horse, by slipping the phrase “common descent” back into your assertion.

A] What if someone asserts the version of I.D. where God creates all the species by special creation, instantly, and doesn’t use evolution at all? Then this I.D. supporter doesn’t accept any Common Descent, right? - - even with I.D.

B] What if someone asserts the version of I.D. where God creates important things like flagella… but believes that in between the important accomplishments, speciation occurs by means of Evolution? Then this I.D. supporter thinks Common Descent comes from Speciation (and not the occasional acts of Intelligent Design), right?

David, I believe what you are trying to dispute is why some people reject I.D… not why some people think I.D. is the main issue on common descent.

What you’ll find is that lots of people who do support I.D. do not support Common Descent. Why? Because they are Young Earth Creationists and ID supporters.

Do you want to take another stab at formulating your objection and your refutation? Because you are still tangling up the terms in ways that are guaranteed not to produce helpful answers for you.

Let me try to explain in another way. The “Sternberg Peer-review controversy” is in Wikipedia.Dr. Sternberg was an editor at The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, and he published an article titled, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories.” This article was a review of the existing attempts to understand the evolution of the organization of proteins into cells, cells into tissues, tissues into organs, and organs into organisms. At the end of the article, the author suggested that the theory of intelligent design (ID) was a better theory than Darwinism.

The three peer-reviewers thought the mention of ID was an unimportant philosophical addendum that did not adversely affect the scientific value of the paper. Sternberg should have deleted the reference to ID or at least advised his colleagues that he was going to publish what would be the first peer-reviewed article advocating ID. He published it behind their backs, and he was publicly and rightly criticized for his behavior. No other punishment was possible because Sternberg’s 9-to-5 job was at the Smithsonian Institution.

Sternberg’s colleagues where he worked were so angry they at him they behaved like a mob. Their behavior was so deplorable that on December 11, 2006, the Committee on Government Reform of the United States House of Representatives published a 29-page document titled, “Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian: Smithsonian’s Top Officials Permit the Demotion and Harassment of Scientist Skeptical of Darwinian Evolution.”

What this means is that there was nothing wrong with the article scientifically. It was only the mention of ID that caused the scientists at the Smithsonian to act like a mob.

Sorry but that is not what I get when I read your source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, in a position statement describing the events around the controversy, said “Given these associations, Dr. Sternberg would appear to be, at very least, an advocate for ‘intelligent design’ and critical of standard peer review processes as they bear on the scientific assessment of the ‘intelligent design’ hypothesis.” Critics describe Sternberg’s explanation of events, that a pro-intelligent design paper just happened to find its way to a publication with a sympathetic editor ultimately responsible for ensuring proper peer review and editing of his last issue, and that he decided it was appropriate to deal with the review process in person on a subject in which he has a personal interest, as improbable and that “people who want us to believe that the publication process outlined [by Sternberg and his defenders] was transparent and only had to do with science” are “disingenuous.”

You mean this report, again from your source.

In December 2006 a partisan report was issued by Mark Souder, on the basis of information he and fellow Republican representative and intelligent design advocate Rick Santorum (author of the pro-ID Santorum Amendment) had requested, calling into question the Smithsonian’s treatment of Sternberg and repeating many of Sternberg’s claims. The report was commissioned by Souder in his capacity as subcommittee chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, written by his subcommittee staff, but published by Souder as an individual representative without it being officially accepted into the Congressional Record. This is contrary to oft-repeated claims by the Discovery Institute and other design proponents that the report represents an official position by the Committee supporting Sternberg’s claims of discrimination.

Observers have said that facts of the case simply do not support the conclusions of the report nor is the report an official report of the committee.

@davidroemer,

Ahhhh… much better! At no time did you try to wedge the phrase “common descent” into your discussions! Excellent.

Don’t you feel better already?

Should you want to start wacking at the term Speciation, you have my personal encouragement.

[quote=“davidroemer, post:9, topic:35721”]
What follows is another quote proving my point.[/quote]
Perhaps you should consider evidence instead of hearsay.

I have a quote from the Secretary of HHS saying that an $880 billion cut to Medicaid will create “a system that would allow the states to tailor that Medicaid program to those specific individuals saving money but also a higher level of care than they currently do.” My point is that quotes don’t necessarily lead one to the truth. What’s your point?

[quote]I am not a biologist, but I know there is no explanation for the origin of life and common descent which occurred over a period of about 100, 000 decades.
[/quote]There are multiple explanations. How can you know that something doesn’t exist?

For the latest in OOL, I suggest this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Vital-Question-Why-Life-Way/dp/1781250367

No, that is not the theory. Bacteria are just as evolved as you are.[quote=“davidroemer, post:26, topic:35721”]
This theory, which can be called a fact or an observation, is called common descent.
[/quote]
Theories are neither facts nor observations. And you’re falsely presenting the nested hierarchy of common descent as linearity, suggesting that you don’t understand it.

2 Likes

That is not an explanation of your claim. It’s a Gish Gallop.

1 Like

@davidroemer,

Perhaps I can be of assistance.

You are upset that someone bushwacked the pro-I.D. community. You think it was unjust and morally questionable.

You think there is plenty of evidence that Intelligent Design is a sensible position to take regarding the human origins and other life forms on the Earth.

Fill in the blank:

I hold to :___________

[Multiple Choice - Select one of the 3 choices listed below]

A) Old Earth scenarios where the Earth is billions of years old, but God created all animals in a special act of creation all at once, and they have evolved into new and different species over time ever since the initial Creation, creating long uninterrupted sequences of Common Descent…

B) Old Earth scenarios where the Earth is billions of years old, but God created all animals in sequential acts of creation, where the appearance of Common Descent is created, but each new speciation event was specifically performed by God’s miraculous work.

C) Young Earth scenarios where the Earth is less than 6000 years old, and God created all animals in a special act of creation all at once. Because 6000 years is a short time, there is no expectation of speciation, and thus no Common Descent.

David, do you prefer to write a different alternative? Or is one of these close enough to work for now?

The irony of this whole thread is that the unsuspecting reader clicks on the title hoping to find someone addressing misinformation about evolution. Then it turns out the original poster is actually spreading misinformation about evolution instead. Quite the plot twist.

3 Likes

ID is irrational because there is no evidence for it. There is no disagreement between biologists who advocate ID and biologists who don’t about evolutionary biology. There is only a conflict between them about ID. They both agree that there is no explanation for the origin of life and common descent. They both agree that the various mechanisms for common descent only explain the adaptation of species to the environment.

My position is that you learn about evolutionary biology by reading biology textbooks, peer-reviewed journals, and scholarly works. If a book mentions ID or creationism or God it is not a scholarly work about biology.

To Casper_Hesp,
Are you saying that natural selection, epigenetics, facilitated variation, and natural genetic engineering explains common descent?

Your position here, which you have restated several times now, is wrong. There is conflict between pro- and non-ID biologists about evolutionary biology, and we do not agree that there is no explanation for common descent.

2 Likes