Enough Time for Evolution?

[LuisDantas]

It appears the argument is that if it supports ID, it can't be "Peer-reviewed".

Nope, although it may be a rather subtle distinction.

In a nutshell, supporting ID is only possible by way of lacking enough knowledge of biology to realize that it has no grounds for being proposed.

Tough, but that is how the dice roll.

I mean, if you want to say they're lying and committing fraud by calling themselves "Peer-reviewed" because they aren't affiliated with other organizations that you agree or with, or because they promote ID, I think you're having a True Scotsman fallacy and confirmation bias.

I suppose you would think so, until and unless you understood the biology involved. You will notice that it is all but completely impossible to find an ID proponent with actual biological knowledge.

Take your OP, for instance. As you have since emphasized in red and purple, the very abstract of Winston Ewert's article takes as a premise that Wilf and Ewens are assuming knowledge that they don't have about how genetic loci work. Yet Ewert does not even claim to have any actual biological study. He is basically telling biologists that he knows better about their field than they do, despite lacking the actual credentials.

Were Bio-Complexity a place for peer-reviewed articles, it would not even accept an article that commits such a basic mistake of hubris. And if it did by mistake, it would pass it through people with knowledge of the area, who would of course say that it is not fit for publication due to basic mistakes of understanding of how DNA works.

I suppose you could adopt a very partial reading of "peer reviewed" and run the article through some Computer Science personnel, but that wouldn't be very useful or very honest.

Sure, it may look at first glance that Bio-Complexity has to resort to people with no field credentials because of some sort of conspiracy or heavy bias. There is no shortage of people wanting to believe that it is so.

One has however to consider that the knowledge is available and has been tested by so many different, independent approaches that at this point it is very difficult to take denials seriously. If for no other reason, because the conspiracy theorists are implying that somehow all of the world's scientists have found common cause in refusing to take the opportunity to become famous and prestigious (among Creationists at least) by offering actual challenge to evolution.

As it turns out, many would, if they had a leg to stand on. Biologists are not immune to desire for fame.

 

[Shermana]

Okay, so it is in fact a matter of personal interpretation, confirmation bias about how biology does not show any reason for ID, and more about the author's credentials himself than the actual peers reviewing it or the data in question, got it, thanks.

You will notice that it is all but completely impossible to find an ID proponent with actual biological knowledge.

What an absolutely hubris-free, objective statement. I guess that's basically the summation of the argument. Can I quote you for a new thread?

 

[johnhanks]

You said this was conflation and bolded "For humans" and then said this doesn't apply to all organisms.

More precisely, what I said was the authors had made a calculation for humans and used the result as though it had general applicability.

Okay, how about actually discussing what it entails for humans then?

If the calculation were made for modern tech-age humans it would suggest our evolution would indeed be slow; no big surprise there - and no reason to extrapolate that conclusion to organisms in general (or indeed early hominids).

And please explain how Homeotic mutations would factor in.

The emphasis in both the Ewert article and the paper it critiqued was on changes in protein-encoding nucleotide sequences. Changes in homeobox genes will have effects on fitness of a different order of magnitude.

 

[Shermana]

More precisely, what I said was the authors had made a calculation for humans and used the result as though it had general applicability.
If the calculation were made for modern tech-age humans it would suggest our evolution would indeed be slow; no big surprise there - and no reason to extrapolate that conclusion to organisms in general (or indeed early hominids).
The emphasis in both the Ewert article and the paper it critiqued was on changes in protein-encoding nucleotide sequences. Changes in homeobox genes will have effects on fitness of a different order of magnitude.

Okay, but the subject is more than just for modern tech-age humans, we're talking about the development of humans in general. And please explain how exactly the homoebox gene changes factor in the equation in more detail.

 

[LuisDantas]

Okay, so it is in fact a matter of personal interpretation, confirmation bias about how biology does not show any reason for ID, and more about the author's credentials himself than the actual peers reviewing it or the data in question, got it, thanks.

I take it that you did not bother to understand the meaning of "peer-reviewed", then.

You will notice that it is all but completely impossible to find an ID proponent with actual biological knowledge.

What an absolutely hubris-free, objective statement. I guess that's basically the summation of the argument. Can I quote you for a new thread?

Sure, go ahead. Despite your misguided condescendence, it is an objective statement of truth, much as many people want to doubt it.

Mention Project Steve while you are at it.

Project Steve: Humorous Test of Scientists' Attitudes Towards Intelligent Design

 

[Shermana]

I take it that you did not bother to understand the meaning of "peer-reviewed", then.

I take it you did not bother to present anything more than a condescending smear.

Sure, go ahead. Despite your misguided condescendence, it is an objective statement of truth, much as many people want to doubt it.

The irony of you projecting this "Condesendence" here, and then claiming your view is an objective statement of truth. Thank you for demonstrating that you have nothing to actually offer here except blanket statements and smears. There's some condescension for you, and an objective statement to boot! Forum rules forbid me from saying further.

Mention Project Steve while you are at it.

Project Steve: Humorous Test of Scientists' Attitudes Towards Intelligent Design

[/QUOTE]

As if that has anything to do with it?

 

[johnhanks]

Okay, but the subject is more than just for modern tech-age humans, we're talking about the development of humans in general.

Since Ewert and co did not provide the data used in their calculation - merely the formula and its reported outcome - its applicability to "the development of humans in general" (whatever you mean by that) is not determinable. However, the abstract of the paper they reference confirms that the calculation was made for modern humans, whose effective population size is unusually low: this biases the calculation to give the very long fixation time Ewert and co so desperately wish to establish.

And please explain how exactly the homoebox gene changes factor in the equation in more detail.

In your OP you demanded a great deal of work from your respondents. Why don't you do a little yourself?

 

[Shermana]

Since Ewert and co did not provide the data used in their calculation - merely the formula and its reported outcome - its applicability to "the development of humans in general" (whatever you mean by that) is not determinable. However, the abstract of the paper they reference confirms that the calculation was made for modern humans, whose effective population size is unusually low: this biases the calculation to give the very long fixation time
Ewert and co so desperately wish to establish.

So what precisely does this have to do with the calculations for say, the transition from Chimp to Humanoid to Human, from the calculation? And do you feel there is good reason to deny the reported outcome of Ewert & Co from the data they are examining with or without regard to having what data they used in this calculation (of which I will go back and see if this is the case that no data was provided, whether in the review or in later addendum). What is the current time frame estimation for the coordinated allele changes from even just Chimp to Erectus?

In your OP you demanded a great deal of work from your respondents. Why don't you do a little yourself?

Is that your way of avoiding your burden of proof by asking me to research your own claims for you of which you simply stated they are a factor?

You made the claim, now back it up. Why you didn't provide any further information on their relevance is beyond me.

 

[LuisDantas]

I take it you did not bother to present anything more than a condescending smear.

Unfortunately, I can't take responsibility for your perception any longer beyond presenting the information as best as I can.

The irony of you projecting this "Condesendence" here, and then claiming your view is an objective statement of truth.

Yet, that is what it is: it is all but impossible to find a proponent of ID - or of Creationism in general, incidentally - who has actual biological knowledge.

Which is not to be a surprise, seeing as how the whole point of what is currently known as Creationism is to deny biological knowledge.

(...) As if that has anything to do with it?

You had just asked me whether you could cite me, I okayed it and gave you some supporting evidence. Maybe you should stop asking for things you do not want.

 

[johnhanks]

So what precisely does this have to do with the calculations for say, the transition from Chimp to Humanoid to Human, from the calculation? And do you feel there is good reason to deny the reported outcome of Ewert & Co from the data they are examining with or without regard to having what data they used in this calculation (of which I will go back and see if this is the case that no data was provided, whether in the review or in later addendum). What is the current time frame estimation for the coordinated allele changes from even just Chimp to Erectus?

Try as I might, I can find no reference in Ewert et al to the time frame for "the transition from Chimp to Humanoid to Human"*. As I explained in post 6, all Ewert & co have done is point out what they claim are inadequacies in a model that sets out to show ample time for biological evolution to have occurred; even if those inadequacies were real, Ewert & co have done nothing to show that there has been inadequate time.

* And humans, by the way, did not evolve from chimps.

Is that your way of avoiding your burden of proof by asking me to research your own claims for you of which you simply stated they are a factor?

My point is that any modelling of rates of evolution that does not take homeotic mutations into account is going to give very unreliable results.

Why you didn't provide any further information on their relevance is beyond me.

In the same way, you mean, that you so carefully explained the relevance of "Figure*3 (a plot of Equation 10)" in your copy-and-paste from Ewert et al in the OP? As I said, you expected a lot of spade-work from people responding to your challenge; it did not seem unreasonable to expect you in turn to look up homeotic mutations and work out their relevance for yourself.

Small changes in homeobox genes can cause very large changes in phenotype: for this reason, they have been heavily conserved in evolution. This heavy conservation, however, does not preclude major evolutionary change resulting from quite small changes in their base sequence, a factor wholly omitted both from Ewert et al and the paper they were responding to.

 

[Shermana]

Excuse me, I should have said chimp-thing, or "ape".

As I said, you expected a lot of spade-work from people responding to your challenge; it did not seem unreasonable to expect you in turn to look up homeotic mutations and work out their relevance for yourself.

Small changes in homeobox genes can cause very large changes in phenotype: for this reason, they have been heavily conserved in evolution. This heavy conservation, however, does not preclude major evolutionary change resulting from quite small changes in their base sequence, a factor wholly omitted both from Ewert et al and the paper they were responding to.

Okay, so that's justifying your lack of backing up your own claim and then not answering anything specific in your follow through on how the "very large changes in Phenotype" work exactly in a way which you feel wasn't covered in how you believe the small changes in the base sequence reflect "Major evolutionary changes" due to heavy conservation. Thank you for the effort though, even if it's nothing close to an actual substantiated rebuttal. Maybe on your next effort you'd like to provide some examples for discussion.

11 pages in and we have yet to see any actual serious, detailed rebuttals. Hopefully someone who actually understands what they claim to be talking about and can provide a thorough analysis and comment on how specifically the data is in question or how things are misrepresented or ignored in a way which is cogent to the issues on the opposing side will chime in eventually.

 

[rusra02]

Exactly. Arguments get debunked, not people.

Really? Perhaps you should read the post 2 posts later than your claim, where the poster said of Behe: "It takes a whole new level of stupid to have the university you teach in publicly decry you...."

Persons who believe the evidence supports ID are routinely smeared and personally attacked. You have but to read what is posted.

 

[johnhanks]

Excuse me, I should have said chimp-thing, or "ape".

Common ancestor of chimps and humans would have done nicely.

Okay, so that's justifying your lack of backing up your own claim and then not answering anything specific in your follow through on how the "very large changes in Phenotype" work exactly in a way which you feel wasn't covered in how you believe the small changes in the base sequence reflect "Major evolutionary changes" due to heavy conservation.

Any chance of getting that in English?

Thank you for the effort though, even if it's nothing close to an actual substantiated rebuttal. Maybe on your next effort you'd like to provide some examples for discussion.

Maybe you'd like to discuss how selecting a species with large N and very small Ne for a probability calculation involving the expression Ne/N, and then passing off the resulting low probability as typical, is good honest science.

11 pages in and we have yet to see any actual serious, detailed rebuttals. Hopefully someone who actually understands what they claim to be talking about and can provide a thorough analysis and comment on how specifically the data is in question or how things are misrepresented or ignored in a way which is cogent to the issues on the opposing side will chime in eventually.

See above for an example of "how specifically the data is [sic] in question"; I await your serious, detailed rebuttal.

 

[LuisDantas]

He is basically telling biologists that he knows better about their field than they do, despite lacking the actual credentials.

In fact, Bio-Complexity tells us so. Ewert's article is listed as a Critical Focus piece.

Vol 2012

And how does B-C describe that category?

BIO-Complexity has added a new category of peer-reviewed papers, under the heading Critical Focus. The description for authors is:

Critical Focus papers provide peer-reviewed critical analysis that is narrower than a Critical Review, focusing either on a more narrow subject or on a smaller part of the existing literature. The focus may be one or a few closely related papers published elsewhere that fall within BIO-Complexity's stated scope. This category allows for more extended technical analyses of a single study than would be appropriate for a Critical Review, as well as shorter treatments of more specific subjects than would justify a Critical Review.

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/announcement/view/11


The site itself has it as a six-page PDF by four authors. Two of them, including the leading one, claim to be from Electrical & Computer Engineering, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, USA, while the two remaining are from Discovery Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA and Biologic Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA

Ann Gauger, the third author, does have a formation in biology and seems to be a staunch Creationist, though. You may want to take a look at her larger work, which includes at least one Creationist book.

CSC - Science and Human Origins

 

[tumbleweed41]

Ahem....

I have an idea Shermana.

Read and critique the actual peer reviewed paper and quote from there anything you feel is a specific critique that accurately attacks what they say and back up your accusations with counter-evidence from actual peer reviewed studies.

 

[johnhanks]

Admission of error.

In post 6 I wrote, over-hastily,

Ewert and co. make great play of biological factors they claim Wilf and Ewens ignore (epistasis, pleiotropy, etc) without once demonstrating that incorporating these factors into the model would make the difference they wish to see...

My mistake: in re epistasis, Ewert and co. did attempt on p.6 to recruit the phenomenon to their cause:

This epistasis, as it is called, can occur between different genes, or between mutations in a single gene [32−34]. A set of mutations in one context can be beneficial, but in another context deleterious or even lethal. In fact, research suggests that epistasis causes diminishing returns among beneficial mutations.

As before, however, the honesty of their argument can be called into question.

Note first the subtle conflation of "deleterious or even lethal" with "diminishing returns". The latter means that successive epistatic mutations add less fitness than previous ones - not that they are "deleterious".
Second, the research revealing these diminishing returns is restricted to mutations conferring antibiotic resistance on bacteria, and a paper not cited by Ewert and co. points out that

... if mutations have additive effects on resistance, a mutation that confers complete resistance to an antibiotic will provide a small benefit in a genotype that already has a high level of antibiotic resistance and a large benefit in a genotype that has a low level of antibiotic resistance.

In other words, diminishing returns go with this particular territory and are not necessarily applicable elsewhere.

Shermana, you asked that we show you

how things are misrepresented or ignored in a way which is cogent to the issues

You now have several such examples to chew over.

 

[Falvlun]

Really? Perhaps you should read the post 2 posts later than your claim, where the poster said of Behe: "It takes a whole new level of stupid to have the university you teach in publicly decry you...."

Persons who believe the evidence supports ID are routinely smeared and personally attacked. You have but to read what is posted.

Think about how you would consider geocentrists. Imagine a geocentrist who works as an astronomy professor at a university.

You can't even take these guys seriously because they are denying something for which there is a huge and undeniable amount of evidence.

There is nothing there that deserves anything but ridicule.

 

[Alceste]

So what precisely does this have to do with the calculations for say, the transition from Chimp to Humanoid to Human, from the calculation? And do you feel there is good reason to deny the reported outcome of Ewert & Co from the data they are examining with or without regard to having what data they used in this calculation (of which I will go back and see if this is the case that no data was provided, whether in the review or in later addendum). What is the current time frame estimation for the coordinated allele changes from even just Chimp to Erectus?




Is that your way of avoiding your burden of proof by asking me to research your own claims for you of which you simply stated they are a factor?

You made the claim, now back it up. Why you didn't provide any further information on their relevance is beyond me.

How can you expect to be taken seriously if you think humans are descended from chimpanzees (or apes)?

The trouble with your strategy - selecting such an absurdly specific and inaccessible concept from a paper that is basically gibberish to anybody with a basic layman's grasp of evolution - is that you then go and make comments like this that show you don't even have a grasp of the basics. You're like a student demanding your teacher explain calculus when you haven't even learned how to add and subtract.

 

[outhouse]

Persons who believe the evidence supports ID are routinely smeared and personally attacked. You have but to read what is posted.

Generally because they have not made a credible case beyond faith alone.


That and most of the time dishonesty is part of their arguement. So they are called on it.



Scientifically, and biblically, there is ZERO evidence for ID.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The whole strategy and purpose of this thread is a dishonest sham.