Wednesday, November 9, 2016

The BBC on Evolution: Chris Stringer Puts the Hammer Down

Right There in the Mirror

British anthropologist Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London, a leading proponent of the “Out of Africa” hypothesis, is by any measure a leading light amongst evolutionists. And so not surprisingly religion drives his thinking. He made that clear in Chris Baraniuk’s article for the BBC about why evolution is a fact. As Baraniuk writes:

By comparing how many genes organisms share, we can figure out how they are related. For instance, humans share more genes with apes like chimps and gorillas than other animals, as much as 96%. That suggests they are our closest relatives.

"Try to explain that in any other way than the fact that those relationships are based on a sequence of changes through time," says Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London. "We have a common ancestor with chimpanzees, and we and they have diverged since then from that common ancestor."

In other words, according to Stringer, genetic similarities between humans and apes cannot be explained in any way other than evolution. This sentiment, which runs all through evolutionary thought, is not scientific, it is metaphysical.

Stringer and the evolutionists insist that there is no explanation, other than evolution, for similarities we observe between species, such as the high genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees.

And since there is no explanation, other than evolution, then we must conclude that “We have a common ancestor with chimpanzees.”

That must be the conclusion.

But this claim makes reference to the set of all possible explanations. You’ve got evolution, and then you’ve got all the others.

This means that Stringer and the evolutionists must have knowledge of all those explanations. All possible theories of origin are known to them.

Creationism comes to mind, but of course there could be different versions of creationism. And of course there could be other theories still.

A scientist, qua scientist, cannot have such knowledge. This is why Mr. Nelson was so careful to teach you in seventh grade science class that “The Scientist” works from observation to hypothesis to prediction to experiment. Scientists deal with hypotheses and theories, which they deduce and test.

They don’t make all-encompassing truth claims. The claim that Theory A explains Observation B is scientific. The claim that no theory except Theory A explains Observation B is metaphysical. A slight change in the language makes an enormous difference in the claim.

One is scientific, one is religious.

But it gets worse.

Because, as stated above, Stringer and the evolutionists are making claims about creationism. Stringer’s point is that God would not create genomes with so much similarity. This claim traces back to the Principle of Plenitude. That is the label that historian Arthur Lovejoy gave to a long running religious tradition in the history of thought about, simply put, how God would design the world.

The Principle of Plenitude is very much with us today, as much as it was with Plato, Anselm, Bruno, and Leibniz.

Evolutionists aren’t merely making some vague claims about colored marbles in an urn. They are making very specific claims about what God would and would not do.

That’s religious.

But it gets worse.

Not only are Stringer and the evolutionists driven by religious sentiment, but it forces them into a completely untenable position. If you genuinely want to test theories against the evidence, it is evolution that fails. In this case we’re talking about the comparisons between the species. How are they similar, and how are they different?

And these data demolish evolutionary theory.

The data do not fit the evolutionary model, not even close. One way to measure this is with the so-called consistency index, which consistently shows, pun intended, no consistency. The observables are closer to the random “null hypothesis” model than to the evolution model.

So while evolutionists criticize the skeptics for being religiously-driven, anti-science, smuggling metaphysics into science, and insisting on terrible theories, all those criticisms are, actually, right there in the mirror.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

21 comments:

  1. You or any other Creationist are free to provide any alternate explanation(s) besides evolution for the observed patterns in the genetic and fossil records. Just don't forget to provide your positive evidence for whatever you put forward. "Magic Space Pixies POOFED us into existence last Tuesday" is an explanation too but it is not considered because it has no evidence in support.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, the way Creationists push their woo despite the complete lack of any supporting scientific positive evidence is deplorable.

      Delete
  2. "In other words, according to Stringer, genetic similarities between humans and apes cannot be explained in any way other than evolution. This sentiment, which runs all through evolutionary thought, is not scientific, it is metaphysical."

    You should practice reading for comprehension. Where did he say that evolution was the only explanation. In fact, he didn't mention evolution at all in your extract. He only mentioned common ancestry, which does not necessitate evolution as we understand it. In fact, several prominent IDists accept common descent as "fact".

    The use of DNA comparisons to identify common descent has been extensively used and the tool has been calibrated against situations where the actual and true descent is known beyond any reasonable doubt. That is science, not metaphysics. And in none of these cases has there been a single bit of evidence that something other than evolution as we know it has been involved. In fact, I am not even aware that ID has ever been proposed as an explanation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WS.
      "The use of DNA comparisons to identify common descent has been extensively used and the tool has been calibrated against situations where the actual and true descent is known beyond any reasonable doubt. That is science, not metaphysics. And in none of these cases has there been a single bit of evidence that something other than evolution as we know it has been involved. In fact, I am not even aware that ID has ever been proposed as an explanation."

      How does DNA data identify common descent? How does it show that two species share a common ancestor when the ancestor is un identified? How does the speciation process create new protein sequences? How does it innovate new body plans?

      Delete
    2. BC: "How does DNA data identify common descent?"

      It's used hundreds of times a day to do just that.

      Delete
    3. You should practice reading for comprehension. Where did he say that evolution was the only explanation. In fact, he didn't mention evolution at all in your extract. He only mentioned common ancestry, which does not necessitate evolution as we understand it. In fact, several prominent IDists accept common descent as "fact".

      I'm afraid I am not the one here with the comprehension challenge. Stringer is not suggesting, or allowing for, design.

      The use of DNA comparisons to identify common descent has been extensively used and the tool has been calibrated against situations where the actual and true descent is known beyond any reasonable doubt. That is science ...

      No, that is a canard.

      Delete
    4. "No, that is a canard."

      The only canard is your statement that my statement is a canard. I would say that you are lying but it is possible that you are simply woefully ignorant of what DNA comparisons can tell you. Things that a thirty second google search can show you.

      Unless, of course, you are claiming that DNA tests for parentage are all wrong.

      Delete
    5. You are either woefully ignorant of biology or a troll (probably both). These are typical, ridiculous, arguments made by evolutionists. The notion that DNA paternity testing has any relevance is absurd. And yet, there it is. Evolutionists actually make this argument. #ConvictionsOfAMonkey

      Delete
    6. "The notion that DNA paternity testing has any relevance is absurd."

      So, a test designed to determine the level of relatedness between two organisms has no relavence to a test designed to determine the level of relatedness between two organisms. And, I assume, that DNA tests are not limited to determining parental relationships. It has also been used to determine the level of relationship between far more distantly related individuals.

      Delete
    7. WS
      "It's used hundreds of times a day to do just that."

      This is not an explanation of how it works.

      It is simply a statement from personal incredulity that it is used.

      How do you know that common ancestor A is the parent of specie B and C. How do you know specie B and C were the result of two separate species becoming isolated from specie A.

      How would you test for this and assign a confidence level?

      Delete
    8. "It is simply a statement from personal incredulity that it is used."

      No. It's a statement of fact.

      "How do you know that common ancestor A is the parent of specie B and C."

      I don't. And nobody has ever made such a claim. What scientists have done is perform DNA comparisons to infer the most likely species with the most recent common ancestor to humans. As an IDist, I am sure that you are familiar with the concept of inferences.

      "How would you test for this and assign a confidence level?"

      They then test their inference against the fossil record, morphological comparisons, other molecular comparisons, etc. With every bit of corroborating evidence, the confidence level increases.

      But the one thing that DNA comparisons do not do is inform us about what the cause of these changes were; whether they were natural or directed.

      Delete
    9. WS
      "They then test their inference against the fossil record, morphological comparisons, other molecular comparisons, etc. With every bit of corroborating evidence, the confidence level increases."

      What happens with evidence that contradicts the hypothesis?

      Delete
    10. WS
      "I don't. And nobody has ever made such a claim. What scientists have done is perform DNA comparisons to infer the most likely species with the most recent common ancestor to humans. As an IDist, I am sure that you are familiar with the concept of inferences."

      I am not an ID its but understand it is an inference argument like common descent.

      Do you have any evidence that two species with new features arose from a known common ancestor?

      Delete
    11. "Do you have any evidence that two species with new features arose from a known common ancestor?"

      You suffer from the same reading comprehension problems that Cornelius does. Where has anyone made this claim? We don't know the common ancestor of humans and chimps (or humans and any other species. Or any species with any other species). We infer it from many different sources of evidence (DNA, fossils, comparative anatomy, bio-geography, geology, stable isotope ratios, etc.). Again, nine of this is contrary to supernatural intervention. I really don't understand why anti-evolutionists are opposed to this.

      Delete
    12. Do you have any evidence that two species with new features arose from a known common ancestor?

      Define "new feature". Every new species has something different and therefore new from its immediate ancestor. Otherwise it wouldn't be a new species.

      Delete
    13. WS
      " We infer it from many different sources of evidence (DNA, fossils, comparative anatomy, bio-geography, geology, stable isotope ratios, etc.)"

      So this is still an inference argument only. The bases of argument "no supernatural intervention"
      required. The weakness is that we have thousands of common ancestors on the tree with not a single one identified through experiment. We don't have a valid experiment that shows how novel DNA sequences form (de novo proteins) through the speculation process. I agree you have identified common DNA sequences among species but as far as universal common descent goes you are a long way from a workable hypothesis.

      Delete
    14. " I agree you have identified common DNA sequences among species but as far as universal common descent goes you are a long way from a workable hypothesis."

      Tell that to Behe. He accepts common descent. Do you think that Behe is full of shit?

      Delete
    15. WS
      "Tell that to Behe. He accepts common descent. Do you think that Behe is full of shit?"

      I have discussed this with Mike. He simply chooses not to engage in this discussion. He believes there are similarities between species and differences and acknowledges that there are major differences that have not been explained. He chooses not to challenge common descent but to focus on the design inference.

      I think Mike is one of the most solid critical thinkers I have come across.

      Delete
    16. I agree that he is probably the most solid critical thinkers amongst the ID proponents. But that isn't saying very much.

      Delete
  3. This was a excellent and well written thread.
    AMEN on these points.
    This should be what all creationists or any thoughtful person in weighing these matters use as a intellectual boundary.

    It SO shows that common descent is based on lines of reasoning. its based on comparisons with only a option for like comparisons from like common origin.
    Its based on a lack of imagination for other options.

    THEN it shows the whole conclusion is not based on biological scientific evidence. Just a line of reasoning.
    SO provide another option and the whole common descent claim ceases to exist.
    If you think about it.

    creationism has another option.
    A creator with a common design inclusive with a common design for mechanisms to bring new like looking designs for new problems.

    We would all look alike if God simply had one blueprint.
    Diversity being on his concepts .Not our present ones.

    We would look like apes if we were uniquely unable to have a body of our own due to our identity as Gods image. The ape is the best body for a being in Gods image.
    What else?
    Yet its not demanding at all that likeness is proof/or evidence for common descent.

    Good grief. Is anything in evolutionary biology not about mere lines of reasoning? any thing of hard science at all?

    ReplyDelete