Sunday, January 25, 2009

Evidence of Evolution Or Unfounded Inferrence?


You may or may not have been following my running debate with several atheists from Australia on my blog and on the following blogs:

http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=341
http://www.naontiotami.com/?p=350

I have been studying science and theology my entire life and I am amazed how quickly people who are otherwise reasonably intelligent will come to conclusions that lead them away from God and conclude the Bible is lying on scant evidence, all the while asserting that they are only "following the perponderance of evidence".

Keep in mind, before I go forward, that all this got started because I posted a review on the video called Nephilim Rising in which I stated that there were no transitional fossils showing common descent from one life form to another for human and apes. Of all the things that I stated, I was only challenged on this point with a remark to a fossil discovered in 2004 called Tiktaalik that supposedly was touted to be the "missing" link between fish and amphibians. I quickly put another post together, basically about this fossil, pointing out that not all scientists agree with this assessment. I suddenly had 4 or 5 people attacking me, commenting about my being wrong. The debate spilled out onto one of their blogs, but one good thing visits on my own blog did spike. Thanks for the exposure fellas. It stuck me hilarious that they themselves admitted that Tiktaalik cannot be confirmed to be the ancestor of modern fish or amphibians. If they could then I would have to agree that there would be strong evidence that Tiktaalik is the missing link between fish and amphibians. But it's not. So they argued that it shows that it's possible that such a fossil connecting fish and amphibians allowing them to infer that macro evolution is true. I disagree. They are walking by faith.

I don't think that one even needs to go to the Bible as a reason to reject macro evolution, but they brought it up. They immediately attacked the veracity of the Bible and seem to think that everyone who believes in Intelligent Design are actually trying to trick people because they are really creationists. I said it before so many times, but here goes: Not all people who believe in Intelligent Design believe that the God of the Bible did it. I do! But not everyone. In addition, to macro evolution, we talked about the origin of the universe, and whether or not the Bible is true. Physics, Computer Science, Theology, History and just about everything has come up. I've enjoyed it although it was like hitting brick. Fortunately, God always sends help when you need it. I wasn't alone because there was one person who was speaking out and agreeing with the Bible. I appreciated that.

One thing that came up a couple of times was the Dover trial from a few years back where again it was up to a court of law to decide whether it was right to teach creationism in public school along with evolution. Seems to happen every decade such a case become high profile. In the 1920's it started with the Scopes trial, but the roles were switched. Then the question was should evolution be taught alongside or instead of creationism? I have found a video on GodTube that documents the Dover Trial, and not from a Christian point of view. I found it interesting that the evolution position was defended using 2 main points of evidence: Transitional fossils and Genetics. The video was well done. They had reenactments of trial testimony, interspersed with dynamic animation, and interviews with intelligent leaders in the field. But they did not present any rebuttal information from experts in the field, so I put together my own rebuttal.

Let's take a look at the Transitional fossil "evidence".


The video does a great presentation of the now accepted view of evolution and this is how I have been taught about what it is. The problem is the theoretical model of common ancestory looks different than the graphic for where these "transitional" fossils are placed in the "Tree of life". They are on a different branch - twig - than the species they are supposed to bridge. To this day, no common ancestor has been found to show us that fish and amphibians share a common ancestor, let alone any other connections evolutionary scientists attempt to make.

Now what about the genetic "evidence"?


Their argument is that because apes have one less chromosome than we do, two chromosomes merged into a single. Their evidence is that you can see that there are two chromosomes stuck together, therefore evolution is vindicated because we can see traits being passed genetically. Problem is that there is no discussion of what those traits are and if theyt are truly common among humanity and apes. It's hinted at that the merged chromosomes correspond to the missing chromosomes in apes, but it's never actually stated. If it were, and I'm not sure if that could be validated, then that would mean that they might have something there. In addition, I liked the presentation of basic genetic theory, however if evolution is true then we would expect to see positive mutations - mutations that give rise to beneficial traits - fairly often. There aren't many, if any examples. The example of a butterfly's color change is an example of adaptation not macro evolution. What we do see in nature is a tendency to steer away from random mutation. The goal is that offspring have as close to a perfect copy of parental DNA code as possible. It's like installing software on a computer...would I want the installed code to be the same or off from what was originally encoded? There are issues that can be raised against evolution because of genetics, but I will put that in a different post.

One more point that a lot of people like to try to use in favor of macro evolution is that there is a consensus among the world's top scientists that evolution is true and the only people who disagree are no-talent, stupid and/or ignorant, fundamentalist hacks who don't know what they are talking about. They call us deluded individuals who blind ourselves to the truth because of religion. (Funny, that is what the Bible says about them!) I wholeheartedly disagree with them. Dismissing people's intelligence and expertise because you disagree with them is not fair. In addition, some don't like bring God up because then it's "arguing from authority". They say that "God said so" is not a valid explanation. I would agree it does not explain how but it does explain why. Besides saying that we should accept evolution because the majority of the scientific community accepts it is also "arguing from authority" and not all scientists agree with the conclusions reached by evolutionists. Don't forget that there was a time when most scientists thought that the world is flat. Or that flies spontaneously generate from rotten meat. We have learned better. One day we will outgrow evolution too and people will have to come up with other reasons to deny the authority and truth of the Bible.

Just so no one thinks that I took the Dover video out of context, I've presented it in the playlist below.



You can even read the transcripts of the Dover case here.

9 comments:

  1. The anti-science video starts out with an explanation of one of the many proofs for evolution, then the video, to the sound of bad music, makes an idiotic denial of that explanation. The first part of the video explains the evidence, and the 2nd part of the video just asserts the evidence explains nothing. The video is saying "The biologists are wrong because I said they are wrong. So there!"

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Besides saying that we should accept evolution because the majority of the scientific community accepts it is also 'arguing from authority' and not all scientists agree with the conclusions reached by evolutionists."

    There's many things wrong with this. First, they are not called evolutionists. They are called biologists.

    Second, every single competent biologist in the world accepts the basic facts of evolutionary biology, including the proven beyond any doubt fact people and chimps share an ancestor. Notice I said "competent" biologists. I'm talking about biologists who have actually contributed something important to biology. They all love evolution.

    Third, nobody has to trust the biologists. The overwhelming evidence for the facts of evolution are available for anyone to study.

    The video complained about a lack of transitional fossils that explain the transition from land animals to whales. That might have been a fair complaint just 15 years ago, but today the fossil record that explains the development of whales can be called complete. Look it up.

    I wonder how the Liars-For-Jeebus explain ERVs. I'm sure they lie about it, and I'm sure biologists laugh at their dishonesty. When a biologist makes some important discovery that adds to the mountain of evidence for evolution, some know-nothing professional liar, who has never discovered anything, immediately starts lying about it. Evolution denying has become a big business in America, and you are one of their gullible customers.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bobxxx, thanks for your comments. I did more than just say that the evidence was wrong. Who is being dishonest? Not all biologists accept the theory of evolution! That is why I called those who do, biologists or not, "evolutionists".

    What overwhelming evidence are you talking about? You offer none.

    The bottom line is that when it comes to transitional fossils there is no proof. Point out one fossil that shows a common ancestor between two separate and modern species alive today. You do this, then you have evidence worth inferring the theory of evolution. You are going on faith.

    Further, No one needs to lie for Jesus. ERVs is not an argument. Throwing out an organ, DNA structure, or anything else just because we don't know why it's there is stupid. Asserting something does not have a purpose just because you don't know what that purpose is shows just how gullible you are. You should be humbled that there is so much about our genome still waiting to be discovered. If there are reasonable answers to the questions I have raised then what are they?

    ReplyDelete
  4. You wrote about yourself: "God saved me at a young age and I am in the process of getting a minister's license in the Church of God In Christ. God sent Jesus to pay for the sins of humanity through his death, burial, and resurrection. Because of what Jesus did our sins are paid for and we have peace with God. All we have to do is accept Jesus and we have eternal life."

    So I think it's fair to say you deny the facts of evolution for religious reasons. Evolutionary biology is just a branch of science, but it's obvious evolution has major religious implications. Christians are taught (brainwashed to believe) people are special magical creations of Mr. God. They believe that, thanks to this magical creation, people are completely separate from the rest of nature. They believe, because people are special and completely separate from the other animals, they and only they go to a heaven after they drop dead.

    Evolution threatens all these beliefs because according to the facts of evolution, humans are one of the modern ape species. People are apes. Even Jesus was an ape. Christians believe it makes no sense for an ape to go to heaven, so the idea they themselves are apes terrifies them. They think evolution equals no heaven, and of course they are right about that. Heaven really is a goofy idea, but the heaven idea looks even more nutty when people understand they are only one small twig on a vast tree of life and there's nothing special about them.

    I think Christians are being greedy to wish for an eternal life. They should consider themselves lucky to have just their one life on earth and be satisfied with that. Once they get rid of their unreasonable wishful thinking, a life after death, then it becomes easier for them to understand how the natural world really works.

    How do I convince a religious extremist to accept the facts of evolution when these facts completely destroy virtually every religious belief he has? When these facts destroy his greedy desire to live forever? It's not an easy task and might even be impossible. The evolution deniers, also known as creationists because they prefer magical explanations instead of scientific explanations, have a big problem with scientific evidence. Evidence is meaningless to them because they think their Bible can't be contradicted. Their Bible is fact, and anything that conflicts with it is automatically rejected, no matter how powerful the evidence against it.

    So it will probably be a complete waste of my time to answer your question "What overwhelming evidence are you talking about?", but I will try to answer it anyway.

    Since the evidence really is massive and overwhelming, I can only write about a tiny fraction of it, because I would have to write several books to discuss all of it, and since this evidence continues to grow every day, it would be impossible for one person to finish writing about it.

    I could talk about fossils. For example the fossil record that describes the transition from land animals to whales can now be called a complete record with no missing links, but I'm going to skip fossils because the evidence from molecular biology is much more powerful. A creationist can pretend a fossil of a transitional animal is just another magical creation of Mr. God, but a creationist can't honestly deny the discoveries of molecular biology. They will deny these discoveries anyway, but not because they know what they're talking about.

    The video complained about human chromosome 2, which is the result of the fusion of two chromosomes that are found in the other ape species. Biologists predicted this fusion would be found, and they were right, so what's there to complain about? This is what makes scientific theories so useful. The theory of evolution is used to make predictions. These predictions, including human chromosome 2, have been proven correct for 150 years. What's not to like? Creationists just deny everything automatically. They never bother to think because the Bible is fact and can't be questioned.

    Please check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI

    I'm going to be lazy and just copy and paste the comments from the video:

    "Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome. There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs. ERVs provide the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution. And remember, ERVs are just one of the millions of FACTS that support the theory of evolution. Think about it."

    I have tried to explain this ERV evidence to creationists before, but always they don't understand. They could use google and do their own research, but instead they just invent imaginary problems and say the molecular biologists who work at places like MIT and Harvard are incompetent. It's impossible to reason with non-scientists who think they know more about molecular biology than every molecular biologist in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  5. [So I think it's fair to say you deny the facts of evolution for religious reasons. Evolutionary biology is just a branch of science, but it's obvious evolution has major religious implications. Christians are taught (brainwashed to believe) people are special magical creations of Mr. God. They believe that, thanks to this magical creation, people are completely separate from the rest of nature. They believe, because people are special and completely separate from the other animals, they and only they go to a heaven after they drop dead.]

    You would be wrong. I don't reject evolution because of my religious belief. I reject evolution because I disagree with the conclusions drawn from the evidence. They are stretching it into something that you can't honestly say. Aside from this you misrepresent what I as a Christian believe. The Bible does not teach us that we go to heaven because we are some special creation of God. If that was the case, everyone would go to heaven. Who said other living thing won't be in heaven.

    [Evolution threatens all these beliefs because according to the facts of evolution, humans are one of the modern ape species. People are apes. Even Jesus was an ape. Christians believe it makes no sense for an ape to go to heaven, so the idea they themselves are apes terrifies them. They think evolution equals no heaven, and of course they are right about that. Heaven really is a goofy idea, but the heaven idea looks even more nutty when people understand they are only one small twig on a vast tree of life and there's nothing special about them.]

    I feel sorry for you that you can't see your own value. If you can't see your value, I doubt that you can see the value of anyone else. I bet you don't really know what heaven is or why you would want to go there. Heaven is where you will get to be exactly what you were always mean to be in perfect relationship with God. and others. That is the point.

    [I think Christians are being greedy to wish for an eternal life. They should consider themselves lucky to have just their one life on earth and be satisfied with that. Once they get rid of their unreasonable wishful thinking, a life after death, then it becomes easier for them to understand how the natural world really works.]

    What does it matter? Without purpose why should you be grateful for the one life you do have? What is the point?

    [How do I convince a religious extremist to accept the facts of evolution when these facts completely destroy virtually every religious belief he has? When these facts destroy his greedy desire to live forever? It's not an easy task and might even be impossible. The evolution deniers, also known as creationists because they prefer magical explanations instead of scientific explanations, have a big problem with scientific evidence. Evidence is meaningless to them because they think their Bible can't be contradicted. Their Bible is fact, and anything that conflicts with it is automatically rejected, no matter how powerful the evidence against it.]

    Evolution "evidence" and "facts" do not really contradict anything in the Bible. It's the conclusions inferred from those facts that contradict what the Bible says. The very same conclusions you draw here.

    [So it will probably be a complete waste of my time to answer your question "What overwhelming evidence are you talking about?", but I will try to answer it anyway.

    Since the evidence really is massive and overwhelming, I can only write about a tiny fraction of it, because I would have to write several books to discuss all of it, and since this evidence continues to grow every day, it would be impossible for one person to finish writing about it.

    I could talk about fossils. For example the fossil record that describes the transition from land animals to whales can now be called a complete record with no missing links, but I'm going to skip fossils because the evidence from molecular biology is much more powerful. A creationist can pretend a fossil of a transitional animal is just another magical creation of Mr. God, but a creationist can't honestly deny the discoveries of molecular biology. They will deny these discoveries anyway, but not because they know what they're talking about.]

    C'mon, i just posted about this. And i don't see how you defined "transitional fossils" any different then I did. What I wanna see is proof of a transitional fossil that has an ancestor of a different species and a descendant of a different species. Where is that?

    [The video complained about human chromosome 2, which is the result of the fusion of two chromosomes that are found in the other ape species. Biologists predicted this fusion would be found, and they were right, so what's there to complain about? This is what makes scientific theories so useful. The theory of evolution is used to make predictions. These predictions, including human chromosome 2, have been proven correct for 150 years. What's not to like? Creationists just deny everything automatically. They never bother to think because the Bible is fact and can't be questioned.]

    I raised questions and challenged the interpretation. Where is the rebuttal? The Bible can be questioned and encourages it. God's word can stand up under scrutiny.

    [Please check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI

    I'm going to be lazy and just copy and paste the comments from the video:

    "Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome. There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs. ERVs provide the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution. And remember, ERVs are just one of the millions of FACTS that support the theory of evolution. Think about it."

    I have tried to explain this ERV evidence to creationists before, but always they don't understand. They could use google and do their own research, but instead they just invent imaginary problems and say the molecular biologists who work at places like MIT and Harvard are incompetent. It's impossible to reason with non-scientists who think they know more about molecular biology than every molecular biologist in the world.]

    Thanks for the link. But it does beg questions: What does this virus do? Can we live without it? Does it give humans and chimps same characteristics? What? These are questions that must be answered before we conclude that the virus is there because of common ancestry. In order to prove that, you would need to know when did it enter the genetic structure? I want to see proof of the theory not just an assertion.

    Also let's not get it twisted. I didn't mention it in my profile, but I am an engineer - trained in science and critical thought. It seems that the dictum of science to carefully investigate facts before drawing a conclusion and rejecting ideas apply to everything except the Bible and evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I've been thru this before with other creationists, and it's always been a pointless waste of time. Creationists refuse to admit they might be wrong about everything. They are blinded by their religious indoctrination. Your complaints about ERVs show that you don't even understand the point of the video. I've heard everything you said before. Creationists make no effort to understand and they think they know more about molecular biology than molecular biologists. They ask dumb questions never caring what the answer is. If they really wanted to learn something, they would do their own research. Creationists are called willfully ignorant for a good reason. Any unbrainwashed child could understand that if ERVs are inherited, and if they appear in the exact same locations in the DNA of more than one species, then those species share an ancestor from who the ERVs were inherited. It's an extremely simple concopt but creationists can't understand it because they don't want to understand it.

    You said "I don't reject evolution because of my religious belief." but I wonder how you would explain the diversity of life if you were an atheist.

    "Without purpose why should you be grateful for the one life you do have?"

    Why can't a person decide for himself what his purpose is? Why should a belief in a magic fairy have anything to do with it?

    You could call me an atheist extremists because of my complete disdain for religious ideas. I think it's fair to call you a religious extremist because you are apparently making religion your career.

    The biggest difference between us is I have all the evidence, and you have nothing but wishful thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I meant "concept", not "concopt".

    ReplyDelete
  8. One more correction. I meant "extremist", not "extremists".

    ReplyDelete
  9. I understand what ERVs are. I understand what the concept is. I do care about the answers to my questions are. I'm currently looking further into it to see if I can find the answers for myself. But do you know what the answers to my questions are? I don't think you do. And if you think that they don't matter, bobxxxx, then I have to ask who is the one who has blinded himself to rational scientific inquiry? Not I. Is the fact that ERV's appear in the same location in the genome of different species really mean that the two species have the same ancestor? Why? How do you know?

    I don't think evolution adequately explains the diversity of life. God creating all life and putting everything in its place. Why would you think that you could decide for yourself what your purpose is? Did you make you? Do you know what is coming? God does. Why not ask him? Why not find out if he truly exists or not? God is not a "magic fairy tale". It only looks like magic when you don't understand how something works.

    I think that your "complete disdain for religious ideas" is blinding you from seeing and rationally evaluating the evidence for God and the Bible without bias. You think that there is no evidence, but I don't think you have ever looked for yourself. Read my posts on "Bible Basics" to get a start at looking at evidence for Christian Theism.

    It's not fair to call me a religious extremist because you think I'm making my religion my career. It's not. I'm an engineer. My Christianity is not my religion is my lifestyle...not just something I do on Sunday. It shapes my world view just as atheism shapes yours. Have you ever looked at your own biases to see how tenable they are? How logical? I mean you were wrong about what Christians believe about heaven, what else could you be wrong about?

    ReplyDelete