The helix, of DNA fame, may have arisen with startling ease

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Jordan

Yes, and as I pointed out to him, he needs to be up front with whether he is talking about the primarily literature or not.

No, “primary literature” is a poor choice for laypeople, as is “peer reviewed.”

It’s simply about evidence. Most laypeople understand the difference between evidence and hearsay, as well as the difference between them in seeking truth.

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

@swamidass

I think the topic changed with @Guy_Coe’s post, and then we are not thinking about abiogenesis, right?

Fine then! < the chemist packs up his model kit and wanders off >

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Mercer

If you (or any of us) want to see progress, you have to disarm people.

And ‘both sides are examining the same evidence’ is quite a potent weapon.

So disarm him. Show us how it’s done.

It is not that potent. It is a paper tiger. I already did disarm it.

I wrote…

@swamidass

I’m do not believe the different sides of the debate are working from the same pool of evidence. I’m not talking about random people here, but the leaders of the movements. One of the big things that convinced me that common descent was the legitimate finding of science (as you also agree @Guy_Coe) was the fact that all the creationists I read didn’t even explain the most important evidence for it. Just short discussions with biologists at UCI made that clear.

He did not dispute it but asked a follow up question:

@Guy_Coe

Do you find a consistent pattern of outright dishonesty, for example, among those who critique science on the points like I made above today?

And I wrote the truth…

@swamidass

It depends on the person, but usually I do not think it is dishonesty.

The best way to demonstrate that we are not working from the same evidence is to present evidence that they just do not engage. It is obscenely easy to do this if you are a working biologist. For example, in the case of human-chimp similarity (see Thomkins and Jeanson), they never put in a control of mice-rat similarity. Why is it that there is 10x more differences between mice-rat than human-chimp? Evolution gives an answer, but none of them have a good answer. They don’t engage this data; they just ignore it.

Of course, they are not engaging the same evidence as us, but how would a non-expert know if we didn’t explain what it is? We have to do better than emoting frustration and making appeals to authority. We have to, you know, slow down and explain it to people.

Same is the case with the catalytic antibodies and Axe’s work (though I think Ann seems genuinely confused by why we are referencing it).

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Jordan

Or are we just looking at a general argument about the amount of time from first living organism to humans?

I would say that biologists and non-biologists are working from radically different ideas about what would constitute “first living organism.” That definition is likely sufficient to change times by a few hundred million years minimum.

@Jordan

I’m a bit confused about @T_aquaticus’s argument here.

The point is that the math fits time-wise and mutation-wise for the ancestry most disturbing to creationists. It’s a starting point for those not fond of evidence.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Mercer

I’m a bit confused about @T_aquaticus’s argument here.

The point is that the math fits time-wise and mutation-wise for the ancestry most disturbing to creationists. It’s a starting point for those not fond of evidence.

I’m confused too though @Mercer, because @Guy_Coe affirms common descent. I wonder if it is a red herring. It seems the trip point for him is in the percentage of fixed mutations that are functional vs. neutral. We know most of them are neutral, but he may not be on board with this.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@swamidass

I already did disarm it.

So he’ll never make the same false claim again?

@swamidass

He did not dispute it but asked a follow up question:

He didn’t accept it either.

@swamidass

Same is the case with the catalytic antibodies and Axe’s work (though I think Ann seems genuinely confused by why we are referencing it).

I don’t see any basic confusion. She clearly sees it as an enormous threat that must be dispatched as quickly as possible, but I see subsequent confusion in that she doesn’t seem to realize that I chose catalytic beta-lactamases only as a control for her n=1 generalization that she has no interest in following up.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@swamidass

The best way to demonstrate that we are not working from the same evidence is to present evidence that they just do not engage.

I believe that was in the opening post by Patrick.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Mercer

I already did disarm it.

So he’ll never make the same false claim again?

Who knows. I’d give the same response.

@Mercer

She clearly sees it as an enormous threat that must be dispatched as quickly as possible, but I see subsequent confusion in that she doesn’t seem to realize that I chose catalytic beta-lactamases only as a control for her n=1 generalization that she has no interest in following up.

It is an enormous threat, because it essentially directly falsifies Axe’s thesis. Axe is not dealing with this, but Ann is attempting to understand. She has to unwind his response before she can fully appreciate it, and that will take time. I’m optimistic, still .

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@swamidass

I’m confused too though @Mercer, because @Guy_Coe affirms common descent.

I don’t see how that affirmation is relevant to the question of time.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@swamidass

It is an enormous threat, because it essentially directly falsifies Axe’s thesis.

So do literally thousands of other studies.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Mercer

So do literally thousands of other studies.

Sure, but the key thing is finding easy to understand and salient studies that make it most clear without any distractions.

[Agauger (Ann Gauger)]

@Mercer

She clearly sees it as an enormous threat that must be dispatched as quickly as possible, but I see subsequent confusion in that she doesn’t seem to realize that I chose catalytic beta-lactamases only as a control for her n=1 generalization that she has no interest in following up.

Now that’s an extrapolation @Mercer, I do have other things to do than hang out with you. I do plan to follow up.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Agauger

Now that’s an extrapolation @Mercer, I do have other things to do than hang out with you. I do plan to follow up.

I would love to have my hypothesis demolished.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@swamidass

I think the topic changed with @Guy_Coe’s post, and then we are not thinking about abiogenesis, right?

I think that @Patrick was addressing @Guy_Coe’s claim that chirality is a huge problem for abiogenesis.

[John_Harshman]

@Jordan

It might be beneficial to ask people if they have access to a journal article when you ask them to go to primary literature.

A surprising number of journal articles are available online, free, through a simple google search. That’s what I try first.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@swamidass

For example, in the case of human-chimp similarity (see Thomkins and Jeanson), they never put in a control of mice-rat similarity. Why is it that there is 10x more differences between mice-rat than human-chimp? Evolution gives an answer, but none of them have a good answer. They don’t engage this data; they just ignore it.

With whom have you used this approach successfully, for example?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

So…this last weekend, there were 30 scholars who gathered to read my book. Several of them heard about the mice-rat divergence in conversation with me before, and for them this was easy to understand and also a key tipping in point in how they saw evolutionary science. I can’t name names though, because some of them are in anti-evolution institutions.

Also, I have data that shows this (along side some other information) convinced about 50% of the YEC homeschoolers I’ve discussed this with in the past.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Mercer

In your case, for example, it looks more like defensiveness.

How does defensiveness exclude dishonesty?

Self-deception (remember cognitive dissonance?) is not dishonesty. Not understanding is not dishonesty. Those are far more likely than outright dishonesty.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

There’s no bright white line separating either of those from dishonesty. My question was how they exclude dishonesty.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Calling it dishonesty just shuts down the conversation. in context, @Guy_Coe is not even a scientist. At worst he is just unknowingly repeating someone else’s dishonesty. I think we will get farther if we give p r ople the benefit of the doubt.