Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution

Willow,You have failed to substantively reply to my discussion of the use of authority in these debates. From your post 112 on the previous thread, you quote Milton as saying: However, when Milton’s argument was called into question in subsequent posts, you did not provide the evidence Milton used to derive his quoted opinion. That is one reason why many have continually repeated the refrain that you have failed to provide any evidence for your claims. Perhaps you might wish to summarize Milton’s reasons for rejecting RM&NS? Does he propose an alternative (e.g., like Margulis’s SET theory)? Maybe if you actually brought out the argument, you’d have fewer people treating you as they do.In the same post, you go on to quote someone named Daniel Harbour as though whatever he said was somehow a gospel according to Daniel that every atheist must adhere to. Guess what? I’ve never heard of the man until you posted his quote. Obviously he doesn’t speak for me. Nor do I agree with his contention that you’ve claimed for him (taking your claim at face value) that he states atheism = neo-Darwinism = ToE. He’s as much in error as anyone else who makes the unwarranted leap that DT pointed out — A is compatible with B is not equivalent to A implies or is predicated on B.You conclude with what is a completely unwarranted (as in unsupported by previous argument or evidence) conclusion: Your opinion here does not a factual argument make. Please support your conclusion with some kind of logical sequence — either deductive or inductive — that others can follow. It’s very hard to argue with a cloud.Your final response to me in that thread (your post 280) — which was closed while I was out of town — utterly and completely failed to address a single one of my points raised in post 209. Allow me to recap, since you continue to make the same assesrtions:1. The fact that the majority of scientists — with a plethora of worldviews and belief systems — consider the fact and basic theory of evolution to be valid negates your contention that neo-Darwinism = atheism.2. The fact that argument from authority — without some compelling reason to accept the claims of that authority — is a fallacy.3. Your conflation of scientism, a discredited philosophy, with science, a methodology.4. The lack of a Gospel According to Evolutionists, and the fact that every single aspect of any scientific theory is open to being disputed on scientific grounds.5. The challenge to back up your assertion that I’m unable to accept taking the core of my theory to task by offering to discuss any aspect of the theory in detail.6. The false dichotomy that there are only two possible worldviews — your particular brand of fundamentalist Christianity and atheism.7. Your failure to address this statement:

quote:

---

Again, nowhere in anything I've ever read in any science book OR in any science journal has there been any reference or indication that science denies God. It's simply a question that never arises, because it is irrelevant to the process of science, and irrelevant to the conclusions of science. Atheism as well has absolutely nothing to do with science. It may be a philosophy held by individual scientists, but is not the basis of science itself.

---

except by repeating your assertion.8. And finally, my repeated offer to

quote:

---

you pick a specific example of some claim or idea proposed by any evolutionary scientist that you think is being deliberately obfuscated through the use of jargon and I'll undertake to provide an understandable explanation for it.

---

Your only reply was to call me stupid and a country bumpkin. Care to try again?

This isn't entirely accurate. An inference can be taken as a valid argument if it is based on evidence. IOW, you have to at least show how the inference is supported. What most people here take exception to is an inference based on opinion, rather than fact. An opinion does not a valid inference make. I'm actually a bit surprised that no one addressed this question. I would argue first that "demonstrated" in the context of particle physics and cosmology (two of the disciplines you mentioned) is too strong a term. In both cases observations are made, then hypotheses and/or theories are derived from those observations that provide an explanatory framework, then additional observations are sought to either confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis. As one simplified example, cosmologists have developed theories as to how stars form. Additional observations using the most up to date instruments have shown every postulated stage of star formation is correct, because they've seen stars that manifest every stage. IOW, they've observed "transitionals". Particle physicists have a bit of a harder time, since they can't directly observe the particles themselves. However, they've developed theories as to what they would expect to see in their instruments if the particles have the properties they hypothesize. When the results of their experiments match their hypotheses, they can be relatively sure that the particles exist as believed. But it's only indirect observation.Evolutionary biologists have an even harder time - they are looking at the distant past. It is a historical science, rather than an experimental one. This means they have to be a lot more careful to avoid "just so" stories - inferences not based on evidence. However, the basic methodology is exactly the same - observation (ex, two different species complexes on two adjacent, nearly identical islands), hypothesis (continental vs oceanic island), and additional observation (succession/colonization etc on Krakatau, for instance, or loss of biodiversity on Barro Colorado Island) that provide modern and documentable observations that show the mechanisms/hypotheses are correct. These observations show the same kind of "transitionals" that cosmologists see in their stars. In addtion, there are geologists ("how long"), paleontologists (patterns over time), ecologists (observed mechanisms), population geneticists and molecular biologists ("how") and many other scientists that provide more or less conclusive support for the theory from their own, unrelated work.There is no fundamental difference between how cosmologists and biologists do their work. But the point is you haven't posted any scientific evidence. Even if Milton was the defining authority you take him as, you haven't yet provided the data we'd need to evaluate his claims in a scientific sense. What ARE his observations and data that led him to reject RM&NS? All you've shown is that he makes the claim they can't explain the diversity of life - a claim you obviously agree with. So, WHY does he claim this? Upon what is he basing his opinion/inference? Put that info on the table, and perhaps there can be a real discussion. I honestly have no idea what you're asking for. Maybe it's my "stupidity" showing again. Please clarify specifically what you expect to see, and what you would accept (if anything) as evidence in this context. I agree with you up to the last sentence. Without an explanation for why he rejects evolution - scientific why's - then we're dealing with one man's opinion. Opinion can never provide corroboration for anything. After all, I have some 20 board feet of shelving groaning under the weight of books written by evolutionists - some of them by experienced science writers - that disagree with Milton. If we're talking pure volume, my sources beat Milton all hollow. Which is why this kind of argument is a fool's game, as I've pointed out. Present Milton's evidence - his concrete evidence - then we can talk. Who the heck is Hunt? And why should I take anything he says as valid? After all, I've argued against many conclusions by scientists in the past - smart ones, even. I can even show you places where Darwin himself was wrong. Proves nothing about the ToE. Try again.

The two sources you quoted so consistently in the previous thread ARE pseudo-authorities. Neither are scientists who work in relevant fields, hence they - right or wrong - are not authorities in evolutionary theory in spite of your insistence to the contrary. You do not call on the expertise of a plumber - no matter how competent they are as plumbers - to repair your computer system. However, even so, I would be willing to discuss their (especially Milton's) specific arguments IF YOU'D EVER DEIGN TO REPRODUCE THEM HERE, which so far you have not done. It is the absence of that effort on your part that leads me to believe the argument is spurious. It isn't a question of "Why is any source that disagrees with your conclusions pseudo?". Only when the disagreement is based on an appeal to an authority who isn't an authority (i.e., has no credentials in the relevant field) would I label the source in question a "pseudo-authority".You can start by addressing the substance of my reply concerning Milton, rather than sidestepping again. Here, I'll repost it for you:

quote:

---

But the point is you haven't posted any scientific evidence. Even if Milton was the defining authority you take him as, you haven't yet provided the data we'd need to evaluate his claims in a scientific sense. What ARE his observations and data that led him to reject RM&NS? All you've shown is that he makes the claim they can't explain the diversity of life - a claim you obviously agree with. So, WHY does he claim this? Upon what is he basing his opinion/inference? Put that info on the table, and perhaps there can be a real discussion.

---

You ignored my reply to this contention. Care to follow up. Here, I'll repost it for you:

quote:

---

I would argue first that "demonstrated" in the context of particle physics and cosmology (two of the disciplines you mentioned) is too strong a term. In both cases observations are made, then hypotheses and/or theories are derived from those observations that provide an explanatory framework, then additional observations are sought to either confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis. As one simplified example, cosmologists have developed theories as to how stars form. Additional observations using the most up to date instruments have shown every postulated stage of star formation is correct, because they've seen stars that manifest every stage. IOW, they've observed "transitionals". Particle physicists have a bit of a harder time, since they can't directly observe the particles themselves. However, they've developed theories as to what they would expect to see in their instruments if the particles have the properties they hypothesize. When the results of their experiments match their hypotheses, they can be relatively sure that the particles exist as believed. But it's only indirect observation.

​

Evolutionary biologists have an even harder time - they are looking at the distant past. It is a historical science, rather than an experimental one. This means they have to be a lot more careful to avoid "just so" stories - inferences not based on evidence. However, the basic methodology is exactly the same - observation (ex, two different species complexes on two adjacent, nearly identical islands), hypothesis (continental vs oceanic island), and additional observation (succession/colonization etc on Krakatau, for instance, or loss of biodiversity on Barro Colorado Island) that provide modern and documentable observations that show the mechanisms/hypotheses are correct. These observations show the same kind of "transitionals" that cosmologists see in their stars. In addtion, there are geologists ("how long"), paleontologists (patterns over time), ecologists (observed mechanisms), population geneticists and molecular biologists ("how") and many other scientists that provide more or less conclusive support for the theory from their own, unrelated work.

---

Please try and address the substance of my remarks, rather than simply ignoring them and repeating your assertions. In fossils? Of COURSE neither can be directly observed in fossils. What we do have is the observation of RM&NS quite obviously operating in modern populations. We can edge a bit further back in time with sub-fossil remains that show the same thing happening in the recent past, and we have paleontologists showing that the pattern in the fossil record is consistent with the expected results of RM&NS over vast time scales - not that they observe the action of natural selection at a billion years remove. In addition, we have the evidence from molecular biology and genetics, etc. that supports key features of the theory. Unless you can provide Milton's evidence that the mechanisms we can observe in modern populations could NOT explain the patterns in the record, then I can only assume from what you've written that he has no evidence. Well, since you've ignored just about everything else I've written, this is unsurprising. I told you, based on what you said about Harbour, that I disagree with him. Here, I'll even quote myself again so you can address the substance of the remark instead of your usual cavalier dismissal:

quote:

---

Nor do I agree with his contention that you’ve claimed for him (taking your claim at face value) that he states atheism = neo-Darwinism = ToE. He’s as much in error as anyone else who makes the unwarranted leap that DT pointed out — A is compatible with B is not equivalent to A implies or is predicated on B.

---

On the contrary, I understand quite well what you're saying. However, not only do I disagree with you, I have challenged you to support the contention. Again, please show from the writings of ANY evolutionary biologist where they deny God. Show any scientific article from any reputable scientific publication or journal which shows an anti-God bias. Since you have not done so to date, it is doubtful you can support your assertions. Hence, your claim is invalid in the absence of corroboration from the specific literature you say shows this bias. No, they weren't. Otherwise, I wouldn't have restated them. If you think you have responded, please repost here so we can discuss them in more detail. Please provide ANY evidence that scientism - a philosophy that assumes more or less what you've ascribed to it - is a branch of science equivalent to physics, chemistry or biology or any other science. If it is, you should be able to show by concrete examples. Do so now, or admit you are conflating a philosophy with a methodology. I have no idea what Leakey is referring to, since I have not read the context in which he wrote that phrase. However, my offer was in response to your claim that there is some great conspiracy by paleontologists to use opaque jargon to hide the weakness of their evidence. I offered to clarify scientific jargon for you - and explain as simply as possible what the scientists were talking about. Here, let me repost it for you:

quote:

---

I'm sorry, but this is patent nonsense. I absolutely do NOT take everything a scientist, paleontologist or evolutionary biologist, on "faith". I may accept specific claims made by scientists without digging into the details in fields where I have little interest or training. But I don't take it as gospel or as engraved on stone tablets handed down from on high. I'm quite happy to disagree with scientists when their ideas don't appear to match my observations - in which cases I WILL dig more. And it doesn't take 20 years, but you do have to actually read enough or learn enough to understand what they're talking about if you're going to disagree with them. Which, of course, is why I suggested you pick a specific example of some claim or idea proposed by any evolutionary scientist that you think is being deliberately obfuscated through the use of jargon and I'll undertake to provide an understandable explanation for it. (emphasis added)

---

There are a number of mechanisms that are likely to have contributed to the evolution of migratory behavior in birds as an adaptive response. I say a number of mechanisms because, given the widely varying methods different species use for the rather remarkable feats of navigation they undertake, it is likely that the migratory habit arose independently in several different lineages.1. It is a way of avoiding within-species and between-species competition. As resources get scarce due to annual climatic fluctuations, one strategy is to move to where adequate resources are available.2. It is a way of avoiding climatic stress. Departing from higher latitudes removes individual members of a species from climates that will exceed their tolerance limits.3. It is a way of insuring adequate nesting sites and a longer breeding season (or multiple breeding opportunities). This is especially important in species with low nest survivorship.One of the pieces of evidence that supports the action of natural selection in the evolution of migratory behavior is the existence of species that contain both migratory and non-migratory individuals (like the American blue jay Cyanocitta cristata and the common yellow throat Geothlypis trichas).If you would like more discussion, we'll need to open a new thread. Beats me. I'm waiting for you to explain what Milton's objections are. He's your source, after all.[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 12-29-2003]

Oh, Kathleen Hunt. Sorry, I didn't make the connection.I find it interesting that you take her to task for providing exactly the kind of thing I understood you to be asking for: an effort by a paleontologist to condense and synthesize her field for a non-specialist audience. Latin names aside, she provides a pretty comprehensive list of species that paleontologists have discovered and named that provide the basis for their contentions concerning the lineages that led to the diversity of life-as-we-know-it. She is very careful to note what is "pretty sure" from what is "maybe", and briefly describes in easy-to-understand language why the fossils are placed in which taxonomic categories and relationships. She may be wrong in a few details - which will undoubtedly be revised as new evidence is uncovered - but in the main her FAQ is about as comprehensive and clear as it gets.The FAQ also provides a nice springboard for people who want to dig deeper as it were. It does NOT, and wasn't intended to, provide the detailed bone-by-bone evidence as to why one critter is categorized in lineage A as opposed to B. That requires a much more rigorous and detailed analysis which is beyond the purpose of the FAQ.Most of Milton's reply to which you linked is rather useless pontificating. At no place in his essay does he provide any evidence that counters Hunt's FAQ - rather quibbles over her use of the indefinite wording often found in scientific papers and essays from any science. This choice of wording stems from the tentative nature of scientific inquiry and conclusions, since any conclusion has the potential to be falsified in the future. She NEVER claims that her FAQ is set in stone (to coin a phrase), rather that what she wrote represents the concensus of the scientists she's using as a source. I would, however, like to address a couple of Milton's points. Actually, what she wrote is quite reasonable. This isn't Christian apologetics - she's stating quite clearly that the basal (earliest) shark fossils are ambiguous. "I don't know" is a quite acceptable answer in science - any science. Moreover, she does describe several species to species transitions in the shark lineage later in that FAQ section, and several quite concrete examples in other lineages. One of the reasons her FAQ is so good, IMO, is that she is very careful to state what is known from what is "maybe". Milton's dismissing of the huge volume of fossil evidence because some of the transitions are qualified (i.e., not a series of begats), is disengenuous at best. This point really shows Milton at his worst. In the first place, even taking his assertion concerning the amount of sedimentary rock as valid (I'm no geologist), the rocks are not all homogenous - some of the sediments are marine, some riverine, some estuarine, some fresh - so the assemblages of critters in one place aren't necessarily going to be the same in all others of the same age. In the second place, it would be pretty silly to expect Hunt to include the ammonite sequence in a FAQ on vertebrate paleontology, since they aren't vertebrates. In the third place, both the ammonite and trilobite series shows exactly the type of gradual progression Milton demands: in the trilobites we have about 250 million years of progression from relatively simply, undifferentiated critters in the early Cambrian diversifying into four complete orders over time. Even longer with the ammonites. And in a lot of cases, these transitions really are the gradual species-to-species-to-genera-to higer taxa transitions Milton is saying are absent.[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-01-2004]

Not only do you fail to address or even acknowledge the majority of the points I’ve raised in this and preceding posts, but you have completely misunderstood my argument in the one case you do address. Perhaps I was unclear.I am not in any sense downgrading the threshold of scientific scrutiny, or making a case for special pleading in accepting the evidence of evolutionary biology. On the contrary, I tried (evidently inadequately) to show how evo bio uses the exact same techniques to derive its evidence as the sciences you and Milton claim are valid sciences. Just as every hypothesis in these sciences are validated by observation — cosmology observing each postulated stage of star formation, for example, or physicists showing consistent results as they test the properties of their postulated particles — evo biology does as well. It CAN and HAS demonstrated, through long-term field observations or laboratory experiments, every single postulated mechanism from inheritance to development to speciation. It DOES have corroboration from a multitude of different, un-related fields — from molecular biology to paleontology to geology. As a simple example, every single postulated stage in the development of the vertebrate eye has been show to be both practical and possible through observation of living organisms that possess eyes of each type. This is what is meant by demonstration in historical science. Evolution IS harder to demonstrate — that’s why the evidence in favor of the theory is so compelling — it HAS been demonstrated. Evo biology actually operates under more stringent constraints of evidence than particle physics — an electron will always be an electron, whether it is part of a star or part of my hand, and thus will be easy to demonstrate. To be able to generalize in evo biology, since organisms are individually and severally unique entities, a much vaster number of observations must be made. The fact that these observations HAVE been made, and are consistent with each other, lends powerful support for the science.Catastrophists, OTOH, have been unable to demonstrate or even come close to providing evidence for their ideas. In actuality the cold hard facts from geology, etc directly refute the claims of catastrophists. The rocks don’t lie. Genetics doesn’t lie. Developmental biology doesn’t lie. Biogeography doesn’t lie. Direct observation that contradicts catastrophism is as unequivocal as the evidence for the existence of Earth itself. Which species is Milton talking about? Not all cuckoos are nest parasites (the eastern yellow billed cuckoo of North America Coccyzus americanus, for instance), and not all populations of cuckoo migrate (like the great spotted cuckoo of Europe and Africa Clamator glandarius, whose populations only migrate at the ends of the species range). IOW, Milton appears to be oversimplifying. However, be that as it may, I’m not sure why the inheritance of a behavior — if plausibly genetically based — would be a problem for evolution since it is one of the main tenets. Perhaps you can explain.

Wow, Willow, I don't really know what to say. It certainly hasn't been my intent throughout this thread to confuse you by using "high falutin'" terminology. If there's something I wrote you don't understand because of the way it was expressed, I hope you'll say, "Stop there. I have no idea what this means..." As I offered before, I'd be happy to try and clarify. One of the things I find endlessly fascinating about evolution is how simple the basic concepts are (although the details get very complex). Hmm. I understand you reject evolution on philosophical grounds. That's been abundantly clear from the outset, and your position has been well-articulated. OTOH, I'm not sure that a philosophical objection to a scientific idea is a valid way of criticizing it. Since evolution uses the same methodological naturalism as every other science, the only way you can legitimately critique it on philosophical grounds is to show that methodological naturalism (vice philsophical or metaphysical naturalism, which ARE philosophies and highly arguable as epistemologies because of their innate presuppositions), itself is invalid as a "way of knowing". IOW, you need to show that the methodology itself of all science is flawed. Believe it or not, that is more or less precisely what Johnson tried to do with his rather vague and undefined "theistic science". However, Johnson's approach isn't only bad science, but bad theology and bad philosophy (there are other threads discussing Johnson - see especially those started by Mr. Hambre). In any case, there's no reason why you can't argue the evidence, as long as you're willing to do a little reading first, so that you understand what it is you're actually arguing against. Alternatively, you can simply phrase it in terms of a question, rather than asserting it's invalid.The bottom line, here, would seem to be that if you can't refute the findings of science on scientific grounds - for whatever reason - then you have no objective reasons to reject a scientific theory: any scientific theory. Which is unfortunate both for your position AND for the sake of discussion. For the former, your position becomes logically untenable. For the latter, I really enjoy it when people bring up contentious points in science on scientific grounds. I not only learn a lot, but find the discussions themselves highly stimulating. I keep waiting for someone to argue with about Margulis' serial endosymbiosis theory or the validity of the Wilson/MacArthur equilibrium theory. Those kinds of arguments are where the real discussions in science are centered. Not arguing over whether or not someone's got an invalid presupposition on philosophical grounds. Well, briefly.Johnson, in the two quotes you provide, is making the fallacious argument that, because some biochemical process we observe in modern organisms or cells is currently irreducible, that it couldn't have evolved. Note that this is a positive claim. It can be falsified if a plausible evolutionary pathway can be presented. By Johnson's definition (echoing Behe), an arch is irreducibly complex because if a single stone is removed, the whole edifice collapses. No one argues that an arch can't be built - you use scaffolding, in this case, to support the arch until the keystone is placed. We see the same thing with evolution. Biological structures and pathways can be created readily through cooption - exactly like the arch. I'll fill in more detail and specific references to specific pathways later if you want them.In the case of the vertebrate eye, the stages have been shown. Remember my discussion of how we can look at living organisms and see quite functional (for the particular critter) "stages" of development - just like the cosmologists see the different stages in star formation through their instruments? Well guess what? We can see every single postulated stage of eye development - from a light-sensitive dollop of chemicals to various permutation of complex eyes like ours or the cephalopods - in living organisms. Note - I don't mean that that's how they developed, but it does show that each step is valid and functional for the particular organism in it's particular environment. I don't have time right at this moment to give you specific organisms, but be assured I can if you need them. To paraphrase Dawkins, "What use is 50% of an eye? It's 50% better than no eye at all..."I've got to go now (my daughter needs the computer for homework). I'll try and get back to address your information point later.However, before I go: I didn't need to convince my wife. Although she's not a scientist of any stripe (her master's degrees are in Public Policy and National Security Policy), she is a Catholic very much on the lines of Trixie on this forum. So I suppose she's a "theistic evolutionist", in the sense of both believing in God and accepting the findings of science. My eldest daughter (13) is also a Catholic, and is not only convinced of the evidence of evolution that she's been exposed to, but is adamant about becoming a biologist. My youngest daughter (10) is a Catholic as well, but hasn't approached the evo-cre debate in any real sense. None of them appear to have any problems with the two - belief in God and acceptance that evolution provides the current best explanation for the diversity of life.