Ok, as promised, i will examine this article, based on statistical analysis.
From the article:
In the 19th century, Charles Darwin went beyond others, who had proposed that there might be a common ancestor for all mammals or animals, and suggested that there was likely a common ancestor for all life on the planet—plant, animal and bacterial.
A new statistical analysis takes this assumption to the bench and finds that it not only holds water but indeed is overwhelmingly sound.
This is an article in a magazine about a statistical study of dna. It is a computer analysis, set up to measure probability based on assumptions of common descent.
Theobald was able to run rigorous statistical analyses on the amino acid sequences in 23 universally conserved proteins across the three major divisions of life (eukaryotes, bacteria and archaea). By plugging these sequences into various relational and evolutionary models,
What is being done here, is entering data from amino acid sequences into a computer model.. a program based on the assumption of descent. They project evolutionary sequences, to draw a conclusion of probability.
he found that a universal common ancestor is at least 10^2,860 more likely to have produced the modern-day protein sequence variances
Probability cannot be measured, statistically, unless you have assumptions about the data. By assuming common descent, and projecting from the simplest sequences (assumed to be the earliest in the tree of life) to the later, more complex ones, a figure can be calculated, to project probability. Details about the data and calculations are omitted.
He ran various statistical evolutionary models, including ones that took horizontal gene transfer into consideration and others that did not. And the models that accounted for horizontal gene transfer ended up providing the most statistical support for a universal common ancestor.
Points about this article:
1. The data, parameters, and assumptions for each computer model are not revealed or defined.
2. Conclusions ABOUT the study are trumpeted, but not the actual data and methods of calculations.
3. Flawed assumptions, that apply circular reasoning, using the premise to prove the conclusion, are present.
From the journalist:
Microbiologists have gained a better understanding of genetic behavior of simple life forms, which can be much more amorphous than the typical, vertical transfer of genes from one generation to the next
This is asserted, but is an assumption that contradicts itself.. the vagaries of 'amorphous transfer of genes', is not established, is unevidenced, and assumed.
With horizontal gene transfers, genetic signatures can move swiftly between branches, quickly turning a traditional tree into a tangled web.
This is assumed and unevidenced. It is a conjecture based on the assumption of common descent. No actual data or studies have DEMONSTRATED the belief in 'horizontal gene transfer', which insinuates the 'tangled web', i.e., that genes flow easily between phylogenetic types, plugging into any organism equally. Attempts have been made for over a century, to show, by experimentation, that organisms can move from one genotype to another, without sucess.
4. The flawed conclusions by journalists, and those promoting the belief in common descent override any scrutiny as to what this study actually shows.
5. Computer models can be programmed to generate a desired outcome, and are not empirical, especially when dealing with something as vague as 'probability!'
6. The article is a cheerleading piece, singing the praises for common descent, and glossing over what was actually done, leaving it to the imagination and wishful thinking of True Believers to see, 'Evidence!', in a contrived computer model that shows probability, if you assume common descent.
7. The desperation of the True Believers, to see this as 'Evidence!', is a tragic commentary on the decline of critical thinking and skepticism. This is not evidence of anything, except the creative ability of man to deceive himself, with smoke and mirrors. There is NO EVIDENCE of 'new!' genes, chromosomes, genomic structures, or anything resembling common descent. It is conjecture and assumptions, trumpeted as 'proof!'
How is this evidence of common descent? Did anyone actually read it, with scientific scrutiny? Is confirmation bias the only thing needed to see 'proof!', in these studies?
Please cite the specific article Theobald, because you have to be careful selective citing Theobald. Theobald believe in evolution and did not support a Biblical Creationist argument.
From:
Douglas Theobald
Response to ID/creationist proposal: Douglas Theobald, University of Colorado at Boulder
Douglas L. Theobald, Ph.D.
American Cancer Society Postdoctoral Fellow
www.cancer.org
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of Colorado at Boulder
Boulder, CO 80309-0215
I am a molecular biologist researching the causes of cancer at the molecular level. Evolutionary biology is fundamental to biology in general and is essential to understanding the genetic and molecular causes of human diseases, including cancer and viral, bacterial, environmental, and inherited diseases. The Proposed Revisions to the Science Standards significantly weaken the ability of students to learn real evolutionary theory, due to the many serious and fundamental scientific inaccuracies proposed in these Revisions.
These Revisions have been formulated by IDNet, a political “think tank” advocating the pseudoscientific concept of “intelligent design” (ID). While I personally believe that the universe was designed by an intelligence, the current ID political movement has no scientific credibility. ID proponents distort scientific knowledge by claiming that contemporary evolutionary theory cannot explain the diversity of life. So far, the ID movement has failed to provide any scientific evidence to support their claims. ID proponents have never published any original research in peer-reviewed scientific journals providing evidence for ID. Most importantly, ID adherents have not proposed any scientific tests for their claims. ID is therefore rejected by the vast majority of active scientific researchers in the life sciences, not because of any philosophical or religious bias, but rather because ID currently has no scientific support or utility whatsoever.
In the following I will step through the seven major revisions given in the Summary of Proposed Revisions (p. 1), explaining the errors in each one with reference to the main text of the revisions.
1b) The Revisers want to “use an evidence based rather than a naturalistic definition of science.” However, in science “naturalistic” just means is “based on evidence”, so this revision is confusing and misleading. If an idea can be tested against evidence, it is natural and it is scientific. If the idea can’t be tested then it’s not science, it’s philosophy. In their explanation for this change, the Revisers make a big deal out of “methodological naturalism”, making grandiose claims that it assumes that “design conceptions of nature are invalid” and that it leads to the belief that “life … is the result of an unguided, purposeless natural process.” Methodological naturalism does nothing of the sort. The Revisers ignore the fact that many scientific disciplines use design to explain certain phenomena naturalistically, such as archaeology and criminal forensics.
Most importantly, the Revisers make a huge blunder in confusing methodological naturalism (which is how real science is practiced) with metaphysical naturalism (which is an atheistic philosophy). Using methodological naturalism does not entail a belief in metaphysical naturalism. Everybody uses methodological naturalism all the time in their everyday lives, regardless of whether they are theists, agnostics, or atheists. For instance, you use methodological naturalism when you figure out why your car doesn’t run well or why the light doesn’t turn on when you flick the light switch. When the light doesn’t turn on, we don’t consider the possibility that a ghost blew it out, rather we perform a test of the hypothesis that the filament in the bulb burned up (usually by looking at the bulb and replacing it with a new one). If the light bulb is missing, we might consider the hypothesis that somebody removed it, which is hardly supernatural, it is a natural cause. It should be clear that I can ignore ghosts and fairies while figuring out what’s wrong with the light bulb and at the same time believe that life is guided and purposeful.
The only people I know of who consistently confuse methodological and metaphysical naturalism are proselytizing fundamentalists and atheists. I am neither one, but unlike the Revisers, I do understand a little basic philosophy.
Even if the Revisers were correct about methodological naturalism (which they are not), would it matter? If the purpose is to teach real science in a science class, as practiced by real scientists, then we should teach that, shouldn’t we? The Revisers want to teach their own pet philosophy about how they wish science would be performed -- instead of teaching how science really is. Pretending that science is something it is not, and teaching impressionable students that the scientific method includes supernatural explanations, is not only unfair and erroneous, it is a insidious form of deception.
1d) (p. 6) Proposed change: “Although science proposes theories to explain changes, the actual causes of many changes are currently unknown (e.g. the origin of the universe, the origin of fundamental laws, the origin of life and the genetic code, the origin of major body plans during the Cambrian explosion, etc.). ”
Much of this is just false – the causes of several of these (or parts of these) are known in science. For instance, the Big Bang as the origin of the universe in a singularity, the cause of electromagnetic forces, and much is known about the origin and evolution of major body plans before, during, and after Cambrian times (the term “Cambrian explosion” is a bit outdated and biased since the “explosion” occurred over dozens of millions of years).
2) (p. 7) Proposed change “Biological evolution theorizes that …”
Only people theorize, biological evolution theorizes nothing. The Revisers explain in the Summary that their “addition makes it clear that evolution is a theory, and not a fact.” This is false and is fundamentalist nonsense, a code phrase that Creationists have used historically as justification for their religiously motivated opposition to evolution. Evolution is both a scientific theory and a scientific fact. Many non-scientists use the informal, non-technical definition of 'theory', which is basically equivalent to 'some random guess'. In science, however, a theory is the end-all-be-all scientific statement, the end product of the scientific method. Technically it is "only a theory" that the earth is round, that the earth circles the Sun every year, that X-rays cause mutations, that DNA molecules carry genetic information, that HIV causes AIDS, that fusion of hydrogen to helium powers the Sun, etc. But it is just as valid to call each of these 'scientific facts'. Claiming that evolutionary biology is “a theory, and not a fact” only confuses students and muddies the correct usage of scientific terms."
The rest of his article is a point by point objection and condemnation of Fundamentalist Christian view against science.
..You then get unlimited propaganda broadcasts, with nobody to scrutinize your bluffs.
