Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

[greg_b]

Here are the standard arguments for creationism, and the standard rebuttals from the scientific consensus:

“Evolution is just a theory, not a fact.” This is an easily digestible sound bite intended to show that evolution is just an unproven hypothesis, like any other, and thus should not be taught in schools as if it were fact. Actually, evolution is both a theory and a fact. A fact is something we observe in the world, and a theory is our best explanation for it. Stephen Jay Gould famously addressed this argument by pointing out that the fact of gravity is that things fall, and our theory of gravity began with Isaac Newton and was later replaced by Einstein’s improved theory. The current state of our theory to explain gravity does not affect the fact that things fall. Similarly, Darwin’s original theory of evolution was highly incomplete and had plenty of errors. Today’s theory is still incomplete but it’s a thousand times better than it was in Darwin’s day. But the state of our explanation does not affect the observed fact that species evolve over time.

The next argument you’re likely to encounter states that “Evolution is controversial; scientists disagree on its validity”. Creationists have latched onto the fact that evolutionary biologists still have competing theories to explain numerous minor aspects of evolution. Throwing out evolution for this reason would be like dismissing the use of tires on cars because there are competing tread designs. Despite the claim of widespread controversy, no significant number of scientists doubt either the fact of evolution or the validity of the theory as a whole. Creationists often publish lists of scientists whom they say reject evolution. These lists are probably true. In the United States, the majority of the general public are creationists of one flavor or another. But the scientific community has a very different opinion: Most surveys of scientists find that 95 to 98 percent accept evolution just as they do other aspects of the natural world.

Creationists also argue that “Evolution is not falsifiable, therefore it’s not science”. One of the fundamentals of any science is that it’s falsifiable. If a test can be derived that, if it were to fail, falsified a proposition, then that proposition meets a basic test of being a science. Something that cannot be tested and falsified, like the existence of gods, is therefore not a science. Creationists accept this to the point that they use it as an argument against evolution’s status as a science.

In fact, evolution could be very easily falsified. Evolutionary biologist JBS Haltane famously said that a fossilized rabbit from the Precambrian era would do it. Another way to falsify evolution would be to test any of the innumerable predictions it makes, and see if the observation doesn’t match what was predicted. Creationists are invited to go through all the predictions made in the evolutionary literature, and if they can genuinely find that not a single one is testable, then they’re right.

The next argument to be prepared for is that “Evolution is itself a religion”. This argument has become increasingly popular in recent years as creationists have tried to bolster their own position by decorating it with scientific-sounding words like intelligent design. And as they try to convince us that their own position is science based, they correspondingly mock evolution by calling it a religion of those who worship Darwin as a prophet and accept its tenets on faith since there is no evidence supporting evolution. Clearly this is an argument that could only be persuasive to people who know little or nothing about the concept of evolution or Darwin’s role in its development. This argument is easily dismissed. A religion is the worship of a supernatural divine superbeing, and there is nothing anywhere in the theory of evolution that makes reference to such a being, and not a single living human considers himself a member of any “evolution church.”

Creationists also like to argue that “Evolution cannot be observed”. Part of what you need to do to validate a theory is to test it and observe the results. Although there are evolutionary phenomena that can be directly observed like dog breeding and lab experiments with fruit flies, most of what evolution explains has happened over millions of years and so, quite obviously, nobody was around to observe most of it. This is true, but it misstates what observation consists of. There’s a lot of observation in science where we have to use evidence of an event: certain chemical reactions, subatomic particle physics, theoretical physics; all of these disciplines involve experimentation and observation where the actual events can’t be witnessed. The theory of evolution was originally developed to explain the evidence that was observed from the fossil record. So in this respect, every significant aspect of evolution has been exhaustively observed and documented, many times over.

 

[greg_b]

One of the most tiresome creationist arguments against evolution tries to claim that “There is an absence of transitional fossils”. If the ancestor of the modern horse Miohippus evolved from its predecessor Mesohippus, then surely there must be examples of transitional fossils that would show characteristics of both, or perhaps an intermediate stage. I use the horse example because the fossil record of horses is exceptionally well represented with many finds. If evolution is true, shouldn’t there be examples of transitional stages between Miohippus and Mesohippus? The creationists say that there are not. Well, there are, and in abundance. You can tell people that there aren’t, but you’re either intentionally lying or intentionally refusing to inform yourself on a subject you’re claiming to be authoritative on. Kathleen Hunt of the University of Washington writes:

A typical Miohippus was distinctly larger than a typical Mesohippus, with a slightly longer skull. The facial fossa was deeper and more expanded. In addition, the ankle joint had changed subtly. Miohippus also began to show a variable extra crest on its upper cheek teeth. In later horse species, this crest became a characteristic feature of the teeth. This is an excellent example of how new traits originate as variations in the ancestral population.

The layperson need look no deeper than Wikipedia to find a long list of transitional fossils. But be aware that many species known only from the fossil record may be known by only one skeleton, often incomplete. The older fossil records are simply too sparse to expect any form of completeness, especially if you’re looking for complete transitions. It’s not going to happen. However, the theory of punctuated equilibrium predicts that in many cases there will be no transitional fossils, so in a lot of these cases, creationists are pointing to the absence of fossils that evolutionary theory predicts probably never existed.

Here’s another creationist argument, and when I first heard it I said “What the heck are they talking about??” It’s that “Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics”. The second law of thermodynamics states that there is no reverse entropy in any isolated system. The available energy in a closed system will stay the same or decrease over time, and the overall entropy of such a system can only increase or stay the same. This is an immutable physical law, and it’s true. Creationists argue that this means a complex system, like a living organism, cannot form on its own, as that would be a decrease of entropy. Order from disorder, they argue, is physically impossible without divine intervention. This argument is easy to make if you oversimplify the law to the point of ignoring its principal qualification: that it only applies to a closed, isolated system. If you attempt to apply it to any system, such as a plant, animal, or deck of cards, you’ve just proven that photosynthesis, growth, and unshuffling are impossible too. Organisms are open systems (as was the proverbial primordial goo), since they exchange material and energy with their surroundings, and so the second law of thermodynamics is not relevant to them. Innumerable natural and artificial processes produce order from disorder in open systems using external energy and material.

In a related vein, creationists also argue that “Evolution cannot create complex structures with irreducible complexity”. This argument was made famous by Michael Behe, an evangelical biochemist, who coined the term irreducible complexity. Take a complex structure like an eyeball, and remove any part of it to simulate evolution in reverse, and it will no longer function. Thus, an eyeball cannot have evolved through natural selection, as a non-functioning structure would not be a genetic advantage. It seems like it makes sense at face value, but it’s based on a tremendously faulty concept. Evolution in reverse is not accurately simulated by taking a cleaver and hacking an eyeball in half. The animal kingdom is full of examples of simpler eye structures, all of which are functional, all of which are irreducibly complex, and all of which are susceptible to further refinement through evolution. For a dramatic visual example of how irreducible complexity can and does evolve through gradual refinement, and yet remain irreducibly complex, take a look at Lee Graham’s applet the Irreducible Complexity Evolver at stellaralchemy.com/ice/.

Another effort to fight science using logic states that “It’s too improbable for complex life forms to develop by chance”. This is the old “747 in a junkyard” argument. How likely is it that a tornado would go through a junkyard, and by chance, happen to assemble a perfect 747? The same argument was made centuries ago by William Paley, except he referred to the exquisite design of a pocketwatch, and pointed out that such a thing is so complex and delicate that it had to have been designed from the top down by a creator. This argument is simply reflective of ignorance of the extraordinary power of evolution’s bottom-up design mechanism. Once you have an understanding of multigenerational mutation and natural selection, and also understand how structures with irreducible complexity evolve, there’s nothing unlikely or implausible about evolution at all. In fact, genetic algorithms (the computer software version of evolution), are starting to take over the world of invention with innovative new engineering advances that top-down designers like human beings might have never come up with. Bottom-up design is not only probable, it’s inevitable and nearly always produces better designs than any intelligent creator could have.

 

[greg_b]

You should also be prepared to hear that “Evolution cannot create new information”. Based on a misinterpretation of information theory, this argument states that the new information required to create a new species cannot suddenly spawn into existence spontaneously; new information can only come from an outside source, namely, an intelligent creator. This particular argument doesn’t go very far, since any genetic mutation or duplication can only be described as new information. Not all of that information is good. Most of it’s useless, but once in a blue moon you get a piece that’s beneficial to the organism. New genetic information is observed in evolutionary processes every day.

For a final blow from the logic department, be ready for the argument that “Evolution does not explain some aspects of life or culture”. This is an argument which is really just a logical fallacy: that since evolution does not explain everything, it is therefore entirely false. Evolutionary biologists are the first ones to stand up and say that there are still plenty of aspects of life we’re still learning about. That doesn’t make the things we’ve already learned wrong. It’s also increasingly common for creationists to point to things that have nothing to do with the origin of life and speciation, like the Big Bang and the age of the earth, and argue that since the theory of evolution does not explain those things as well, it is therefore false. This is an even greater logical fallacy. Theories explain only those observed phenomena they are designed to explain. They are not intended to have anything to do with stuff they have nothing to do with.

 

[Arandur]

Am I to believe if a biologist with an a priori worldview as an atheist performs research and finds data opposed to his worldview will advance it? Hardly. He will kill it or try to work a conclusion that works to his existing worldview. So this means that the papers that get to peer review are biased. The emerging picture is one that is suspect.

Only if all atheists or agnostics are unethical. That’s just not true.
Further, it still doesn’t affect the science, because the 1/3-2/3’s of theistic scientists (depending on what numbers you use) would call them on the carpet on such a move. Yet, the Godly scientists still find the same truth.

 

[Arandur]

If a scientist said this:

Should we think that the a prior commitment has nothing to do with the claims that this scientist makes?

That scientists and others who agree, yes.

If a scientist said this:

Can we conclude that scientists are willing to lie in order to make money?

No, you cannot, because you are committing a grave fallacy and judgmental injustice by not including the all-important qualifier, “some.” You absolutely cannot conclude that all or even most scientists are “willing to lie in order to make money” from a reference to the words of a single person.

Please, get a grasp on basic logic (and on charity).

 

[buffalo]

Only if all atheists or agnostics are unethical. That’s just not true.
Further, it still doesn’t affect the science, because the 1/3-2/3’s of theistic scientists (depending on what numbers you use) would call them on the carpet on such a move. Yet, the Godly scientists still find the same truth.

That is uncertain. The conclusions are not necessarily the truth. It is a consensus with many variables contributing to it.

 

[Arandur]

Evolution is taking things out of scope. There is no definitive data that points common ancestry from slime on a rock. This is all speculative corollary ideologies.

There is no definitive data for a lot of scientific laws and theories. That does not invalidate the probability of their truth nor the usefulness of theoretical models in describing and predicting.

Let’s be clear about this. Science can *never *be objective. God is objective, Jesus and the cross are objective, our Catholic faith is objective (it was revealed by God who is Truth). Observations of natural phenomena can never be objective since it varies from person to person. Take a look at this, if a tree falls and no one hears it, does it make a sound? No, someone has to make that observation for it to make a sound.

EDIT: Not to mention, the point of scientific endeavor is to lead the human mind to deeper questions. Since when did we turn this into boastful arrogance to say we know everything there is to know and turn this into yet another dogmatic fundamentalism? I really sense you know nothing about science.

Yes, all observation is subjective. So is any use of reason. What’s your point?

Also, Greg referred specifically to philosophy, not to God’s truth.

 

[Arandur]

The majority of the US population does not accept evolution:

cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml

Okay, I’ll accept that. It doesn’t change my points.

The ongoing social tension is designed to “push the numbers” in the direction of increased agnosticism on its way to increased atheism. As Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution allows one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

“Science” is increasingly used to justify all kinds of immoral behaviors. Second, science is being used to create an atmosphere of indifference regarding issues of ethics and morality. The media is assuring us that “only religious people” are against embryonic stem cell research cell. After all, we’re told, embryos don’t have fingers and toes. By denying the scientifically provable fact that we all started life as a human embryo - what other facts are being ignored or denied? Are people just going to accept this denial because a bunch of scientists are cutting up human embryos and telling us it’s for our greater good?

Pick up a copy of The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis. In it, man is reduced to a commodity.

And yes, science is a job and just like all human beings, some scientists may be tempted and some actually do fudge the results to keep that job. And I write this with all due respect to the scientists who have helped mankind.

Peace,
Ed

You’re still in this attack mode of attacking all science because of its misuse. Such a position is not in keeping with the Church (which gave Western science its birth). It does a grave disservice to the truth and abuses reason by throwing out the good uses of science and the truth it discovers just because people are trying to use it to justify errors in thinking or in living.

If you are to be consistent, you MUST throw out virtually all of Scripture, because some people use Scripture to justify errant beliefs and even gravely immoral acts. Your argument against science would condemn virtually all religion.

Does that help you to see how gravely wrong what you’re doing is?

 

[buffalo]

That scientists and others who agree, yes.

No, you cannot, because you are committing a grave fallacy and judgmental injustice by not including the all-important qualifier, “some.” You absolutely cannot conclude that all or even most scientists are “willing to lie in order to make money” from a reference to the words of a single person.

Please, get a grasp on basic logic (and on charity).

**How Many Scientists Fabricate And Falsify Research?
**

…On average, across the surveys, around 2% of scientists admitted they had “fabricated” (made up), “falsified” or “altered” data to “improve the outcome” at least once, and up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices including “failing to present data that contradict one’s own previous research” and "dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."

So if conclusions are the underpinnings of other conclusions than “we have a problem Houston”.

 

[buffalo]

Okay, I’ll accept that. It doesn’t change my points.

You’re still in this attack mode of attacking all science because of its misuse. Such a position is not in keeping with the Church (which gave Western science its birth). It does a grave disservice to the truth and abuses reason by throwing out the good uses of science and the truth it discovers just because people are trying to use it to justify errors in thinking or in living.

If you are to be consistent, you MUST throw out virtually all of Scripture, because some people use Scripture to justify errant beliefs and even gravely immoral acts. Your argument against science would condemn virtually all religion.

Does that help you to see how gravely wrong what you’re doing is?

How so? The fact that the Church gave birth to science has absolutely nothing to do with the dishonesty of current or past scientists.

Here is the big difference - Revelation is true. Science can only at its best be partially true as it is limited by our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. It cannot address anything outside of nature. It is totally affected by the limitations of human knowledge and reasoning. We should approach it with skepticism.

A paradigm shift is necessary in science.

 

[Kaninchen]

So if conclusions are the underpinnings of other conclusions than “we have a problem Houston”.

None of this is exactly news - certainly since Kuhn’s ‘Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ - the fact that people will go to any lengths possible to maintain a defunct paradigm can be seen wonderfully in the lengths some ‘scientists’ will go to to try to defend creationism.

 

[greg_b]

How Many Scientists Fabricate And Falsify Research?

…On average, across the surveys, around 2% of scientists admitted they had “fabricated” (made up), “falsified” or “altered” data to “improve the outcome” at least once, and up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices including “failing to present data that contradict one’s own previous research” and "dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."

So if conclusions are the underpinnings of other conclusions than “we have a problem Houston”.

Nice try, serpent, but you left out this tiny piece of info from that link:

“In both kinds of surveys, misconduct was reported most frequently by medical and pharmacological researchers.”

Neither which has anything to do with evolution research.

 

[Arandur]

All those facts are speculative. That’s what we are trying to get you to understand.

No they are not. We observe similarities in animal behavior, morphology, and ecosystem relationships. We observe that organisms more successful at reproduction influence the genetic makeup of their populations. We see traits passed down differently due to environmental forces on the populations. We observe genetic similarities and relationships among species. We observe parasitic and symbiotic relationships that change over time. We observe natural extinction. We observe apparent transitional forms in the fossil record, as well as extinct species. We observe ecological change due to environmental factors. We observe population isolation and genetic drift.

All these and more are well beyond “speculative.” They ought to be explainable somehow. Evolution is the only discipline that unites and explains a coherent relationship among these things. If there is another, one better at explaining and predicting and relating, please let everyone know, and let it be discussed and critiqued.

 

[M0nkey]

There is no definitive data for a lot of scientific laws and theories. That does not invalidate the probability of their truth nor the usefulness of theoretical models in describing and predicting.

Now we are getting into the crux of the matter. What you can say evolution is probably true, and I am not going to throw my keyboard at you since I’m fine with you thinking that and I’m happy to debate what parts of the theory are not logical, but what you can’t say evolution is fact or absolutely true. The former demonstrates scientific attitudes the latter fundamentalism and blindness.

 

[Arandur]

How Many Scientists Fabricate And Falsify Research?

…On average, across the surveys, around 2% of scientists admitted they had “fabricated” (made up), “falsified” or “altered” data to “improve the outcome” at least once, and up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices including “failing to present data that contradict one’s own previous research” and "dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."

So if conclusions are the underpinnings of other conclusions than “we have a problem Houston”.

Peer review exists to reduce the occurrence of error. So does the repeatability requirement of science, whether by experiment or observation. Something observed once or twice by one or two scientists or even teams of scientists will be viewed as interesting, but far from well-established. Only after years of review, consideration by many, many scientists, many supporting observations demonstrating repeatability, and so forth does some scientific principle get accepted as well-established. This process greatly reduces the occurrence of error through falsification and alteration of data or failing to present data.

Please, learn a little something about the scientific discipline. Your ignorance of it is leading to a vast array of false premises and conclusions.

In order for your conclusion to be accurate, the conclusions of a single scientist would have to constitute all we have on the subject. It is simply not so.

Further, 2% or even 34% is far less than a majority. And because of the way science is carried out across the whole discipline, errors are not compounded in the manner in which you suggest, because primary source data is available to more than just the originating scientist.

It might help if you brush up on statistics and what they indicate, as well as on logic, to avoid the statistical misinterpretations and logical fallacies you seem consistently prone to.

 

[buffalo]

Nice try, serpent, but you left out this tiny piece of info from that link:

“In both kinds of surveys, misconduct was reported most frequently by medical and pharmacological researchers.”

Neither which has anything to do with evolution research.

Small consolation. So we are to believe that evolutionary atheist biologists have no vested interest in carrying forward their worldview? I have some swampland for sale. Wanna buy?

Perhaps they are just not as honest in their admissions.

Some posters here have claimed that science could not go forward without evolution. I hope they read your post. Thanks for that.

 

[Arandur]

How so? The fact that the Church gave birth to science has absolutely nothing to do with the dishonesty of current or past scientists.

Here is the big difference - Revelation is true. Science can only at its best be partially true as it is limited by our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. It cannot address anything outside of nature. It is totally affected by the limitations of human knowledge and reasoning. We should approach it with skepticism.

A paradigm shift is necessary in science.

Science is founded on skepticism. Please, study the scientific method!

The fact that the Church gave birth to science demonstrates that the Church considers observation of nature and the attempt to understand it a valid pursuit of truth. The Church even helped establish the intellectual discipline inherent in the scientific method that makes it a more rigorous investigation of truth that most.

So if science can discover truth, why do you attack all of science and say that it is all false because some people go beyond science and use it to justify error in belief or behavior?

That is exactly the same as the thought process by which people take Scripture or any religious belief (a source of truth) and use it to justify error in belief or behavior.

It is a monstrous, monumental logical fallacy to make this non sequitur. It is indeed what the adage “throwing out the baby with the bathwater” is about (throwing out something good because something bad has come off of it).

You and Ed have attacked not just evolution, but all of science, both directly and by extension through the arguments that you have used. If you use your arguments consistently, you CANNOT be Catholic, because you MUST throw out most of Catholic belief because it has been abused by some to justify error.

 

[reggieM]

No, you cannot, because you are committing a grave fallacy and judgmental injustice by not including the all-important qualifier, “some.” You absolutely cannot conclude that all or even most scientists are “willing to lie in order to make money” from a reference to the words of a single person.

Please, get a grasp on basic logic (and on charity).

It might be helpful for you to review the quote I posted and recognize who wrote it. You seem to be dismissing this as referencing just one scientist.

Please note that the scientist referred to “we” – as in “scientists”. Notice also how he spoke for the “National Academy of Sciences” and referred to “scientists”.

So, I don’t think what you said refuted the point – scientists are willing to lie in order to make money. That statement does not imply that “all scientists” … etc. But perhaps rather than the qualifier “some”, you would prefer: “one of the most prominent, well-respected and popular evolutionary scientists states that he (and his colleagues) are willing to lie in order to gain grants from the government.”

Is that better? Perhaps in “charity” and “basic logic” you could admit this fact. (?)

…[Here is] is **a dirty little secret **in scientific circles. It is in our personal and professional interest to proclaim that science and religion are perfectly harmonious. After all, we want our grants funded by the government, and our schoolchildren exposed to real science instead of creationism. Liberal religious people have been important allies in our struggle against creationism, and it is not pleasant to alienate them by declaring how we feel. This is why, as a tactical matter, groups such as the National Academy of Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict. But their main evidence — the existence of religious scientists — is wearing thin as scientists grow ever more vociferous about their lack of faith.

– Jerry Coyne, University of Chicago, in The New Republic, Feb 4, 2009

For the record, I feel this is necessary not to expose the sinful-deceptions of evolutionary scientists like Jerry Coyne, but to observe the reaction from this quote – especially from those who attack ID as a “political crusade” based on comments from a few scientists.

But think about it anyway. Professor Coyne admits here publicly that there is a deception going on and he says it is in order to present a false image and secure government funding.

This is not very much different than Charles Darwins’ pretense at religion which he used to protect his reputation and keep his wife somewhat at peace (he would go to church with her to seem respectable but then stand outside). So, this kind of duplicity has deep roots in the evolutionary culture.

 

[Arandur]

Now we are getting into the crux of the matter. What you can say evolution is probably true, and I am not going to throw my keyboard at you since I’m fine with you thinking that and I’m happy to debate what parts of the theory are not logical, but what you can’t say evolution is fact or absolutely true. The former demonstrates scientific attitudes the latter fundamentalism and blindness.

I would agree with this to the extent that all of science, based on imperfect subjective observation, can’t be known with certitude; that the only thing we can know with certitude is God’s promise, and even then it is subject to faulty human interpretation.

With that concession in the inherent weakness of human knowledge, will you concede that there is a vast amount of information that we can know with very near certainty? And much of that is scientific knowledge?

I will also make the qualification Greg’s post made that evolutionary theory, limited to how we understand and explain and predict things, is theory and prone to error. The observations it is based on are fact and much more certain. Something could come along to better explain those observations, but unless it does, evolution is quite likely to be true.

Why do you hold out the expectation that it is not true, that something will come along to better explain things? That seems to me to be near “fundamentalism and blindness.”

 

[buffalo]

Peer review exists to reduce the occurrence of error. So does the repeatability requirement of science, whether by experiment or observation. Something observed once or twice by one or two scientists or even teams of scientists will be viewed as interesting, but far from well-established. Only after years of review, consideration by many, many scientists, many supporting observations demonstrating repeatability, and so forth does some scientific principle get accepted as well-established. This process greatly reduces the occurrence of error through falsification and alteration of data or failing to present data.

Please, learn a little something about the scientific discipline. Your ignorance of it is leading to a vast array of false premises and conclusions.

In order for your conclusion to be accurate, the conclusions of a single scientist would have to constitute all we have on the subject. It is simply not so.

Further, 2% or even 34% is far less than a majority. And because of the way science is carried out across the whole discipline, errors are not compounded in the manner in which you suggest, because primary source data is available to more than just the originating scientist.

It might help if you brush up on statistics and what they indicate, as well as on logic, to avoid the statistical misinterpretations and logical fallacies you seem consistently prone to.

Please learn about breaches in scientific discipline. It will help our discussion.

Again, I repeat, many conclusions are based on prior conclusions. Remember all the evolutionary frauds already perpetrated on the public. You want me to believe that suddenly all that has changed? I would think with all the grant and research money available there is a money grab going on.

Let me share with you a story:

Mystery of the Megaflood. One guy for many years was ignored. His theory did not fit the paradigm. It was suppressed and ridiculed for a long time.