evolution article

[billydkid]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy75.html

Hey guys, please read this article and then write to the guy. I'm not feeling well and I don't have the emotional energy or the knowledge to explain things to him. I know that a number of you do. He's not flat out denying evolution, but he's making claims that the evidence for it is not conclusive. I'm sorry, but in this day and age noone has any business being "open minded" about this kind of thing. thanks, dwc

[Eos of the Eons]

He has a PhD in Economics and writing about "Darwin on Trial"?

[Dub]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
He has a PhD in Economics and writing about "Darwin on Trial"?

Classic appeal to authority fallacy. The idea that just because he has a PhD in something he is an expert on everything. IMO having such an indepth knowledge of one subject is more likely to make a person less of an expert on totally unrelated fields. A person can only learn so much :)

[Eos of the Eons]

Well put

[c4ts]

He actually uses the word "evolutionist" to support his strawman. BRILLIANT!

[FireGarden]

From the linked article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy75.html
Given this type of scenario, Johnson claims that we cannot speak of the "fact" of evolution, since no one has come up with a plausible mechanism. Just because the biologists all agree that it must have happened doesn’t mean that it is yet a valid theory. After all, in many cases it is rival biologists themselves who level damning objections to any particular hypothesis.
Yes we can say that evolution happened, because we can observe it. Everything from Kettlewell's light and dark moth proportions in industrial/rural areas to bacteria that has been observed to acquire nylon by-product eating abilities in lab experiments.

So evolution is an observable fact. Things change, even populations of lifeforms.

That we can't believe in evolution because we can't come up with a "plausible mechanism" where everyone agrees on every detail is like saying people way back when couldn't believe in the sunrise because the experts disagreed on whether it was the sun moving or the Earth turning.

To be fair to the author, however, he may simply be sceptical of the claim that all life has a common ancestor, rather than the claim that evolution is going on at the present. But surely if there were two (or more) common ancestors, they'd be clear differences in their seperate descendents EG: left/right handed molecules or a different DNA codon-to-amino acid language or some such. (I suppose creationists will say that God lacked the imagination to do this, or was lazy, and just used the same ideas over and over).

On the probability thing,...
The odds of THIS particular kind of life may be small, and the odds of it happening in any particular location may be VERY small. But it's a big, big universe out there. Think of it as buying lots and lots of lottery tickets. The more tickets the universe buys, the more and more the odds of some kind of life occuring somewhere approaches unity.
But this proves nothing. The question is not whether evolution is "scientific," the question is whether it is true. It is logically possible that the Biblical account is true (just as it’s logically possible that aliens seeded the Earth with life), and so we shouldn’t dismiss the theory simply because we cannot possibly "test" it the way Futuyma wants.

[...] But does this mean it is a waste of time to consider the possible truth of these [Christian] statements? Of course not. If true, these statements are much more important than understanding the plumage on a peacock. Simply because a particular theory is "unscientific" does not render it a bad theory.
Which translates as "Nyah, Nyah, can't prove me wrong. And what if I'm right???"

Without some kind of testing, why would you choose one theory over another. But wait!!
In conclusion, I want to urge the reader to look into these matters for himself. Futuyma (and other evolutionists) certainly make some strong arguments; I am not denying that. But do not trust the interpretation of the evidence offered by the proponents of evolution (or the proponents of creationism, for that matter). Before you examine the evidence, first consider what sorts of things you will be looking for. You should decide beforehand, "If I see this, then I will tentatively believe in evolution. But if I discover such-and-such, then I will have to reject it as unsatisfactory in its current form." If you follow my advice, you may be surprised at the outcome.
So we are supposed to test the Biblical account of creation!
Just not in the way Futuyma wants, since that's impossible.

[Martin]

Given this type of scenario, Johnson claims that we cannot speak of the "fact" of evolution, since no one has come up with a plausible mechanismOops! There goes gravity, too.In other words, if someone said men are descended from apes, and this happened because sometime in the past, a particular monkey had an extraordinary set of mutations in her reproductive system, and ended up giving birth to twin human infants, then everybody would reject this "explanation" as ridiculous because of its mathematical improbabilityOf course, no one actually says this. It's an absurd, yet remarkably common, Creationist strawman.It’s true, the odds against the development of an eye through gradual, natural selection are incredibly better than the odds against the development in one fell swoop, but nonetheless (certain critics charge) the odds against the first story are still astronomicalAnd, presumably, these "certain critics" (read fundamentalist nutjobs) can calculate those odds and show their objection to be true. What's that, you say? They can't? They just pull the numbers out of their @rses? Surely not...This is a tricky point, and unfortunately I’ve yet to hear an expert give a satisfactory account of the true situationI'll wager a "satisfactory account" means exact details of every single step, plus evidence that this is exactly the pathway that was taken. Of course, that's absurd. It's like refusing to believe the planet exists unless I can disprove all the infinite number of possible ways it could have formed except one. It's really quite similar to Hovind's 'challenge'.At a conference on evolution at Notre Dame, a proponent of Intelligent Design made some rough calculations and claimed that the chance of certain molecules organizing themselves to form the first lifeform was ridiculously smallOf course, no one claimed that the first lifeform arose by chance. It's just barely possible that it might have had something to do with the laws of physics. And, of course, this has precisely nothing to do with evolution.

The next part of the article is all about abiogenesis, not evolution, so I'll skip it.He is simply begging the question (with the title) of whether evolution has been scientifically validatedHe doesn't have to beg the question, it's already been answered. The proper place to find that answer is in science journals, not pop science books.He is rather notifying the ignorant reader that the smart people have all concluded evolution is correctWhich is true.Futuyma tells us that he is not interested in appealing to those who believe in creation, because "Fortified against logic and evidence by unquestioned doctrine, they are not likely to be swayed"Which is also true.To Futuyma, it is apparently inconceivable that there might exist readers who are not fundamentalist Christians, and yet still doubt the plausibility of evolutionTo the author of this article, it is apparently inconceivable tnat Futuyama's book was written as counterpoint to fundie creationists, and not as a general defence of evolution. Hence the title 'Science on trial', and not 'evolution on trial'.Futuyma certainly knows the subject better than JohnsonNo *****, Sherlock.There are three problems with this. First, where does Futuyma get off saying with such confidence that God wouldn’t have done things a certain way?He's not saying that. For science to progress, we need to make risky predictions - predictions that, if found to be false, falsify our theory. Futuyama's point is that evolution makes these risky predictions, and they succeed. 'Goddidit' makes no predictions, and thus cannot be tested.

Second, Futuyma no doubt thinks that his position only refutes Biblical creation, rather than the notion of God Himself. But here Futuyma is being duplicitous: His arguments do in fact imply atheism. If Futuyma is right, and a beneficent Creator would never have designed species such that 99% of them go extinct, then why would a beneficent Creator set up the initial conditions of the universe such that the Earth would form, life would emerge naturally, and then 99% of the species would become extinct?This just flows from a failure to understand the point that Futuyama was making in the first place.Third, Futuyma seems to think that the most damning objections against the fundamentalists’ worldview are things as trivial as the life cycle of the mayflyThis blatantly contradicts the second objection.I venture to guess that no matter what, Futuyma would never in a million years say, "Oh, it turns out I was wrong. Japanese people are programmed to be smarter than everyone else."The author is revealing his own biases, rather than Futuyama's.Futuyma’s conclusion is simply false: We can certainly arrange things in a hierarchical nesting, even things that are not descended from a common ancestor. We can talk about the set of all houses, within which we have houses that possess a garage, within which we find houses that have a garage that is painted green, within which we observe houses with green garages inside of which are bicyclesThe author clearly doesn't have the faintest idea what Futuyama was talking about. 'Houses with green garages' is a subset of 'houses with garages' is a subset of 'houses' by definition. The same is not true of Futuyama's example. 'Animals with gnawing incisors' is a subset of 'animals with a single-boned lower jaw' is a subset of 'animals with four legs' not because of logical neccesity, but because of common descent. Why no six-legged beasties with gnawing incisors? There's no fundamental reason why it couldn't happen. But it didn't. The fact that these apparently unrelated things are hierarchically nested is evidence for common descent.(Futuyama said) No one has ever found a case of a species altruistically serving another, without any gain for itself

Again I ask, oh really? What about homo sapiens?The author overlooks the emotional benefit people get from doing what they think is right.The question is not whether evolution is "scientific," the question is whether it is true. It is logically possible that the Biblical account is true (just as it’s logically possible that aliens seeded the Earth with life), and so we shouldn’t dismiss the theory simply because we cannot possibly "test" it the way Futuyma wantsYeah, right. This guy can use his economic models, I'll stick with the hypothesis that the world's economy is governed by the psychic pixie people, who use their psychic pixie powers to make it impossible for anyone to discover them. It's logically possible, after all, so we can't dismiss it :rolleyes:You should decide beforehand, "If I see this, then I will tentatively believe in evolution. But if I discover such-and-such, then I will have to reject it as unsatisfactory in its current form." If you follow my advice, you may be surprised at the outcomeI have to wonder exactly what this guy required to see. I'll wager it was not something that was predicted by evolution.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Da**it. I hate to come to a part after the bouncers have kicked all the rabble rousers out.

To comment tangentally however, it's always... always interesting to note that Creationists never offer up anlternative theory - that is scientific - when they object to evolution.

Just typical...

[billydkid]

Did any of you guys email this guy? We have some big guns in here and I would like to someone set this guy straight so at least he can't feel good about spreading misinformation. His email is at the bottom of the article.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
To comment tangentally however, it's always... always interesting to note that Creationists never offer up anlternative theory - that is scientific - when they object to evolution.Exactly. Where is the falsifiable theory for how God made it all happen? It's not there. Instead, just the usual argument from ignorance.

[Dub]

Given this type of scenario, Johnson claims that we cannot speak of the "fact" of evolution, since no one has come up with a plausible mechanism. Just because the biologists all agree that it must have happened doesn’t mean that it is yet a valid theory. After all, in many cases it is rival biologists themselves who level damning objections to any particular hypothesis.

Not only can we observe it, Kettlewell's moths, "ring-species" etc, our knowledge of hereditary and DNA proves speciation can and will occur.

The arguements between biologists concerning evolution are not over the process itself but in the mechanisms through which it acts.


It is logically possible that the Biblical account is true

He obviously has not read of the logical contradictions in the Bible.


just as it’s logically possible that aliens seeded the Earth with life

This is indeed 'possible' However, even if this were so, evolution would still occur. The 'seeding' would have had to have taken place long enough ago as all species share a common DNA 'language'. He is confusing evolution with abiogenesis.


Simply because a particular theory is "unscientific" does not render it a bad theory.

Ermm not fully sure what he means by "un-scientific", but to me an "un-scientific" theory, is no more than pure speculation to pure fantasy.


In conclusion, I want to urge the reader to look into these matters for himself. Futuyma (and other evolutionists) certainly make some strong arguments

Labels, labels, labels. I wonder how many '...ists' I am? :rolleyes:


Before you examine the evidence, first consider what sorts of things you will be looking for. You should decide beforehand, "If I see this, then I will tentatively believe in evolution. But if I discover such-and-such, then I will have to reject it as unsatisfactory in its current form." If you follow my advice, you may be surprised at the outcome.

He obvioulsy has no understanding of the scientific method. You do not decided before hand "what sorts of things you will be looking for" - thats what creationists do. In proper science evidence speaks for itself.


Fristly he claims:


It’s true, the odds against the development of an eye through gradual, natural selection are incredibly better than the odds against the development in one fell swoop, but nonetheless (certain critics charge) the odds against the first story are still astronomical

But he then follows that:


This is a tricky point, and unfortunately I’ve yet to hear an expert give a satisfactory account of the true situation

So he knows the 'odds' but he has never heard an account of how it could happen. He takes the 'odds' put forward by certain [read creationist] critics without the slightest understanding of what the 'odds' are actually for.

Perhaps he should read something like Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" before discussing the 'odds' of such a process.


At a conference on evolution at Notre Dame, a proponent of Intelligent Design made some rough calculations and claimed that the chance of certain molecules organizing themselves to form the first lifeform was ridiculously small

Firstly, at no proper conference on evolution would there be a speaker talking about Intelligent Design. This was obviously a creationst conference dressed up as proper science by calling it a 'conference on evolution'.

The logic of his point here is totally fallacious. He not only appeals to an unnamed authority but also doesnt give any details of these calculations.

He again is confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Does he even know what evolution is or is he going on what he was told in church?


Edited for typos

[Yahzi]

(Futuyama said) No one has ever found a case of a species altruistically serving another, without any gain for itself
Edit: I decided I can't respond to this quote out of context, because I have no idea what he is talking about.

[FireGarden]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Edit: I decided I can't respond to this quote out of context, because I have no idea what he is talking about.

I was thrown by the "no altruism" thing too. The "no gain for itself" probably implies some kind of "altruism is enlightened self interest" argument, but I decided to leave it.


As for emailing the author....
I think it's better to debate on forums where people join specifically to debate. I'm not so desperate for an argument that I'll go pick a fight with someone who may not want to discuss beliefs they've already decided upon.

Well, either that or I'm lazy ;)


I'm already in one creation argument on another board. And there are plenty of debate sites that specialize in creation vs evolution including this site: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi which I've recently found and thought of joining (As an amateur with questions, I'm the furthest you can get from being an expert without actually becoming a creationist!)