Anti Science

[Jim]

@Dan From Smithville Have you ever studied any reports of any of the research, written by the people who did the research, that you think validates your view of evolution? I mean the reports of measurements and observations, not what the researchers or anyone else say that they mean.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, valid observations of what a person is doing.

Thanks. It has been my observation that such observations are incorrectly labeled as negative personal attacks.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Dan From Smithville Have you ever studied any reports of any of the research, written by the people who did the research, that you think validates your view of evolution? I mean the reports of measurements and observations, not what the researchers or anyone else say that they mean.

I am not sure I understand what you mean. Are you asking if I looked at their published data and agreed with it? The answer there is yes. If I did not agree with the work they did, how could I agree with the conclusions they derived from that work?

 

[Jim]

I have a number of positions that I accept based on the evidence regarding that position.

When I learned insect systematics, the group Streptsiptera was taught as a family in the order Coleoptera. It has since been elevated to order status and I have watched entire lectures on the evidence supporting that hypothesis. Based on that evidence I accept the hypothesis, but I doubt that is what you mean here. I could look up some of the evidence I have reviewed on that subject if you would be interested.

Regarding the global flood story depicted in the Book of Genesis, I do not accept it as a description of an actual event based on the available evidence.

For one, there is no universal genetic bottleneck that should exist given the conditions of the story. There is no global geological layer that should exist based on the parameters of the story. Polystrate fossils were explained 135 years ago and I consider that explanation valid today as well, so they are not evidence of a global flood. There exist haplotypes in the human population that should not exist if there was a global flood. There is no evidence of discontinuity in many cultures that existed at the alleged time of the flood. Flood myths are not universal and do not exist in every culture. Some cultures have flood myths that are not at all about global flooding. I see no reason to consider the story in Genesis to be anything more than allegory and belief in God is not impacted for me as a result.

Regarding the theory of evolution, it is actually three theories. Common descent, change over time and the mechanism of natural selection. All of these have large bodies of evidence supporting them. In the cases of common descent and change over time, there are different evidences from fields of geology, paleontology, genetics, molecular biology, morphology, physiology, cytogenetics, biochemistry, chemistry and physics as well as other fields of science.

I would have to look for the reference, but a recent study on natural selection was able to demonstrate it in action. Speciation and even the evolution of genera have been observed or demonstrated in very recent times. Based on geological evidence of core samples, Lake Victoria in Africa has been determined to be about 15,000 years old and was formerly a stream that was impounded. Among the species that were in that stream was a founder population of cichlid fish that evolved in a very short time into nearly 700 different species and a number of different genera that compose part of the lake fauna today. This superflock is largely endemic and species are found no where else in the world. This is evidence for evolution and, it turns out, against a global flood, since there is no reasonable mechanism for a flood that would selectively place a group of fresh water species in a specific body of fresh water and no other.

How about lactase persistence? There is a lot of evidence for the evolution of that trait and even evidence that I accept indicating that the evolution of the trait in different populations was convergent. There are different mutations for the phenotype.

How do you know about all that evidence? Have you seen all of it, yourself? Have you studied the original documentation of any of that evidence, from the original source?

 

[Jim]

I am not sure I understand what you mean. Are you asking if I looked at their published data and agreed with it? The answer there is yes. If I did not agree with the work they did, how could I agree with the conclusions they derived from that work?

Okay. I’ll admit, that surprised me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know about all that evidence? Have you seen all of it, yourself? Have you studied the original documentation of any of that evidence, from the original source?

If someone had evidence that refuted evolution it would be so important to the world of science that it would earn the finder of it a Nobel Prize. That is typically what happens when a major scientific paradigm is refuted. No author has crowed about making such a finding so it is rather safe to say that it does not exist.

One needs to be reasonable when it comes to what the sciences claim. You are asking the equivalent if any physicist ever recorded an apple falling up.

 

[Jim]

I am not sure I understand what you mean. Are you asking if I looked at their published data and agreed with it? The answer there is yes. If I did not agree with the work they did, how could I agree with the conclusions they derived from that work?

That’s much better than I expected. Do you always go back to the original documentation of everything that you see as evidence, for all of your views that you say are evidence based, and verify for yourself that all the evidence is there that you think is there?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How do you know about all that evidence? Have you seen all of it, yourself? Have you studied the original documentation of any of that evidence, from the original source?

I do not know all the evidence and have not claimed I know it all. It would be unreasonable to expect that any one person could know it all. Based on a search of the literature that I did a few years ago, I determined that approximately 20,000 papers a year are written on some aspect of biological evolution. I could not begin to have read even a small portion of those produced in a single year. However, I have seen no reports of any paper that drew conclusions that would lead to a rejection of all or part of the theory.

As I said, I have only examined a small portion of the available research going back to and including Darwin, but all that I have seen fits with the theory of evolution. I had a copy of Goldschmidt's 'The Material Basis of Evolution' of evolution that postulated saltation as a mechanism of evolution, but that hypothesis has long been rejected due to a lack of evidence. Essentially, the hypothesis is that new species could emerge directly from an existing species in a single generation. The saltation that is postulated by Gould and Eldridge regards the mode of evolution where there is a burst of small changes over a geologically short period of time followed by a longer period of stasis with changes occurring much more slowly.

I have a large personal holding of research papers on a variety of subjects, but it is very strong in papers reporting research on the theory of evolution. I do not know of anything in my library that would lead to a rejection of the theory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That’s much better than I expected. Do you always go back to the original documentation of everything that you see as evidence, for all of your views that you say are evidence based, and verify for yourself that all the evidence is there that you think is there?

That is my preference. Popular articles are useful, but they can be misleading, overly brief, incorrect or sensationalized. You would be surprised how easy it is to get journal articles these days. Even if you do not have free access to one or all of the various literature databases.

If I want to know what was done, I go to the horses mouth.

Recently, the evolution of the dog was put forward as evidence against the theory of common descent. One paper was selected for reasons I do not know, but it was completely misunderstood and the conclusions of the poster were completely at odds with the conclusions of the paper. All I can say is that the poster was in over his head and does not have an understanding of science, biology or evolution and only believes he understands. In a very short time, I was able to accumulate nearly 50 scientific publications on dog evolution. I am still reading through them, but on a review of the abstracts I find none of them that would lead to a rejection of common descent.

 

[Jim]

I am not sure I understand what you mean. Are you asking if I looked at their published data and agreed with it? The answer there is yes. If I did not agree with the work they did, how could I agree with the conclusions they derived from that work?

This is very interesting to me. I’ve read that new species have actually been observed in some experiments. If that’s true, then obviously it is possible that humans have common ancestors with other species. What research do you know of that you see as reasons for thinking that humans actually did evolve from other species? Have you studied the original data yourself, to see for yourself if you think it validates that view?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If someone had evidence that refuted evolution it would be so important to the world of science that it would earn the finder of it a Nobel Prize. That is typically what happens when a major scientific paradigm is refuted. No author has crowed about making such a finding so it is rather safe to say that it does not exist.

I know that scientists have jumped at opportunities to demonstrate holes in other paradigms. Sometimes successfully. A fellow from Cornell was successfully able to demonstrate that corn pollen from BT varieties was lethal to the Monarch butterfly caterpillar. He made a name for himself with just that one paper. Not that this is the place for the argument, but it was rather sensationalized and the amount of pollen required to kill a Monarch caterpillar was unrealistically high. Still it was a reasonable piece of research that has been the launching point of further study.

One needs to be reasonable when it comes to what the sciences claim. You are asking the equivalent if any physicist ever recorded an apple falling up.

That is an interesting, but rather apt, description of the request here.

 

[Jim]

Do you think there is evidence of the supernatural in the natural world? In evolution, for instance, do you believe or accept that God has had an active role. If so, what evidence would you use? I ask, because this is something that many creationists mention, but never really provide any support for the assertion.

I know of no evidence for any supernatural action in natural history. This is often misconstrued by some as a claim against the existence of God. It is not. It is an honest statement of observations and the lack of observations that cannot be attributed to existing knowledge or to natural processes. It has nothing to say about the existence of God or anything supernatural.

In my understanding of Christian and Baha’i scriptures, everything they say about God is all analogies for a kind of relationship that we can have with other people and with the world around us. Analogies are not about finding evidence. The test of an analogy is how well it works for whatever you’re using it for. Some ways that I’ve learned to use God analogies work very well for me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is very interesting to me. I’ve read that new species have actually been observed in some experiments. If that’s true, then obviously it is possible that humans have common ancestors with other species. What research do you know of that you see as reasons for thinking that humans actually did evolve from other species? Have you studied the original data yourself, to see for yourself if you think it validates that view?

That is interesting for a personal reason. Only in recent years have I actually become interested in human evolution. I never really cared much one way or the other about people, but there is a large amount of literature available on the subject. If you are really interested, a google search using "human evolution pdf" should probably get you quite a bit.

Comparisons have been made between the human and chimpanzee genomes. There must be numerous articles available on that. There is the evidence of chromosome fusion in humans that explains the difference in chromosome number between humans and other apes. ERV evidence for humans and our closest relatives. We share some and have some that are unique. The shared ERV's indicate common relationships. The fossil record. All of this supports a common ancestry with the other great apes. I do have several papers on the subject, but I have not written a list of them.

I forget where the numbers are at these days. It is a growing list of observed speciation, but it is still very small. That is the problem with reading so much and trying to recall specific papers or researchers. I was doing a quick Google search but I could not find the guy I am looking for. Anyway, a few years ago, research using transgenic insects resulted in what amounted to the creation of an existing species from a population of a sister species of Drosophila. Two species exist with one having a certain wing pigmentation that is not found in the other. Males of the spot-winged species will not mate with females of the species without the wing spots. However, the species without the wing spots has the genes for spots. They are down regulated. By transforming that species and removing the regulation, they grow spots on their wings and males of the spot-winged species will breed with this laboratory-derived version. In effect, they produced a species in the lab. Of course, they produced a version of an existing species, but the concept is proven.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In my understanding of Christian and Baha’i scriptures, everything they say about God is all analogies for a kind of relationship that we can have with other people and with the world around us. Analogies are not about finding evidence. The test of an analogy is how well it works for whatever you’re using it for. Some ways that I’ve learned to use God analogies work very well for me.

I would say that we are fairly well aligned in our views here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That’s much better than I expected. Do you always go back to the original documentation of everything that you see as evidence, for all of your views that you say are evidence based, and verify for yourself that all the evidence is there that you think is there?

I came up with an estimate for the volume of research literature that has been produced on biological evolution over the last 150 years and my estimate is nearly 1,000,000 articles and books on the subject have been produced. If I am even close, this would be a volume of information well in excess of what a single person is capable of reading and absorbing in a lifetime. No one person could view it all. But as has been pointed out, research producing findings contrary to the theory of evolution would rise to the top. Early on, when people were just learning, there were many hypotheses made and much speculation proposed. But that all got weeded out over time and the theory was synthesized with new information. While it will always remain a possibility that some new information would lead us to reject the theory, it becomes less and less likely with each years volume of new information that fits with the theory.

 

[Jim]

In evolution, for instance, do you believe or accept that God has had an active role.

As I said, I only use the word “God” in analogies, not to refer to some being that I think exists or is real. I found it interesting though that according to a Pew survey, a weighted percentage of 6% of a sample of working Ph.D. biomedical scientists chose “A supreme being guided the evolution of living beings for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today,” rather than “Humans and other living beings have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection.”

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Okay. I’ll admit, that surprised me.

You do realize that there are several people on here that assert positions as academic scientists and have presented arguments, used and provide evidence and expressed themselves in a manner consistent with the claim.

Relying on and a familiarity with prior art is as basic to a scientist as breathing. Considering the volume of new data generated today and the number of publications produced, it is important to keep abreast. But very difficult at times. I feel it when I have gotten out of touch with portions of the entomological literature. Or other areas of interest to me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As I said, I only use the word “God” in analogies, not to refer to some being that I think exists or is real. I found it interesting though that according to a Pew survey, a weighted percentage of 6% of a sample of working Ph.D. biomedical scientists chose “A supreme being guided the evolution of living beings for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today,” rather than “Humans and other living beings have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection.”

I was fishing a little with that question to get a feel for what you were looking for.

The difference there is in belief. I believe God was involved, but I have no evidence to make that a positive claim. And no evidence that would show where God was involved. I do not know of anyone that has the evidence, though I know that some have tried to find it. I would not base a scientific conclusion on my beliefs, however. Some would call this compartmentalizing. So be it. I cannot say that it is not. It does not make my beliefs any less for that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As I said, I only use the word “God” in analogies, not to refer to some being that I think exists or is real. I found it interesting though that according to a Pew survey, a weighted percentage of 6% of a sample of working Ph.D. biomedical scientists chose “A supreme being guided the evolution of living beings for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today,” rather than “Humans and other living beings have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection.”

Good chatting with you Jim. I have an old Fritz Leiber book and sleep calling my name, so I am going to settle down for the evening. Have a good one.

 

[Jim]

You do realize that there are several people on here that assert positions as academic scientists and have presented arguments, used and provide evidence and expressed themselves in a manner consistent with the claim.

Yes, but I didn’t know that you were one of them.