Is it "Deceptive" to say the GAE is "Consistent With" Evolution?

I think “consistent” is being used in lieu of “cannot be tested or falsified and therefore is neither supported nor unsupported.”

I personally think the phrase “consistent with evolutionary science” in this context is deceptive.

1 Like

Deceptive? Really? That implies intent to deceive and I hope you don’t mean that @chris_doesdna2018.

@Edgar, you just need to catch up on some basic facts. Have you read the GAE yet?

Yes, I think the phrase, “A&E is consistent with evolutionary science” is deceptive.

We could use the phrase to describe Genetic Entropy as it offers no tangibly falsifiable or testable predictions either: “Genetic Entropy is consistent with evolutionary science.”

Perhaps a more grounded example, “We have no clinical information about this patient, this is consistent with type 2 diabetes mellitus.”

Can you explain where you see the daylight between these examples?

1 Like

I’m not sure what you are getting at here. GE is not consistent with evolutionary science. That’s pretty clear, and agreed upon by everyone on either side of that debate…except you?

At best you are arguing that it is a vacuous statement, and that falls very short of deceptive.

And it also appears you’ve misunderstood the GAE argument. There certainly is positive evidence for components of the claim. For example there is clear genetic evidence of interbreeding across the globe over the 15000 years.

I agree, but what that really means is that it doesn’t clash with the science. De novo creation of A&E is not supported by science, but it doesn’t clash with it either.

1 Like

That is exactly what it means, and it is not deceptive :roll_eyes:

GE makes a prediction–using evolutionary theory–that cannot be tested or falsified because the prediction is inherently written to be unobservable until it “happens” at some undisclosed time in the future.

Which is not evidence for an N = 2.

How is not having information consistent with a scientific theory?

1 Like

We do not say, “No clinical information about my patient is consistent with glioblastoma.”


1 Like

You are very confused. The GAE does not argue N=2. Are we even talking about the same things!?

1 Like

As a medical doctor I can tell you with some authority that you are flat out wrong here. Seriously.

The context might be helpful. Many people said that the de novo creation was “inconsistent” or “in conflict with” the genetic evidence.

This is just patently false. In fact de novo AE can be consistent (not inconsistent) with the evidence. Unless you want to enforce use of a double negative, the right response it to just use “consistent.”

1 Like

You propose a hypothesis for the de novo, or otherwise, creation of A&E that then interbreed with extant populations. Correct?

If I characterized your hypothesis correctly, does the lack of positive and negative scientific support suggest consistency with evolutionary theory?

1 Like

What I write in the book is “consistent with the genetic evidence”, including two key findings of evolutionary science: (1) large ancestral population sizes and (2) common descent with the great apes.

If you think it’s inconsistent with some other parts of evolutionary science, you’d have to clarify what exactly the conflict is.

1 Like

Are you saying that you arrive at a differential in the absence of all clinical information? If so, that is absurd.

You just tell the truth, “There is no evidence for or against my hypothesis.” I would personally qualify that with, “Additionally, it is not testable.”

1 Like

Clearly that’s not what I’m saying because I’m not saying something absurd.

Except that would be oversimplified to the point of being false. They are many claims I make that are in fact testable and supported with positive evidence.

I think you are working from a cartoon understanding of my case, and making an extremely uncivil leap to calling me dishonest.

As I recall, you are a graduate student. I’d just request the professional courtesy you extend to other scientists please. Instead of shooting from the hip, get informed and learn the details, including why several secular scientists endorsed the book. If, after that, you have an objection, I’d love to hear you out.

Until then, and until you have evidence of more than disagreement, please stop calling me dishonest.


It doesn’t seem like you’re interested in having a critical conversation about the language you’re using to describe this hypothesis.

I have been more than charitable and professional here.

I would have the same issue with any other scientist describing their hypothesis as “consistent with evolutionary science” in the absence of evidence to support the claim.

1 Like

Starting out by calling it “deceptive” is neither charitable nor professional. Perhaps try “confusing” or “unclear” instead.

I’ve had many critical conversations about my argument. At this point it is a peer reviewed book that has attracted other peer-reviewed responses from several relevant disciplines. The best and most helpful critiques are informed by actually engaging the details with rigor.

For example, there are several chapters of the book with direct relevance to what you’ve written here. I’d welcome a careful critique of these chapters from you. I’d also welcome suggestions to better wording that would make the situation more clear.

1 Like

That’s why I agreed with you that saying GAE is consistent with evolutionary science is quite misleading because key parts of it (like *de novo creation of A&E) has no footing in evolutionary science. However, Joshua is pretty clear on what he means by “consistent”: it means not clashing with established science. Whether he used a poor word choice or not is certainly debatable, but what he meant by it is crystal clear.

1 Like

Then stop saying “misleading” or “deceptive,” just say something like “could be unclear if you aren’t paying attention” or “might be misunderstood” though I am crystal clear about what I mean.


Can you think of another example where the exact phrasing means, “No positive evidence was found?”

“The defendant is consistent with forensic murder evidence.”
“The patient is consistent with glioblastoma multiforme.”
“Mars is consistent with the Celestial Teapot.”
“The damaged car is consistent with the reported car accident.”

1 Like

I am not saying you intentionally tried to mislead anyone by using “consistent”, but it could certainly mislead some new readers until they read your book or online summaries. However, since your intent was never to mislead anyone, I agree your suggestions would have been most appropriate.

1 Like