Let me begin by saying that I am not a biologist. I have not studied biology beyond Biology 100 level at university, and I remember little enough of what I did that year. I never read a book about evolution until I was 60 years old, and the first book I read was Darwin’s Origin of Species. I understand that many biologists have never read Darwin’s book. That is a scandal, because it is not only a work of science, it is a work of literature, and a part of the history of their discipline that biologists should honour. However, my intention is not to scold biologists for not reading one of the seminal texts of their own discipline, but to express my own feeling of the oddness of having people argue against evolution, and I realise how much more strange it must seem to those who have made a minute study of evolutionary biology. Yet when people argue — as a number of commenters have recently done — against evolution, as though evolution were still something in dispute, I have an overpowering sense of the weirdness of what is being attempted. It is as if someone were to argue that the earth is flat, or that the sun goes round the earth every twenty-four hours, or that Newtonian mechanics were simply based on scientists’ presuppositions, and had no basis in the way that objects behaved in relation to each other.
And then I think of the biologists, like Dawkins and Coyne, who are trying desperately to convince people that if they will only pay attention, and learn a few basic things about the way living things have developed — and we have all seen the evidence in the museums, or in books about dinosaurs — they would acknowledge that Darwin was right, and would themselves reach the point where they would find it strange that anyone should doubt that evolution had taken place, or should try to argue against it, as though it is something that could be dispensed with by a few logical arguments thought up in an afternoon. I remember the time when Richard Dawkins was speaking, with infinite patience, with a woman who kept telling him that if only he could produce some evidence, then perhaps it would be reasonable to believe in evolution; but that, failing that, there was no reason to believe that the living things we know came about by means other than direct creation by God. I wondered, as I watched the interview (which seemed to go on for hours), how Dawkins could keep his cool in the face of stupidity so stupendous! And then I think how difficult it must be to be faced with this kind of blind refusal to look at the facts, how peculiarly strange (almost uncannily weird) it must be to know so much, and yet to have someone simply reject it as though it were simply empty myth and fable. Here is just a little taste (an edited clip) of that interview with Wendy Wright (former president and CEO of Concerned Women for America, a conservative Christian political action group active in the United States) – and the whole thing goes on for at least an hour in the same vein:
I’ll wager that, if you did make it to the end of that clip, you did it while gritting your teeth! (I hope you approve my cutting off Wendy Wright in mid-sentence!) That is just so amazingly frustrating to watch, and over the last few days I have been experiencing the same vague sense of unreality. How could something which lies at the very heart of modern biology — without which modern biology could not be understood at all – be doubted by so many? Yet some commenters on choiceindying.com have recently expressed these doubts, as though they made sense, and I have an extremely odd –almost ”creepy” – feeling as a result — a bit like Alice’s experience of passing through the looking-glass.
Take Bob Wheeler, for example. Recently, Bob argued like this:
The appearance of design is evidence of design, and Darwin’s attempt to explain it away through natural selection is unconvincing. We add to this eyewitness accounts of miracles, most notably that of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, contained in the gospels, as historical evidence of the supernatural.
The first sentence of this quote is the business end of this comment, at least so far as evolution is concerned; the rest presumably gives the reason for rejecting Darwin’s explanation. Of course, what he says is false, because, since Darwin, the appearance of design is definitely not evidence of design. And not only did Darwin make an attempt to explain the claim away; he demonstrated that appearance of design is not evidence of design. Bob goes on to say that he has read and even reviewed Jerry Coyne’s book, but remains convinced that the Bible is right, after all. But if he read Jerry’s book, then he knows that this is not just an explaining away of something; it is a matter of providing evidence of that very thing. What is odd is that Bob seems to find the supposedly eye-witness accounts in the gospels to be a sufficient basis for believing in the supernatural, but is unwilling to accept massive scientific evidence as even the slightest bit compelling.
Now, it is true, Bob has a blog, and he has, indeed, “reviewed” Dr. Coyne’s book, in a total of 769 words! The review consists, in the first place, of an argument designed to show that Coyne’s method of argumentation is fallacious, because it involves, Bob says,
building a case on circumstantial evidence, an argument marked by circular reasoning and logical non sequiturs. There are two major weaknesses in this kind of argument. First of all, what if the evidence does not fit perfectly, if there is something that the theory cannot explain? And secondly, What if we cannot establish a direct causal link, the proverbial “smoking gun”? In this case the question is whether or not it is even possible for evolution to take place at all.
Now, notice, “what ifs” do not refer to any of the ”arguments” or the evidence presented in Why Evolution is True. It merely states that the arguments are fallacious and then adds a question: What if? When someone is so careful to steer clear of the actual text which he claims to be reviewing, it is clear that he has either not read it closely, has not found anything to which his strictures apply, or is merely blowing off steam. He certainly has not shown that Why Evolution is True has failed to produce evidence for its claims. Indeed, it does, and this part of the Bob’s argument is therefore empty.
What about the next part? First, he turns to the fossil record. He points out that the fossil record is not continuous, and shows discontinuities, and then he says:
He [Dr. Coyne] is honest enough to make this intriguing statement: “When you look at animals and plants, each individual almost always falls into one of many discrete groups” (p. 169). That is the indisputable fact. But which theory does it support, evolution or creation? We think the latter.
Now, I’m sorry, but this is simply dishonest. When Jerry speaks of “discontinuities of nature,” he is referring, not to the fossil record, but to the world as we know it. We don’t see, for example, cats blurring “insensibly into one another through a series of feline intermediates.” (169) What we see are clusters of organisms that we call species. How did these clusters get to be that way? He acknowledges that this might seem to be a problem for evolutionary theory, so he goes into a great amount of detail in order to explain what biologists mean by the word ‘species’, and why it is so difficult to define the term.
Many people, by the way, argue that Darwin nowhere shows in the Origin of Species how species evolved. But of course this is wrong, for the truth is that species are not distinct natural kinds in quite the way that belief in creation suggests. For the creationist there are hard and fast distinctions between species, each one created after its kind, as the Bible says. But species are not fixed and stable in this way, and they shade off by slow degrees into successive species in a diversity of ways, depending on environment, geological or meteorological hazards like earthquakes, the formation of mountains, the narrowing of seas, the widening of oceans, storms — even meteorites and other space debris – indeed, anything that affects the environment, isolates or brings organisms together, causes extinctions, and so on. Indeed, as Dawkins points out, if we were to trace our own lineage back through 185,000,000 generations we would come to our great-great-great ….. repeat until 185 millionth-1-grandmother or grandfather fish!
And this is where Bob’s “review” is misleading, because it suggests that none of this is explained. But Coyne makes it very clear that there are different concepts of species, precisely because of the fact that we do not have things created after their kind, in the way that the Bible prescribes. For example, paleontologists, when they are classifying fossils, don’t have functioning organisms to work with, so they have to make do with an appearance-based concept of species. But working biologists use the notion of the species as a reproductive community (the BSC or biological species concept). A species in this sense (though it does not fit organisms that do not reproduce sexually — another complication) is a community of interbreeding organisms that is reproductively isolated from other such groups (see 172).
And this leads us on to the point that Bob seems to have missed. How could such groups, if they are interbreeding, ever evolve into completely different organisms? This is what Bob calls “macroevolution”, and he says that it is impossible. But he misses the vital words “reproductively isolated.” Take a species defined in terms of the BSC as defined above. Suppose that, for some reason, part of the species community is isolated from another part, and begins to evolve (“microevolution,” Bob calls it), but this time, independently of the larger group from which it has been isolated — perhaps it floated on tree waste down a river and onto an island many miles from its place of origin. So it evolves (microevolves) for many many generations, and perhaps hundreds or thousands or even millions of years later suppose that the product of this evolution is reunited with the source community (let us call it), which has also been evolving during this time independently of this orphaned group. Depending on the track that these independent evolutionary paths have followed, the result could be capable or incapable of mating with members of the source community. It may be as different as a fish is to a human being (as we saw above). If they are incapable of interbreeding, then a new species has developed which will henceforth evolve independently of the members of the source community. The result, in case you wondered, is “macroevolution,” the evolution of a new species.
But Bob didn’t tell us the whole story, so it is made to seem as though Coyne didn’t provide either the argument or the evidence. But Bob’s claim is vacuous. Indeed, there is a wonderful example of reproductive isolation in what are called “ring species”, species that are geographically spread out so that while species at the geographical extremes cannot interbreed, neighbouring species can. Larus gulls in northern temperate latitudes are a good example, and you can read about them here (which also introduces new complications based on new studies). This link will take you to an article (pdf) entitled “Ring Species as bridges between microevolution and speciation,” in case you wondered what this had to do with Bob’s claim. But the point has been made again and again in the study of the fossil record, which is corroborated by the evidence of DNA sequencing. There are not only discontinuities of nature in terms of existing species, but there is also overwhelming evidence for evolution of species over almost unimaginably long periods of time. The claim, made by creationists, that there is no evidence, is an empty one. As Dawkins told Wendy Wright, look and see (and those of you who know your gospels will be able to spot a biblical reference in those words).
I would have to say that my level of biological expertise is probably on about the same level as Eric’s. My review was only meant to be a brief description for the general reader of Dr. Coyne’s book, not a detailed refutation. In my view the role of a reviewer in a general periodical is to give a brief description of the book and an evaluation. I will leave the refutation to those better qualified than myself!
I was surprised to hear Eric call The Origin of Species “literature.” I thought it was insufferably turgid prose. Thomas Huxley is a far more engaging stylist!
I do appreciate the fact that Dr. Coyne made the effort to write something that would be accessible to the general public, and I think he succeeded admirably on that score.
As I noted in my review, in the first half of his book Dr. Coyne mainly rehashes the familiar arguments we have all heard about the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and vestigial organs. For me the really interesting part of the book was the second half, in which Dr. Coyne discusses his own specialty, genetics. As Eric noted, Dr. Coyne’s discussion of what constitutes a “species’ was especially enlightening. But for me the “aha!” moment came when I asked myself the question, what exactly is it that a mutation does to a gene? I then realized that a mutation can change an existing gene, often damaging it, but it does not create a new one. Most of the example of speciation cited by Dr. Coyne involved cross-breeding or the isolation of population groups which then adapt to their local environments. But these examples involved modifying or recombining existing genetic material, not the creation of new material. When we add to that the genetic barriers that separate one species from another, preventing cross-breeding, it is hard to see how a distinctly higher form of life could evolve from a simpler one. That is why I concluded that it is easy to see how microevolution could take place (variation within a species), but hard to see how macroevolution could take place (I understand this used to be called the “transmutation of species, something that was much debated in Darwin’s time.).
Bob’s review, in one of his few substantive criticisms, says
“Since each species has a set number of chromosomes, and the chromosomes come in pairs, in most cases the evolution from one species to another would require adding whole pairs of chromosomes. What Prof. Coyne has not explained is where the extra chromosomes would come from”
In fact Coyne devotes several pages to explaining how chromosome numbers can change, and gives mechanisms for it to happen (pp175-178 in my copy). Bob is not a careful reader.
“I then realized that a mutation can change an existing gene, often damaging it, but it does not create a new one.”
That’s sort of true, if you consider just one mutation. But what often happens is that a copying error duplicates a section of DNA. A second mutation can then change one of the copies. If (for instance) the first copy includes the code for digesting a particular food substance, the second mutated copy may code for digesting a different substance. Result – an organism with more information in its genome, and one with a wider choice of food.
This is, of course, fairly improbable. But evolution has millions of generations and millions or organisms to work with. The improbable successes get preserved.
Another Wendy in her little Wendy House, doors locked, windows barred and shuttered, chimney blocked with all the creationist writings that have been carefully stuffed up there – Eric, I think you’re better off leaving the Wendies of the world in their little playpens and not getting involved: they’re comfy there, they don’t want to put away childish things or to stop thinking as a child…
Eric, maybe you’re new to the creationist vs. evolution circus, but this phenomenon has being going on for years. None of Wheeler’s apologetic arguments are original. He gets all his information filtered for him from creationist websites, that provide tailored responses to scientific information. The Discovery Institute, for example, has been the creationist’s propaganda website for years, and it’s the originator of the now famous ‘wedge strategy’.
As I’ve said before, it really is a complete waste of time arguing with creationists.
Good account of speciation, Eric. Evolutionary theory can get complex, as recent discussion of inclusive fitness reveals, but the basic premise of descent with modification, subject to natural selection, is quite straightforward and supported by overwhelming evidence. For anyone to have studied this in detail, as Wheeler and Wright claim, yet to have rejected the knowledge that they gain from the study, requires them to have purposefully decided to ignore the evidence. They are now left with having made the decision to misrepresent the evidence and to hope that they are able to deceive others into accepting their misrepresentations. In short, they will have decided to devote their lives to dishonesty. And you know what? That cannot be a very pleasant life at all. I sincerely hope that they will recover their integrity, but, in the meantime, I take bitter pleasure in the price that they are paying for the damage that they do.
David (## 2 & 3), while that may seem a substantive criticism, it is the old creationist folly of supposing that mutation can’t produce anything new (no new information). But it is clear that this is based on the idea of creation as producing distinct kinds, not on any reasonable consideration about what a sequence of mutations can produce. I did not therefore consider this a substantive consideration, but merely a repeitition of creationist presuppositions. Jerry makes it clear, as you say, that mutations multiplied over many generations, can produce completely new chararacteristics of organisms, even if most mutations are simply mistakes that provide no benefit, and may provide disability to the organism. Some of the examples that Jerry gives show this process at work. It is not evidence, but dogmatism, that leads to the repetition of the claim that new information cannot enter a system.
I simply do not understand, and am still puzzled, by the simple repetitiousness of the creationist schema, when it is not based on evidence, but on simple assertion, just as Egbert says. What troubles me is that this regurgitation of set phrases and claims is based on the attempt to preserve from criticism a collection of wriings that were written thousands of years ago, which has very little historically reliable information let alone evidence regarding the nature of the natural world. When I hear this kind of criticism, set forth so confidently, without a shred of evidential basis, I have the weirdest sense of having entered a dreamland. What could explain the refusal to accept the evidence of one’s senses, and yet ascribe authority to claims made thousands of years ago that do not accord with anything that we know?
With respect, Bob, I think my biological expertise is at a higher level than yours. At least I am prepared to follow the evidence where it leads.
As to leaving Wendies in their play houses. No, I don’t think I can do that. They probably won’t ever get out, but if we make fun of them, perhaps others will see that there are doors and windows to escape through! I should add that, while at a higher level biology becomes more and more complex and harder for a lay person to parse, the basics are clear enough, and the evidence is decisive. Anyone, for instance, who has visited the Royal Tyrrell Museum, or similar, cannot simply close his or her eyes to the facts of evolutionary change and development. We need to huff and puff and blow their playhouses down. Anyway, the experience of reading arguments against evolution is very bewildering. How is it possible simply to close one’s mind in this way?
Bob Wheeler
“But for me the “aha!” moment came when I asked myself the question, what exactly is it that a mutation does to a gene?”
Millions of highly trained biologists working for more than a century and none of them ever thought to ask that question. Thank Dog we now have Bob Wheeler to set them straight. And not only ask the question, but give them the answer! Those scientists, they’re just really not that smart are they? Or it’s a conspiracy to undermine Christianity, or morality, or America or something.
No tooth gritting here, though I was glad that you had cut it short. I have been in enough evolution debates to expect that kind of reaction.
It is easy to understand why Wendy Wright says what she says. For she can quite clearly (and correctly) see that evolution is completely absurd, and no sensible person could believe it.
The trouble, of course, is that what she means by “evolution” is a strawman, and a completely absurd strawman at that. Yet she “knows” that her version “evolution” is what the theory really says, because she is getting repeated reassurance on that from the people that she trusts.
I don’t know of a way to break that feedback cycle.
I’ve heard it said that refusing to acknowledging that “microevolution” will eventually result in “macroevolution” is like denying that feet can ever add up to miles. Bob, evolution is essentially easy to understand. Babies are different from their parents. After enough time, the babies no longer resemble their great, great ancestors. This is not spurious or in doubt. The bible gets a lot wrong, including the age of the Earth. The fact that you would deny a simple, easy to understand process in favor of some book of fables is sad and pitiful, but the only one who loses out is you. Evolution is true. It will remain true whether you ever understand it or not. You aren’t being smart or skeptical when you deny reality. Magic isn’t real and your faith it is misplaced. Open your mind to what’s happening all around you. It’s so much more fascinating and rewarding than the petty emotional charge you get out of playing make-believe.
The insurmountable problem is that humans alone are made in the image of God and the earth was made for us and is the center of the universe. We’ve learned, bit by bit, that none of this is actually true, but it’s been holy doctrine for a thousand years, and people are reluctant to let go. How can something so right be so wrong?
The appearance of design is evidence of design
I think that something looks designed: this is evidence that it is.
I think that the earth looks flat: this is evidence that it is.
I think that the sun looks as though it goes around the earth: this is evidence that it does.
On the other hand, if I were to maintain that Rob’s argument is illogical, this would not be because I think that it looks that way but because when analysed it goes nowhere except into absurdity: appearance is how something looks to me (subjective), so it cannot be taken as evidence (objective). Rob is saying “that’s how it looks to me, and other people should accept that as objective”. Religious people do this all the time (Christianity looks true to a Christian, Islam looks true to a muslim; to the religious, unbelievers look as though they are deceiving themselves because believers do not undertake rigorous analysis of their own beliefs — indeed, it is against their religion to put reason before faith), so it is not surprising that we have potty arguments like this.
building a case on circumstantial evidence, an argument marked by circular reasoning and logical non sequiturs. There are two major weaknesses in this kind of argument. First of all, what if the evidence does not fit perfectly, if there is something that the theory cannot explain? And secondly, What if we cannot establish a direct causal link, the proverbial “smoking gun”? In this case the question is whether or not it is even possible for evolution to take place at all.
Eric has dealt with this, but if it doesn’t make Rob think, I wonder whether anything else will. A lot of people think this way — as a teacher I meet them frequently. The problem is that reason demands attentiveness, and very many people seem to prefer to run on automatic. This connects psychologically with the assumption that appearance is evidence.
Dr. Coyne mainly rehashes the familiar arguments we have all heard about the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and vestigial organs.
I note “rehash” (second-hand stuff, not significant) and “we have all heard” (familiarity breeds contempt).
1. Explaining fundamentals is necessary in a book which aims to explain fundamentals.
2. Reiteration is necessary for the sake of those who do not pay close attention.
3. One can be familiar with the sound of the words, and deceive oneself into imagining that one has understood them.
It is foolish to dismiss the fundamental on the grounds of familiarity.
“I then realized that a mutation can change an existing gene, often damaging it, but it does not create a new one.”
The problem here is a semantic one about the concept of “difference”. What is the difference between a changed gene and a different gene?
“Different” means differing in some way from something else. The semantic confusion is “different” meaning similar but not the same and “different” meaning of unconnected origin (“it does not create a new one”).
We now get the problem that the mutated gene is not a new gene, only changed, so obviously it’s still the same, but different. At least it isn’t “new”!
The other piece of idiocy here (expressed even more strongly in this:
“But for me the “aha!” moment came when I asked myself the question, what exactly is it that a mutation does to a gene?”)
is the semantic confusion that results from “mutation” and “change” sounding different and having different letters in them, and the dire consequences of letting certain kinds of people loose with nouns and verbs. Thus, unthinking people can talk about mutation causing change, or — worse (as above) — wondering what makes something different apart from the fact that it changes (how does change make something different, anybody?). Please think about this carefully, because it goes a long way into the creation of woo of many different kinds and illustrates how thoughtlessness breeds infinite confusion.
If you stand back, and look with squinty eyes, I think there is a fundamental (no not that pun) philosophical difference between religious believers and scientifically inclined people.
Religious peoples’ worldview is a consequence of the principle of metaphysics that essence precedes existence. Human purpose or morality is determined by the cosmic order (or a god), or laid down by religious tradition or social authority.
The scientific worldview is the inverse, existence precedes essence. The science project aims to explain what exists (messy reality) by deducing laws or theories (‘essences’) about it.
Hence the apparent difficulty in understanding each other. Richard Dawkins is saying ‘Here is the existing evidence from which you may draw essential conclusions’. Wendy Wright is saying ‘My beliefs in a supreme being who endows me with essence shows me when people fall away from that essence’.
Hence the debate about ‘kinds’ (essences which determine the reality of organisms) and ‘species’ (a group of existing organisms summarised by common characteristics).
So, still looking with squinty eyes, which is a better explanation? I’ve made my choice.
I see that I have said “Rob”, not “Bob”. My unreserved apologies. Bob can now say that this is the sort of thing that happens when certain kinds of people are let loose with proper nouns. Still, it can also serve as an example of mutation, and what happens when something becomes changed without in fact being really different — though I dare say that’s just how it looks to me…
I want those who argue against evolution in favor of an alternative explanatory theory to make a list of all the modern advantages evolution has provided and then stop using those products. I’d respect them much more if they didn’t allow for one set of rules to govern their analysis of nature with another set allowing their use of science’s products as a result of understanding nature via evolution.
Of course, Bob, and all other creationists, engage in the silly false dichotomy logical fallacy. They think that if evolution “loses”, then creation by a loving/vengeful god “wins”.
Sorry, no. You have to bring proof for your nutty theory of an invisible magic genie speaking the world into existence with magic words and creating all of the species ex nihilo.
The fact and Bob and millions others of his ilk lie and are lied to about evolutionary theory does not absolve them from the obligation to bring evidence to the table in favor of their theory.
Hint, Bob: Evidence is not merely observation. It is observation that either overturns the null hypothesis, or strongly and solely supports the alternative hypothesis.
So, the appearance of design is “evidence” for nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada. Bupkis. Because you haven’t shown how design could only appear with magic (which is your claim).
I found “The Origin of Species” to be an extra-ordinarily enjoyable book. Then again, I enjoy Victorian writing generally. Not knowing how Bob Wheeler’s or Eric MacDonald’s literary judgements are made I am no more surprised that one would praise it than that the other would condemn it. But I think Eric MacDonald is correct in his appreciation of its literary merits and that Bob Wheeler is mistaken in his denigration of the the book.
Evidence for evolution is solid though and is useful for the medical field and others fields of biology.
The point that I wanted to make has been slightly pr-empted by coconnor10. The kind of people who prefer to believe religion over science in establishing what is and is not true, tend to do so only when their having chosen the wrong side is consequence free. There are exceptions, there are some who prefer religion over science based medicine, they and their children often die as a result. What I am talking about is everyday existence. These people step outside their houses and jump into their cars with absolute confidence that the car will start and take them where they want to go. This confidence is completely justified because a modern car, properly maintained, will hardly ever break down. The technology that went into producing this car is 100% science based, if you tried to design a car based on what you can learn from the Bible it wouldn’t even move. This goes for everything that makes up the modern world, if science was not a reliable way of assessing what is and isn’t true, non of it would work. Yet all of it does, with almost 100% reliability.
And as coconnor10 pointed out, the science of evolutionary biology is not exempt from this argument, you don’t get to use your computer, your flat screen TV and your car while pretending that the food on your table is a gift from God. You can’t make beer or bread from grass.
Torah Gen posted a comment fragment which I reproduce here:
This refers us to a post by Torah Gen on his blog “Exploring Torah and Genetics”, which concludes as follows:
Those familiar with the technical details may be able to shed some light on this.
For those of you who want to read the rest of my comment fragment, it is 2 posts above Eric’s comment containing the first part of my comment. Thank you for including the first part of my comment. Sorry for the confusion.
Pingback: The strangeness of arguments against evolution « Choice in Dying « Fr. Griggs
Neither have I, which is to be expected for the outcome of a process that cannot be duplicated in the present. There has, of course, been a good amount of informed speculation. Here, for instance, is an interesting essay from Carl Woese suggesting that the evolutionary process operated very differentially prior to the evolution of cells.
So one is still free to propose that the earliest cells were dropped from outer space or put in place by an anthropomorphic deity. After what Woese calls the Darwinian Threshold, however, you are obligated to offer an alternative theory consistent with the evidence.
Perhaps I’m doing a disservice to Torah Gen, but I feel that this quote illustrates what I was saying in comment #13. If you believe that essence precedes existence then whenever you find something material that you can’t explain you reach for mysterious ‘driving forces’. On the other hand if you believe that existence precedes essence then the absence of a material explanation just makes you work harder to find one.
I think the frustrating problem of creationism has absolutely nothing to do with biology. Its just religion and economics. For an actor on the stage, the economic incentive is to convincingly portray a character and point of view no matter what it is. Wendy’s salary depends on her ability to convince her contributors that she can stand up to Richard Dawkins. That’s all. Her salary continues uninterrupted.
To clarify, I think this driving force can be observed through what appears to be natural mechanisms within a certain order to them. However, I am also trying to point out that the theory is not yet flawlessly proven, despite many observations that might indicat that it is likely correct or close to correct. Additionally it should not be necessary to makes fun of people who do not believe the same as you.
Many people, by the way, argue that Darwin nowhere shows in the Origin of Species how species evolved.
I think what most of my colleagues mean when they poke fun at the title is that it is not actually dealing very much with how species originate, i.e. it is not a book on speciation processes but on natural selection.
Luckily I have never so far had to teach a creationist. Don’t know how I will deal with it when that happens.
@Torah Gen
It’s your ideas that are being criticized.
Pretty early on in the discussion to be playing the hurt feelings card.
It’s almost like you don’t have any evidence to back up your claims.
With the last part of my last comment I should have been more specific. It was not aimed at the people interacting with me, but frustration at both sides making fun of each other overall in the debate. My feelings are completely intact, thank you for your concern. I am interested only in seeking truth through logic, as I believe is the case with all sides.
However, if you would like more evidence as to why I think evolution is not a perfect theory, I will provide that. First, with the endosymbiotic theory. If mitochondria originated purely from a larger cell endocytosing the bacteria and the two coevolved together to rely on each other through random mutations both genomes, how did some of the necessary structural genes of mitochondria relocate to the nucleus?
@Torah Gen
By definition, scientific theories are not perfect, they model the available data. As new evidence becomes available, if it contradicts the current theory it is modified to fit the new data or discarded and a new theory is developed that is consistent with all the data.
Our current theory of evolution (random mutation, differential reproduction, neutral genetic drift) is consistent with all the available evidence and this includes data from diverse areas such as fossil evidence, radiometric dating, genetics, paleontology, biogeography and morphology. All these independent lines of evidence are consistent with the current theory of evolution.
As for your question, I have absolutely no idea and unlike you I am unwilling to make facts up.
There may be published papers on this question, however I have no intention of looking this up for you as a primary creationist tactic is to contaminate public discussion of evolution.
It may be that this is a not very interesting question and no work has been done on it.
I suggest you devote the next 20 or so years of your life toward getting an advanced degree in some branch of evolutionary science, get a job in a research lab and work very, very hard just like real grown up scientists do and perhaps your legacy will be to increase the field of knowledge in this area.
However I suspect that you will continue to pollute the blogosphere trying to shoe-horn your invisible friend into adult conversations by waving around disgusting bronze age mythology.
@Torah Gen
I see from your blog that:
This is a version of the Argument from Design, a subject that has been chewed over many times on Eric’s blog. Unless you have some objective evidence for a ‘driving force’ then few people (mostly, but not exclusively, non believers) are going to find anything new in your ideas. Sorry.
I don’t know what makes you feel the needs to accuse me of making facts up. If there is a piece of factual information that I got incorrect, please let me know what it is. I am actually not trying to work against evolution. I come with questions and ideas, not answers
@Torah Gen
You are using a book of fairy tales as a justification for positing a designer.
That’s what adults call making things up.
You do not brings questions and ideas, you bring dogma and revelation.
Shame on you for not being honest enough to admit this.
If an explanation is found in the future, will it falsify your belief in a “driving force?” Almost certainly not, because it’s an unfalsifiable assertion. Also, the way your construct this proposition, it’s both an appeal to incredulity and a god-of-the-gaps argument, both of which are logical fallacies. While framed as a personal statement of belief, it still reveals poor reasoning skills. Do you deny this?
Torah Gen (#25). I saw no evidence of anyone making fun of anyone else in this thread, and I am surprised that you should have thought so.
I do not, as I have said, understand the technical details, but if what you are speaking about is the origin of life itself, then, of course, this is not supplied by the theory of evolution, as you know. To suppose, on that basis that there must be a divine driving force, as other commenters have pointed out, is moving a bit too fast, trying to solve an empirical problem with a supernatural hypothesis. I guess I should have expected this, since you began by saying that you think evolution and religion are compatible.
But of course no one ever suggested that the theory of evolution is perfect. What, by the way, would that mean in reference to a scientific theory? A theory of everything? A final theory? Of course, the theory of evolution is not perfect. It seems clear that, since the time of Darwin, the theory of evolution has itself evolved, first, on the basis of Mandelian genetics, and then, subsequently, on the basis of the discovery of DNA, and of course, I am sure, other developments of which I am completely unaware.
But at what point in this process would you have introduced G-d? Before Mendel? Before Crick and Watson? Or just now, before the next step is taken? It puzzles me to think that you might think it appropriate to do it now, but not at the other stages of the process, and if not then, then why now? But if you had done it then, then you would have had the empirical answers that your G-d hypothesis was doing duty for, and if you do it now, then it is probably just a stand-in for the next stage of the evolution of the theory. Tell me why we should do it now? Elegance alone is surely not enough. What makes you think that such a religious leap is appropriate at any stage of the development of biological theory?
Torah, abiogenesis (what you are talking about) is a separate issue to evolution.
“First, with the endosymbiotic theory. If mitochondria originated purely from a larger cell endocytosing the bacteria and the two coevolved together to rely on each other through random mutations both genomes, how did some of the necessary structural genes of mitochondria relocate to the nucleus?”
Barbara McClintock discovered transposable elements in the 60s – genes move around within and between individuals. Next question….
TG may like to read:
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1580/2972.long
Their suggestion is:
“In short, the ribosome’s architecture hints at its evolutionary pathway. Thus, it seems that the proto-ribosome was originally an RNA dimeric machine for performing RNA needs prior to the appearance of amino acids. The amino acids snatched it and turned it into an efficient machine producing proteins. Originally, small oligopeptides were formed. Those found to be useful have survived and led to the creation of a mechanism for duplicating themselves. This suggests that the more fit proto-ribosome products guided the appearance of the genetic code, namely the genetic code was created according to its products.”
Actually, the whole conference proceedings is very apposite:
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1580.toc
To give some idea about the political neo-conservative agenda behind discrediting evolution, have a look at the propaganda website conservapedia and its entry on evolution:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution
Depending on which search engine you use, it’s likely that this website will still feature on the first search page. The ‘Trustworthy Encyclopedia’ is clearly modeled on Wikipedia, which was meant to be a free and publicly created Encyclopedia for all.
This level of deception amongst conservatives only makes me hold them in the highest contempt, disqualifying them from the realm of serious sceptical inquiry.
Most mutations are neutral (there are 128 mutations per human zygote. If most mutations are harmful, then we’d all literally be drooling idiots by now, even after only 6,000 years). And a mutation is any replication error, which most certainly can include a new gene much like a spelling error can duplicate a letter. Or, as in my field, programming, where copying bits can sometimes duplicate a bit.
Actually, because god can both explain evolution and creation exactly the way it is depicted in Genesis (if, indeed that were actually what happened) by necessity of probability an alternative hypothesis that can only explain humanity by evolution is more likely.
@J.Quinton
I see your argument, but what probability to you set for God? The Omni-god could do anything and be anything, and any other lesser supernatural being is also outside measurement by definition.
@David Duffy…+1 for bringing the evidence.
I hate arguments from ignorance almost as much as I hate arguments from incredulity.
“I find it hard to believe” is nothing more than a statement of both.
It actually doesn’t matter. The more disparate scenarios that an all powerful god can be responsible for, the less probable it is that god is the explanation for one particular scenario. I actually went through an exercise where I assumed a prior probability of 97% for the existence of god, and going through a slew of evidence I could think of (like evolution, the likelihood of human life coming about on Earth, religious experiences, etc.) it decreased down to less than .0001%.
So for example, an all powerful god can explain human life coming about on any of the 8 (or 9) planets, yet naturalism (or some non-all powerful god) can only explain life coming about on Earth. This decreases the probability that an all powerful god was responsible. This scenario repeats for all supposed “evidence” for the existence of an all powerful god, just like the dice scenario I posted; e.g. upon rolling a 3, a normal 6 sided die was more likely to have been picked than a die that has 100 sides.
Now imagine a die that had any number possible. If some unknown die landed on a 6, it would be infinitely more likely that the normal 6 sided die was rolled as opposed to the infinite sided die. So a hypothesis that is unfalsifiable (like an all powerful god) is almost infinitely less likely as an explanation than a hypothesis that is falsifiable.
So it’s not about measurement, that’s just a cop-out proposed by accomodationists to claim no conflict between science and religion. It’s about logic and probability, in which the supernatural (or any non-falsifiable hypothesis) loses to the natural (or the falsifiable). A god that can be proven wrong is more probable than a god that can’t be proven wrong.
@J.Quinton
No, I understand the mechanics of Bayes Theorem. The point I was trying to get across was that you may weigh the relative beliefs with Bayes Theorem, but this breaks down with the actual existence, or non existence, of some sort of supernatural being.
If a universe creating god made everything then its existence is 100% no matter what probability you assign to the belief about how it works. Or, of course, you could equally argue that there is 0% probability of the existence of a universe creating god etc.
What you have achieved is a more sophisticated version of Pascal’s wager (in reverse). It seems to make mathematical sense but I doubt that many people would wager their immortal soul on the strength of it.
J.Quinton @#41. I understand that a new gene can be created through duplication and then a subsequent mutation, and there is no question at all that minor changes (microevolution) takes place as species adapt to their environments. But Jerry Coyne points out (certainly not to defend creationism!) that a human being has over 1,400 novel genes not found in chimps. (Why Evolution Is True, Viking, 2009, p. 211). So the question is, where did all those extra genes come from? And then when we realize that we are not just comparing two closely related species, but are arguing that thousands of species have evolved this way, that dinosaurs evolved from amoebas, the whole scenario is mind-boggling to say the least. And the more we learn, the more complex it appears. This is why Michael Behe’s argument about irreducible complex makes a great deal of sens to me.
Bob,
This still means that ~95% of the genes are the same. From timetree.org, Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes last shared a common ancestor 6.4 million years ago. This would mean the acquisition of 1 new gene every 4500 years or ~200 generations. I don’t find that too fantastic especially since new genes can arise through duplication, combining two or more genes, splitting of a single gene, or recombination of exons within and between genes. A report in 2009, also indicates that some human protein-coding genes arose from non-coding regions of DNA. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090901172832.htm
Bob (#47). This is precisely what I find so bizarre about the argument against evolution. These are things that biologists work with every day. Mutations take place, duplication takes place, and these things take place over millions and billions of years. This is the factor which you seem to simply forget about. Why? I can understand from a religious point of view that this is difficult to accept. It may seem as though there is no room for a god in all of this. Well, that’s what Darwin thought too. But what is the point of arguing against things that happen? It’s not going to change the facts.
But what is so unreal and bizarre is that you think that you can make this decision sitting in an armchair or in front of your computer. Scientists are working at this all the time. They are working out the patterns of development and the relationships between different organisms and their evolutionary history, and yet you think it appropriate to prefer someone like Behe — who was tied up in knots of contradiction while giving evidence at the Dover trial — who bases his argument entirely on religious grounds and then goes searching in the biochemistry for a gap or two where a god might be found. This is absurd behaviour.
It is one thing to think that there is some kind of being out there who has created you and cares for you and has a purpose for you, but the science simply does not encourage this interpretation, despite the religious believers like John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins who think that religion and science can be made compatible, and then immediately go running after miracles. I can see a liberal religion, a religion of story, such as is proposed by many theologians today, but I cannot see a religion that depends upon metaphysical claims about the universe. Nothing gives any encouragement to this kind of claim. But, whatever you choose, you have to accept the facts as they are. And evolution is one of those facts that it is completely hopeless to try to disprove. There is nothing about the development of life that encourages belief in a benign or benevolent creator. Nothing at all. But whatever your conclusions about this, you are going to have to find meaning and purpose in the world as it is, as it shows itself through eperiment and observation and theory construction and confimration to be. It is pointless saying that you prefer Behe. The only thing that makes any sense is the facts as they are. What is the point of arguing against them? That’s the thing that I simply cannot understand.
David, thank you for posting the link and giving a rational response. Very interesting. I had previously tried to find evolutionary explanations for the dogma, but had failed to find a satisfactory theory. I have to read it more carefully later.
Additionally, I feel the need to explain why I posted here in the first place. I am NOT a missionary. In fact it is against Jewish law to proselytize. I merelly wanted feedback on my reasoning and ideas with possible evolutionary explanations. This is why, if you noticed I have only mentioned the scientific examples on this thread. My blog is written with a Jewish audience in mind. That said, I was also hoping you would point out my fallicies. So thank you for providing your feedback.
Eric #49
Well said.
@David Duffy
Thanks for the link, I’ve downloaded the audio files and am listening to Professor John Sutherland talk about RNA and it’s possible genesis as a prebiotic product now.
One thing that strikes me when I hear scientists talk is how humble they are, how willing they are to change their opinions when presented with new evidence, how they defer to those who know more than they do, how unwilling they are to make up facts or pretend to know things that they can’t possibly know.
Eric (#49),
I am obviously not a scientist, but the questions of who I am, how I got here, and how do I fit into the cosmic scheme of things, are questions about which we all need to be concerned.
The best that I can do is to read a book like Coyne,s, follow his line of argument, and try and decide for myself whether or not he made his case. As for the bare facts of science, I am almost completely dependent on Coyne, and others like him, to tell me what they are, and I tried to rely on the data that he himself provided in his book. But it is legitimate to ask whether or not his conclusions are warranted by the evidence he presents. I think that the interesting thing about his book is that he has enough integrity as a scientist to present evidence that at points seems to undermine his own argument. In his more candid moments he acknowledges the difficulty of trying to reconstruct prehistoric events based on the very incomplete physical evidence available to us today. In some cases the evidence is susceptible to more than one interpretation. This is why his apparent certainty about evolution begins to look like an attachment to a philosophical dogma.
For example, we can ask the very basic question, how did life begin? If we take a strictly empirical approach to the problem, what we know, scientifically, through observation and experiment, is that there is no such thing as spontaneous generation. How, then, did life begin? A Christian theologian (at least an orthodox one) would say that there was a supernatural first cause. Dr. Coyne would probably say, science cannot take a possible supernatural cause into consideration, and must look for a natural cause instead. He cannot explain how it happened, no one has ever seen it happen, but he is confident that given the right conditions some sort of chemical reaction must have taken place that gave rise to life. The Christian replies, “but you haven’t proven it.” and then critics such as yourself reply, “that is the ‘God of the gaps’ argument.” And so it is. But at this point doesn’t the evolutionist have a “science of the gaps” problem? Strictly speaking, at this point, there is no scientific explanation for how life began. It is a philosophical problem. I can at least appeal to divine revelation on this point, but the revelation makes sense. If I am a living, breathing sentient being, doesn’t common sense suggest that the First Cause has to be a living, sentient Being Himself? Do you need proof of the existence of God? You did wake up alive this morning, did you not?
@Bob Wheeler
You on the other hand have no problem reconstructing certain past events based on completely absent physical evidence and overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The level of integrity displayed by most scientists is something to which you can only aspire.
Bob, you don’t understand the difference between abiogenesis and bio-diversity and only seem to prove how religious bias leads to sloppy argumentation and hubris. Understand the purview of the argument for evolution before you try to defeat it with a Red Herring like abiogenesis.
Bob, you are demonstrating one of the major problem with intelligent design. ID proponents pick out some issue in biology for which they believe evidence is lacking and then claim it is too complex to happen through mutation and selection. When biologists point out they are wrong, they never concede the point, but merely flit off to their next gambit hoping it will take some time for scientists to refute it. ID is merely apologetics – a means to shore up faith in an era of scientific discovery – it can’t win.
By the way, there was enough physical evidence 200 years ago to support evolution and everything produced since then has only made the theory more secure.