Apparently, @cdods thinks it’s OK not to look beyond the popular press.
No where did he say that it is okay not to look beyond the popular press.
1 Like
That’s why I carefully, and ironically, qualified it with “Apparently…”
How do you interpret:
Don’t “things written” include things written by scientists for laypeople? That’s the only point I’m trying to make here–that cdods is looking in the wrong place.
1 Like
I interpret this as 100% accurate. There are not a lot a lot of things. @cdods does not place PS in that category. We are not following that pattern, and he likes it. We also are an outlier.
1 Like
I would say that you should read the discussion sections of a bunch of evolutionary biology papers. I doubt that you could find a single one that didn’t explicitly limit its conclusions to a single aspect of evolution. I can’t even imagine a study, or even a review, that would address all causes.
1 Like
@Mercer, @Jonathan_Burke, @swamidass, @Timothy_Horton @Jordan
The only science there could be is a lab experiment like this one! And naturally, God is not paid to participate, but he is given an Honorarium !!!
1 Like
It has always been a question of how much common descent and evolution do they accept. The prokaryote to eukaryote transition seems to be a popular one, but are they really saying that they are fine with all eukaryotes evolving from a common ancestor? The reason that they stick to this one transition is that we don’t have the wealth of genetic evidence for prokaryote to eukaryote that we do for vertebrates or other groups. Once we move to vertebrate evolution then there is extremely strong genetic data with some nice fossil evidence here and there. I get the feeling they are trying to use the difficult to evidence transitions to cast doubt on the transitions we have tons of evidence for.
From a broader philosophical view, when you have tons of evidence for evolution of the vertebrate group and lots of other evidence for evolution of the eukaryote tree, the expectation is that if evolution goes this deep then it probably goes deeper. We have departed so far from the classic creationist perspective that we are beating a dead horse at that point. It would be interesting to hear from people who use the relative lack of evidence for the prokaryote to eukaryote transition to hear if they do accept common ancestry and evolution for all eukaryotes. Is it just this one transition that they doubt?
1 Like
First off, scientists tend to be on the grumpier side for whatever reason. It’s part tradition, part culture, and a final part of past experiences. It’s getting better, but it’s still worth noting.
I think past experiences do play a part in what you are describing. When you hear the same assertions over and over from the same group of people you start to make assumptions when you hear those same assertions anew. Physicists probably have the same sort of reactions to questions and assertions they hear related to quantum physics or the Big Bang theory.
There is another factor at play, at least in my experience and in my opinion. Scientists start with the evidence, and then form ideas. When someone asks if design is possible they are often starting with the idea in the absence of any evidence. That’s the part scientists don’t like. If this isn’t the case, then I hope other scientists will let me know and correct my thinking on this one. However, that’s what I sense in this case.
If I were giving advice, my suggestion to those who are curious about design is to ask good questions. For example, “What would you expect to see if there is some sort of design in this process?”, or “What would you expect to find if they didn’t evolve?”. Try to get an idea of what evidence there would need to be in order for scientists to conclude there was design. In other words, give them a chance to play Devil’s advocate (or perhaps Angel’s advocate would be a better choice 
).
3 Likes
Sorry, somehow the subject changed along the way.
@cdods said:
As a non-scientist I would say most of what I read (in the popular press) presents things as a watertight case for “all of it” resulting from only natural processes.
You asked for examples of such.
I asked if you disagreed. You replied:
Generally, yes. Scientists are usually very careful in qualifying their conclusions.
We moved from what we read in the popular press to what you observe in your realm. I agree that it is better to go (as you said) directly to scientists and source material, but the popular press is important, especially here at PS, because so many laypersons are involved, and this is where they “learn.” So, they arrive here with pre-conceived notions that stem from information read in the popular press.
I do not disagree with you John, at all, regarding reading the source material. As well, I appreciate very much your opinion that we would not find in the source material that evolution was limited to a single cause (I think you are missing a “not” in your post above, but I get your drift). That said, as @cdods says, the mainstream press, and even the opinions expressed here by many scientists, seem to lead people to the same conclusion… that “all of it” resulted from natural processes and the case is closed.
It is refreshing to hear that there are still many things to be learned.
Only in response to what you wrote. To @cdods I very clearly wrote,
There’s a misunderstanding here. I said to go to the writings of scientists for laypeople. That would not be source material. And even with you, I suggested the discussion sections. That’s not the source material either–it’s where scientists let themselves speculate!
Can you provide a sample of a scientist saying something equivalent to “all of it” here?
1 Like
I agree completely.
1 Like
I thought you might be interested in some of these texts in the FAQ of the Discovery Institute. I would say they seem to constitute prevarications that are a long way from the “truth telling” that ID proponents think they are known for:
2. What are some of the scientific problems with current theories of biological and chemical evolution?
Here are five key problems:
[ONE] Genetics: Mutations cause harm and do not build complexity.
[Lie #1] Such a … process does not improve them or build complexity.
[Lie #2] As National Academy of Sciences biologist Lynn Margulis has said, “new mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”
[Lie #3] Similarly, past president of the French Academy of Sciences, Pierre-Paul Grasse, contended that “[m]utations have a very limited ‘constructive capacity’” because <[because?] …“[n]o matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”
[TWO] Unguided and random processes cannot produce cellular complexity.
((Since I advocate guided processes, this second problem is irrelevant to me.))
[THREE] Paleontology: The fossil record lacks intermediate fossils.
[Lie #4] …this has been recognized by … Ernst Mayr who explained in 2000 that “[n]ew species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.” ^^ E. Mayr’s life was devoted to untangling the semantics of “fossils” serving as “intermediates” by demonstrating that fossils may not lend themselves being seen as intermediates, the forms taken by these fossils certainly WERE intermediates!
[FOUR] Taxonomy: Biologists have failed to construct Darwin’s “Tree of Life.”
[Lie #5] “This implies a breakdown in common descent, the hypothesis that all organisms share a common ancestor.” What it implies is that Darwin’s understanding of genetics was, of course, limited by the fact we didn’t know what genes were. Darwin’s “Tree of Life” is not a useful benchmark for evaluating Evolutionary theory.
[FIVE] Chemistry: The chemical origin of life remains an unsolved mystery.
[Half-Truth>] … evolutionary biologist Massimo Pigliucci has admitted, “we really don’t have a clue how life originated on Earth by natural means.” Even the Biblical literature is silent on the rise of invisible cellular life, as it is silent on muons, quarks or even Dark Matter and Dark Energy? Are we to suppose that these things were created by miracles, instead of God-guided natural processes?
Most of Discovery’s rhetoric is geared not towards defending Evolutionary processes as GUIDED BY GOD … but in attacking evolutionary processes of any kind (with or without God’s guidance), implying that God created life through miraculous means.
I don’t believe a series of independent and separate miracles over millions and millions of years would qualify as Science.
1 Like
And they are classic creationist tropes. So much for the big differences between ID and creationism!
2 Likes
I’m sorry, then. I think that I’ve just completely misunderstood. There’s no need for me to reply.
Even if you provided such a detailed mutation-by-mutation account, it wouldn’t convince an IDer. They would be faced with a string of many mutations, so they can easily say “what an improbable string of mutations, it’s equivalent to winning the lottery 1,000 times in a row! It couldn’t possibly have happened without intelligent intervention!”
4 Likes
That is just an assertion that isn’t backed by evidence, and contradicted by a lot of evidence. For example, among the mutations separating humans and chimps are the mutations responsible for beneficial features in humans.
That’s also a bare assertion.
There are plenty of transitional fossils.
Just as it should fail when we look at prokaryotes due to horizontal genetic transfer. That doesn’t falsify universal common descent.
If the first life form was created by God and all life evolved from that initial created organism then nothing in the theory of evolution would need to be changed.
2 Likes
Okay, here is another way to review my posting about either Lies or Gross Distortions.
Instead of focusing on the 5 categories of objections, I am re-quoting the parts that I am actually calling a form of prevarication or intentional distortion.
My approach was simple: could someone get away with stating the same material right here on these boards, or even at BioLogos?
In my view, these 5 distortions are really embarrassing for Discovery … but in another sense, they do us a huge favor, because most anyone can see how badly twisted these “evidences” are!:
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
[ONE] Genetics: Mutations cause harm and do not build complexity.
[Lie #1] Such a … process does not improve them or build complexity."
They really think they can prove this? Do they really think we can’t prove it is erroneous?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
[Lie #2] As National Academy of Sciences biologist Lynn Margulis has said, “new mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”
How can Discovery claim to be a non-religious site where they are literally denying the idea that mutations have anything to do with speciation? @Eddie, aren’t you a little uncomfortable that DI should be this extreme… almost frothing at the figurative mouth?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
[Lie #3] Similarly, past president of the French Academy of Sciences, Pierre-Paul Grasse, contended that “[m]utations have a very limited ‘constructive capacity’” because <[because?] …“[n]o matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”
This erroneous statement advances the error made in #2 even further - - by saying that mutations don’t even support Evolution (let alone full speciation)!!?!?!? @Eddie, are they for real?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
[THREE] Paleontology: The fossil record lacks intermediate fossils.
[Lie #4] …this has been recognized by … Ernst Mayr who explained in 2000 that “[n]ew species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.”
^^ E. Mayr’s life was devoted to untangling the semantics of “fossils” serving as “intermediates” by demonstrating that fossils may not lend themselves being seen as intermediates, the forms taken by these fossils certainly WERE intermediates!
Do they really think they can argue this? This is junior high level forensics! Especially taking Mayr’s quote so completely out of context. What people will do with the words of a dead man… this seems intentionally over the top!
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
[FOUR] Taxonomy: Biologists have failed to construct Darwin’s “Tree of Life.”
[Lie #5] “This implies a breakdown in common descent, the hypothesis that all organisms share a common ancestor.”
What it implies is that Darwin’s understanding of genetics was, of course, limited by the fact we didn’t know what genes were. Darwin’s “Tree of Life” is not a useful benchmark for evaluating Evolutionary theory.
Do they really think that because Darwin’s analogy of a Tree of Life is more of a “bush of life” means common descent is void?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
And @Agauger continues to affiliate with people capable of such gibberish?
1 Like