Now you’ve admitted that the models use fitness as a “rough proxy” for genetic entropy - and claimed that increases in fitness don’t produce proportionate decreases in genetic entropy so it can;t be a good proxy - we’ve reached the point where genetic entropy is just speculation or assumption. There is no way to measure it. Models don;t even count as data anyway - but models that are only assumed to be good certainly cannot be seen as evidence.
GE isn’t even a datapoint. Neither is your idea that God said that the Earth is young - which you tried to bring up in a similar argument. And certainly it is possible to claim consilience when multiple strong lines of evidence point to the same conclusion - even if there are a few weak outliers.
It’s not “a particular model of evolution”. It’s the model of evolution which the specific scientists in charge of coming up with such models (the population geneticists) have settled on. It is the model of which Dr. Michael Lynch spoke when he stated,
“This is why we use population genetics theory to understand the process of evolution. … We have a real problem in evolutionary biology with armwaving. Way, way too much armwaving … the principles of population genetics are so well-established that the credibility of any proposed scenario for any feature of evolution must remain in doubt until it can be shown to be theoretically feasible.”
It’s not clear if he grasped the irony that the whole of evolution itself must be in doubt based on his criterion here, since evolution itself cannot be shown to be theoretically feasible.
You seem to have missed the point. ID proponents argue that the ideas they promote, like “specified complex information”, “irreducible complexity” and so forth are mere attempts to apply to biology the methods used in other disciplines to detect design.
This article, and every other instance in archeology in which an artifact was determined to be fabricated by humans, show that is not the case. The methods used are completely different than what the ID’ers claim.
The even bigger problem is, when faced with actual instances where they want to claim design, they don’t even use those techniques themselves!
That’s a particular model. It may be one that some other people, even highly qualified ones, may like for some purposes. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is that it isn’t evidence, it’s not data, it’s just a simulation based on a model.
When you prove that bumblebees can’t fly, it’s time to start doubting your model.
Theory must give way to facts in such cases. The evidence that evolution has happened, and has been happening for billions of years, is conclusive. At most population geneticists are wrong about how it works, but work it does. Bumblebees fly.
It’s also not clear if you grasp the irony that you appeal to authority when it suits your rhetoric, and then dismiss that authority when it doesn’t, although it’s probably more a case of cynicism. In any event, evolution has been shown to be theoretically feasible, so there is no conflict between theory and the empirical record.
If I am reading the quote from Lynch correctly, he is not referring to a conflict between population genetics and evolution itself. Rather, he is referring to a putative explanation for an observed feature of evolution. It is the explanation that must be consistent with population genetics.
Which in fact would be an inversion of the truth. Ignoring evidence to stick with theory would be a “do not look behind the curtain response”.
I get that you’re angry that your argument is being rejected, but the supremacy of evidence over theory is hardly new. The fault is yours for neglecting that principle. Your argument was never going to work.
My answer would be the same answer Lynch quoted in his lecture. If your facts don’t fit the theory then you have to wonder if your facts might be wrong. In this case that’s exactly what’s going on. The “conclusive” evidence for evolution you’re talking about is anything but conclusive. But I am not going to sign up for a new debate here on all those different topics. I’ll let people do their own research. I’ve personally authored over 60 articles that are still available online, many of which do touch upon some of those topics.
It’s not evidence for evolution that’s the issue, it’s evidence for the age of the earth - which facts have nothing to do with population genetics, and don’t need to fit those theories.
Paul, you’re missing the point, and for once I think you’re sincere in doing so.
None of what you think you’re addressing in the context of the notion of GE is about testing the existence of evolution. Lynch’s lecture was about addressing particular mechanisms.
You haven’t come close to addressing the massive evidence for evolution itself.
Precisely backwards. You are again undermining your claim of expertise by your deficit in general scientific understanding.
Richard Feynman…
It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.
It’s conclusive. Ironclad. Incontrovertible. Scientists knew the earth was ancient long before radiometric dating, or even radioactivity, was discovered.
But now we do have radiometric dating, and carbon dating alone is demonstration that YEC timelines are wrong. Carbon dating fits with tree ring chronologies, fits with varve counts, fits with ice records, reveals globally synchronized response to solar storm events, and even fits with the Biblical date for Hezekiah’s tunnel.
You are in no position to lecture about facts or theory. Physical theory affirms the stability patterns of heavy nuclear isotopes that are reflected in radiometric dating. The most basic, the most fundamental and elementary physical theory tells us that the tectonic movement and/or accelerated nuclear decay fantasized by your team would unavoidably melt the planet as heat inherent to the process is released. YEC fails to understand that heat is not an incidental byproduct of radioactive decay, radioactive decay is the conversion of mass to energy, and you cannot have the one without the other.
Facts and theory, though, are beside the point, because YEC apologetics such as the RATE project pursues not rational discourse but seeks emotional reassurance.
That’s not what Lynch wrote, and it’s a very stupid approach to take to the world. Facts trump theory. Or they ought to. Many of the major problems facing the world today are the result of powerful ideologues who make decisions based on what they think ought to be true, rather than what is true.