Responding to a Biology Professor: Common Descent is a Fact! The Only Disagreement is Over the Mechanism

Here's a discussion I had with a Biology Professor who specialises in Palaeontology.

This was the contention she put to me:

"The only disagreement in the scientific literature is about the mechanism, and that is simply healthy scientific discourse, which changes as the available information changes. There is zero disagreement about the reality of common descent".

Before I continue I will note that she wrote this as well in that same post:

"Neo-Darwinism has been dead for half a century."

This is significant because the Neo-Darwinian paradigm is still currently accepted by most scientists. Yet while she evidently disagrees, she believes that some as yet unknown evolutionary mechanism can account for the complexity of life.

I wrote (in response to her):

""The only disagreement [over common descent] in the scientific literature is about the mechanism". 

Shouldn't the mechanism be the thing that proves common descent? Otherwise common descent would be presupposed without any explanatory power to show how it is possible. 

So basically the fossil record, which contradicts Darwinism (and where any contradictions are explained away or are asserted to prove it anyway) actually proves Darwinism?


Also, Palaeontology is really good for coming up with up nice stories about how things could be, but it is unsupportable without an adequate mechanism (which you've presupposed exists). You need a mechanism FIRST, only then would Palaeontology back up Darwinism. The fossil record also isn't convincing because it does not contradict ID. So without an adequate mechanism it is totally arbirtrary to say it proves Darwinism.


Oh and if you believe the similarity of DNA between different animals proves molecules to man evolution - it is also a presupposition because no mechanism is adequate to prove that it indicates common descent (is possible). Similarity of DNA likewise doesn't contradict an ID perspective so using it as evidence is a mere assertion.


(This is only my personal viewpoint in looking at the evidence - other ID theorists such as Michael Behe find Common Descent plausible - I do not.)"  

This was her response (note: she made some irrelevant points which I have excised):

""Shouldn't the mechanism be the thing that proves common descent?" 

No. The Germ Theory of Disease proposed that many diseases are caused by microorganisms. We still don't know the precise mechanism in all cases, but nobody doubts the veracity of the theory. 

"Oh and if you believe the similarity of DNA between different animals proves evolution - it is also a presupposition because no mechanism is adequate to prove that it indicates common descent" 

Hm --- tell that to the forensic police departments all over the world. If DNA similarities do not show relationship, then we're all in trouble, because there would be no evidence that children were related to their parents. 

Tell us, what *does* similarity of DNA show if not relationship? If it's simply random, then why isn't my great great great great great great great grandfather a cactus rather than Charlemagne?"

- Note the classic bait-ands-switch technique!


And my response:

"All your examples use minor change within species as a bait-and-switch to explain all the supposed change from molecules to man. This is not an evidence-based comparison. The mechanism is known and sufficient to explain change within species. So how could  you use known mechanisms as evidence for something that defies explanation through those same mechanisms? 

I am talking about common descent, not change within species or DNA similarity within a species. Using germ theory is a false comparison as, for example, you assert that the mechanism is only not known "in all cases". Where as the mechanism for explaining molecules to man evolution is not known at all. ID constitutes a better explanation than a Neo-Darwinian mechanism. Hence why there is no need to resort to a hypothetical mechanism."

Note: I did not respond to this point - "Tell us, what *does* similarity of DNA show if not relationship?" - because in passing it appeared to be just an assumption. But I will address it for any who want clarification. The similarity can easily be attributed to Common Design. Just like how a car designer might create different car models but they are still building on a basic design template.

Further, the evidence shows that there are many unique genes that cannot be explained through the possibility of common descent. A group of German scientists recently examined the gene sequences of 16 different Cyanobacterial strains in an effort to discern all the distinct kinds of genes these strains carry. They found that they do share a common set of 660 genes (not identical genes but similar enough to encode for proteins). But surprisingly they found that nearly 14,000 genes are unique to individual strains (at an average of 869 unique genes per strain)!* These findings indicate that those bacterial strains are more genetically different than alike, despite their overall external similarities. This flies in the face of what you would expect from common descent.


Stephen Meyer, writing in Darwin's Doubt sums up my argument nicely when he says:

"The Darwinian formulation of evolutionary theory in opposition to the design hypothesis, coupled with the inability of Neo-Darwinian and other materialistic theories to account for the salient appearances of design, would seem to logically reopen the possibility of actual (as opposed to apparent) design in the history of animal life" 

Another commenter had this interesting point to say:

"How can one understand Darwinian logical fallacies?
Evolution is an anti-science theory based on a lie stating that life from non-life is possible.  

There's NO observational or empirical data, NO rigid mathematical model [and] NO large scale computer simulation or digital life research program confirming evolution. There's NO known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organism's genetic code resulting in speciation."

Random final addition - Why ID is Theoretically Falsifiable:

ID's claim that intelligence is the only thing capable of producing specified complexity is also technically falsifiable because if an undirected natural cause were capable of producing specified complexity then its claims would be disproven.



Fin.



Quote from: Meyer, Stephen C. Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and The Case for Intelligent Design. New York: HarperOne, 2013.

* C. Beck et al., "The Diversity of Cyanobacterial Metabolism: Genome Analysis of Multiple Phototrophic Microorganisms," BMC genomics 13 (2012): 56.

How To Argue With Darwinists. Know Your Terminology!

We've likely experienced this before: we might comment on a YouTube video or write an Amazon review making comments about Darwinian Evolution and then get random replies from people attacking our terminology. Why do they do this? Do they not see the weightier point I am making? Unfortunately prominent atheists have really muddied the waters here. People like Richard Dawkins have written of those who are critical of Darwinism using incorrect buzz words that have wrongly expressed the views of the critics. Most people won't understand the arguments you are making because they are committed to Darwinism a priori, have been influenced by superficial arguments for evolution or they incorrectly view anyone who disagrees with Darwinism of being ignorant.


One of the biggest things I see is when people say something like "evolution has no proof!" Well, most thoughtful people would know what you mean - you mean that life cannot be cannot be explained through Darwinism. But atheists/supporters of Darwinism hear something different. Here's some definitions of 'Evolution':

1. The gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
2. The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

So someone who wants to attack your point of view will do so because they think you are criticising the first definition of evolution. A definition which isn't controversial, species do indeed change to some degree over time (beaks change within finch populations for example). The second definition however is much more hotly debated and this is where the disagreement actually lies - whether these small scale changes can explain the development and diversification of all living organisms.

The next word I will discuss is a word that is actually confused by Darwinists as a way to pull the old bait and switch. That term is the word "Species".

1. A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

Seems straightforward right? Species aren't a problem for critics of evolution because we can only observe and see evidence for changes within species. But to a Darwinist this word is much more significant - the development within a species is basically perceived as proving that Ape-like creatures evolved into Humans. So be prepared to call them out on the distinction.

Macroevolution is a good term to use when discussing your disagreements with evolution. But I personally prefer to use the term "Neo-Darwinism" which is the modern synthesis of Darwinism - being more specific. It means:

1. Any modern theory of evolution holding that species evolve by natural selection acting on genetic variation.


This is a very appropriate term because it refers to the processes that are postulated for the development of all life. The issues with Darwinism come down to the fact that "genetic variation" (AKA random mutations) and natural selection cannot explain the development of life (for more info on why this is so, read Signature in the Cell and Darwin's Doubt).

A final point. I do not recommend engaging in any real discussions with these people online. Because chances are they haven't grappled with the arguments and don't want to. They have just presupposed, due to misinformation, that those are critical of evolution (or who have read an ID book) are wrong and trying to explain yourself to them will only result in frustration. They want you to prove ID's claims, but Intelligent Design has shown why Neo-Darwinism fails to explain the development of life so the burden of proof actually lies with the Darwinists to defend their theory. Thus far they have failed to stand up to the arguments of ID!

Short Review of the Design Revolution by William Dembski

This book should be considered the philosophical base that establishes Intelligent Design as a valid scientific discipline. Most people don't seem to understand that the supposed refutations of ID proceed from faulty assumptions about the nature of science. Mostly it reveals the ignorance of those individuals as to their subjective world-view, that biological systems can't, by definition, be designed (which is an absurd and unprovable viewpoint). This book offers detailed refutations of all the ultimately metaphysical attacks against ID (there is no valid scientific evidence against ID - only hand-waving and just-so stories). For anyone who disputes these points, read the book before you offer a weak response to its arguments.

5/5

Thoughts on the Masterpiece that is Darwin's Doubt

This Masterpiece is Stephen Meyer's follow up to the acclaimed book 'Signature in the Cell'. Meyer's central thesis is that, due to the indisputably short time frame for the Cambrian explosion (a blink of the eye in the earth's history), only intelligence is capable of producing such innovation. It doesn't appeal to evolutionary stories about how it must've been possible because it happened (the universe doesn't have the probabilistic resources to support such a view - as he shows). He uses a legitimate mode of scientific reasoning used in the historical sciences - reasoning from multiple competing hypothesis - he makes an inference to the best explanation. In our every day experience it is only intelligence that has the ability to produce large scale structural innovation. In fact he shows that it is highly improbable and therefore physically impossible that a random process could've produced what took place in the Cambrian explosion.

Dr Meyer's goal is evidently to ensure that readers can grasp the science and significance of what he is saying. I loved the chapters dealing with the probabilities of random mutation producing macroevolutionary changes, dGRN's and how that highlights the difficulty of macroevolutionary changes occurring, the difference between mere order (in Chemistry & Physics) and specified complexity in Biology and lastly his walking us through how Intelligent Design is easily reconciled as a true Scientific Theory (despite the subjective & unprovable a priori assumption of materialists who would have us believe otherwise).

This book has my highest recommendation! It cuts through all the nonsense materialists want us to uncritically gobble up.

5/5

Additional thoughts (Borrowed Heavily from Darwin's Doubt, Signature in the Cell & The Design Revolution)

Why ID is not an argument from ignorance:

- First, the definition of an argument from ignorance: Arguments from ignorance occur when evidence against a proposition is offered as the sole (and conclusive) grounds for accepting some alternative proposition.
- The (total) inadequacy of proposed materialistic causes forms only PART of the argument for intelligent design.
- We also know from our everyday and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information rich systems: we have POSITIVE and EXPERIENCE-BASED knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to produce new specified information, namely, intelligence. 
- Thus, when we encounter such information in the large biological molecules needed for life, we may infer - based on our KNOWLEDGE of established cause-and-effect relationships - that an intelligent cause operated in the past to produce the specified information necessary to the origin of life.
- for the preceding reasons, the design inference does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Instead, it constitutes an inference to the best explanation based upon our available knowledge. 
- It no more constitutes an argument from ignorance than any other well-grounded inference in geology, archaeology, or paleontology—where present knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships guides the inferences that scientists make about the causes of events in the past. 

To put this into a formal argument (which as formulated - according to how ID is inferred - does not constitute an argument from ignorance):
Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information. 
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information.
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information in the cell and the explosion of biological innovation present in the Cambrian explosion.

The only reason to reject this inference is due to a philosophical bias that accepts 
only materialistic explanations - which is an unprovable world view.

Also, to say ID must provide a mechanism is simply untrue. The innovation that comes from intelligence does not reduce a mechanistic process - because innovation defies a mechanistic explanation by its very nature. Where as Neo-Darwinism proceeds from a mechanistic theory, hence its burden of proof to provide a mechanistic explanation for the Cambrian explosion and the origin of the first life. Which it has proven incapable of providing thus far - there are no detailed, testable models for how known material mechanisms can generate biological complexity - only a variety of wishful speculations.

Issues with the RNA-World Hypothesis:

With regard to the RNA-World hypothesis, here are some real difficulties facing the theory:
- RNA building blocks are hard to synthesise and easy to destroy.
- Ribosomes are a poor substitute for proteins.
- An RNA-based translation and coding system is implausible.
- As noted by Les, the RNA-World still doesn't explain the origin of genetic information.

This is just an overview that highlights some of the big issues. This is why the RNA-World is not considered a slam dunk explanation of the origin of life. 

Really, the origin of life is just one "Big Bang" infusion of information. There is also the Cambrian explosion and human consciousness which both currently defy plausible explanation.

Random thoughts on Neo-Darwinism:

Well there's really nothing convincing to say about Neo--Darwinism - if it didn't have the emotional implications that it has it surely would've gone to the wayside by now. The emotional element to this theory is why we should use critical thinking skills when analysing it. Sure scientists do little experiments that affirm what we already know the power of evolution to be - quite modest and they write theoretical books of course that postulate various evolutionary scenarios that don't congrue with the data.

Neo-Darwinian reasoning-->

Neo-Darwinian: "[insert either of two contradictory scenarios
/ modest example of evolution / hypothetical extrapolation from modest example of evolution (and use technical yet ambiguous language); here] proves Neo-Darwinian evolution!"

Critic: "No it does not *for such and such an evidential reason*".

**the debate continues in same course for a time**

Neo-Darwinian: *backtracks / takes the contradictory position as default / appeals to hypothetical future discoveries*.

Critic: *calls them out on the additional nonsense*.

Neo-Darwinian:*calls opponent a creationist who doesn't understand science / incorrectly asserts that there's no evidence for ID / mischaracterises ID by using a fallacy of some sort / rants about their own philosophical understanding of what makes something scientific and why they must be wrong (in a metaphysical sense - not in any way that appeals to evidence - of course)*.

Critic: *le sigh*.

Fin.

Review of Undeniable by Douglas Axe

This breakthrough book has been a great read. It explores how our design intuition when applied to nature is valid and how everyone can feel confident that those intuitions (having been sharpened you the points enumerated in the book) are correct. He shows us examples of design in nature and helps us to understand why.

Can alphabet soup, when the lid is removed from the pot, reveal complete instructions for building something new and useful? Clearly no. Well that illustrates the problem of the Neo-Darwinian explanation for the emergence of life from a primordial soup (or really any proposal of how the first life could've come about). This brings Axe to the principle of the Universal Design Intuition: "Tasks that we would need knowledge to accomplish can be accomplished only by someone who has that knowledge." This, he asserts, "...[is] the common human faculty by which we intuit design." His purpose thenceforth is to show that this intuition is reliable and provides a solid refutation to Darwinian explanations for life.

Axe shows us that the are many more possibilities than are likely to play out in reality. Why? Because our universe is bound by finite probabilistic resources. Darwinism appeals to blind searches to achieve certain outcomes. But he shows that appeals to chance severely downplay the likelihood of such a outcome taking place in reality.

Living things are exquisite wholes - an intricate interplay of overlapping levels of function - they are functionally coherent. Axe uses this fact to show why blind processes (required by Darwinism) fail in achieving the level of complexity present in living systems. "What enables human inventions to perform so seamlessly?" Axe asks. It is a thing called "functional coherence" - which, as Axe writes, is "the hierarchical arrangement of parts needed for anything to produce a high-level function - each part contributing in a coordinated way to the whole." He then goes on to show how this functional coherence "makes accidental invention fantastically improbable and therefore physically impossible."

He provides fascinating examples of biological systems, such as the Cyanobacteria & the Mammalian eye and shows us a basic overview (to go much deeper would require a book length treatments) of their intricate functional hierarchy. Axe writes, "unlike human inventions, living inventions are all-or-nothing wholes. Every cell in every body sustains both the body and is sustained by the body. Life is never anything but whole." Truly, this is mind boggling complexity.

This point I loved, to quote Axe, "each new form of life amounts to a new high-level invention, the origin of the thousandth new life form is no more explicable in Darwinian terms as the origin of the first." As an example, even if we were to suppose the first insect has been formed by chance, all the countless insects that differ substantially from the first would still be new top-level inventions - a great many of these components would have to be reworked to suit each new insect. This would have to be a "staggering feat of re-engineering in itself, to say nothing of that great new variety of new components that would have to be invented by scratch." A point downplayed by Darwinists.

Axe also shows us how we can use a practical tool, a "magicians hat" for analysing some of the fantastic claims made by Darwinists.

He shows how we can attribute this complexity, our design intuition, to an intelligent designer! In all, a great book! Highly recommended!

5/5