There Are No Crucial Experiments

Posted by Matt Young on June 1, 2004 07:00 PM

In one of the comments to my recent posting, “Why Not Teach the Controversy?”, someone called “Navy Davy” repeatedly called for evolutionary biologists to provide the “best evidence … that supports the theory of evolution.” Merely by asking the question in that way, Mr. Davy displays a woeful misunderstanding of science and how science works.

Simply put, there is never a single best piece of evidence; there is no crucial experiment or observation that will validate any theory whatsoever.  Theories are accepted according to whether or not they explain data better than some competing theories - a mountain of evidence, if you will.

Let me give a simple, not entirely hypothetical example.  Suppose that you have developed a theory that the relative atomic masses (atomic weights) of atoms ought to be integers because the nuclei are made of neutrons and protons and you think that neutrons and protons have the same mass.  The relative atomic mass of any atom is proportional to the mass of the atom divided by that of carbon, whose relative atomic mass is defined as 12.

You start by weighing the elements in order and calculating their relative atomic masses.  Hydrogen: 1.008.  Pretty close.  Helium: 4.003.  Lithium: 6.941.  Beryllium: 9.012.  Boron: 10.81.  Hmmm; a little off.  Nitrogen: 14.007.  Oxygen: 16.00.  Neon: 20.18.  Pretty good agreement, you think; my theory is on the right track. No single measurement, however, is critical; rather, it is the consistency of all the measurements that convinces you that you may have a valid theory.

You go along happy as a clam at high tide until you come to chlorine.  True, the masses of the other elements are not exactly integers, but they are close, so you infer that you are on the right track but that something more may be going on.  Maybe protons and neutrons have slightly different masses, for example.

Chlorine, however, has a relative atomic mass of 35.453 - almost exactly between 2 integers.  What’s going on?  You have several choices, among them: put away chlorine for a later date and continue measuring, throw away your theory and become a lawyer, or try to find out what’s anomalous about chlorine.

At first glance, the case of chlorine seems to falsify your theory.  Indeed, a single disconfirming measurement is potentially more serious than any number of apparently confirming measurements.  It takes only one blond to falsify the theory that all Europeans have black or brown hair.  So you decide to examine chlorine more closely.  You formulate the ad hoc hypothesis that chlorine has two or more isotopes and naturally occurring chlorine is a combination of two or more isotopes.  Further, each isotope (you theorize) will have a relative atomic mass that is an integer.  You devise a means for separating the isotopes of chlorine and, sure enough, it has several isotopes whose average mass is 35.453.  You go on and measure the rest of the elements and find others that have more than one isotope.

You have evidence now that atoms are made up of protons and neutrons, and you can even figure out how many of each reside in each atomic nucleus.  Other evidence includes the (absolute)  masses of protons and neutrons, which add up correctly to give the masses of all of your atoms.  Radioactive decay of atoms further supports your theory.  Finally, you build an atom smasher and physically knock helium nuclei from some heavy atoms.

You have, let us say, three bits of evidence to support your theory: the relative masses of atoms, the actual masses (in kilograms), and the atom-smashing experiments.  Which one is crucial?  None.  What convinces you is the body of evidence.

Still, there is an anomaly in your theory: The mass of an atomic nucleus is not exactly equal to the masses of the constituent protons and neutrons.  Does the fact rule out your theory?  Not at all; Newtonian physics could not explain why the orbit of Mercury didn’t quite close, but it was a tremendously successful theory all the same.  The mass difference is, similarly, a smallish anomaly that you will leave for future researchers.  Your theory has been too fruitful to be discarded just because of a small discrepancy, and you have been rewarded by being removed from science and made the department chair.

Along comes a layperson who has a rudimentary knowledge of physics.  He does not believe in protons and neutrons, and asks you for your “best” evidence.  You reply, well, there is no “best” evidence.  Here is the evidence:  And you outline your reasoning in detail.

The layman is not satisfied and keeps bugging you.  He seems to think that nuclei are little, indivisible billiard balls created by God with their present masses.  He has, however, no evidence to support his contention that the nuclei are indivisible and cannot refute your atom-smashing experiments.  So he reverts to gaps in your record, such as the discrepancy between the masses.  He claims that the nucleus could not stick together because of the electromagnetic repulsion between the protons.  When you explain about the strong nuclear force, he becomes impatient and announces that you have just made that up to support your failed theory. 

Finally, he asks you to debate.  There is, however, nothing to debate.  No reputable scientists support his position. His arguments have no scientific merit, and he has proposed no new experiments, made no new observations.  You explain these (to you) obvious objections, but he insists on a debate and eventually calls you supercilious and a “dogmatic protonist.”  He may even mount a public-relations campaign to have his pet theory of nuclear indestructability taught alongside standard physics and chemistry.

The state of evolutionary biology is analogous to the atomic mass theory.  It is supported by several separate but linked streams of evidence: paleontological, morphological, genetic, and developmental, all of which are tied together by a wealth of mathematical, statistical, and computational theory.  There is no single “best” bit of evidence, any more than a table has one crucial leg; the theory is a unified whole and is as well supported as any theory in science.  It is questioned almost exclusively by laypeople who would not have the audacity to challenge any other settled scientific theory but unaccountably think that evolution is fair game.

Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/244

Comment #3269

Posted by steve on June 1, 2004 07:23 PM (e) (s)

Your hypothetical situation is especially funny because to help with their evolution denials, some particularly dumb creationists have literally claimed that “the nucleus could not stick together because of the electromagnetic repulsion between the protons.” It’s in a Jack Chick tract. I think Chick’s character condescendingly says something like “Gluons are a lie.” Or words to that effect, and then goes on to explain that jesus holds atoms together. 

I do wonder about the mystery you mentioned. Why do laymen with HS degrees think that if their opinion on a biological topic conflicts with the scientific consensus, there’s a chance in hell they’re right? Do they reall believe the bible so strongly that it overcomes all reason? Lately, I think the answer is yes. No wonder they fear and despise critical thinking classes.

Comment #3270

Posted by Navy Davy on June 1, 2004 07:32 PM (e) (s)

Merely by asking the question in that way, Mr. Davy displays a woeful misunderstanding of science and how science works.

How woeful is this?

1. Form a hypothesis;
2. Test it;
3. Analyze the results;
4. Form a conclusion;
5. Make a prediction

Repeat early and often.

Say, maybe you mensa scholars ain’t as bright as I originally thought:)

Surely, you ain’t postulatin’ that the theory of macroevolution is somehow immune to the aforementioned 5-step number.

Cheers, Boys!

Mr. Navy Davy

Comment #3271

Posted by Jack Krebs on June 1, 2004 07:46 PM (e) (s)

Matt’s point is that the above 5 step procedure has been done thousands upon thousands of times on different aspects of evolutionary theory and its related fields.  No one experiment, nor no one bit of evidence, summarizes or encapsulates all that work.  It all is tied together in a multitudinous web of tested hypothesis.

As Matt says, asking for “the best evidence” to be presented in a nutshell in a discussion on the internet seems to show a grossly simplified misunderstanding of the vast amount of interwoven and highly technical data that accumulatively provide the evidence for the theory of evolution.

Comment #3272

Posted by RBH on June 1, 2004 07:53 PM (e) (s)

Navy Davy wrote

How woeful is this?

1. Form a hypothesis;
2. Test it;
3. Analyze the results;
4. Form a conclusion;
5. Make a prediction

Repeat early and often.

Say, maybe you mensa scholars ain’t as bright as I originally thought:)

Surely, you ain’t postulatin’ that the theory of macroevolution is somehow immune to the aforementioned 5-step number.

Which completely fails to address Matt’s central point.  Good lawyerly move: change the subject.  Incidentally, as pointed out elsewhere, macroevolution isn’t a “theory”; it’s a phenomenon.  Theories explain phenomena, and are tested by something a bit more complex than Navy Day’s over-simplified version.  Read Matt’s posting again, particularly the bit about multiple convergent lines of evidence.  It’s the convergence of multiple independent lines of evidence that form powerful corroboration for theories like the modern syntehesis, not isolated observations.  Much as creationists wish it to be, science isn’t a cosmic oddity shop stuffed helter-skelter with miscellaneous data points.

RBH

Comment #3274

Posted by Johnnie C. on June 1, 2004 07:55 PM (e) (s)

Matt

Yours was one of the best posts I’ve seen on the PT since its inception — a perfect analogy for creationist/ID apologist “logic.” 

How many of our children’s critical thinking skills have been stunted, I wonder, by having this “traditional” “explanation” for chlorine’s molecular weight shoved down their throats by science teachers around the country? ;)

Oh, and I see that our slick and slimy ambulance chaser has crawled out from the damp crotch of one of his “zillions of experts” and resurfaced with the usual advice and brainteaser.  In so doing, he shows us that he has entirely missed the point of Matt’s post (and the posts of numerous others who have previously and earnestly responded to his questions).

I’ve been keeping track of your sludge since Day 1, Davy.  The rancid secretions from your toad mouth leave an easy trail to follow.

Comment #3275

Posted by Eric on June 1, 2004 07:55 PM (e) (s)

Apparently, you stopped reading the article the moment you hit that  phrase.  There isn’t one key 5-step process that “proves the theory.”  It’s the combination of _multiple_ 5-step processes, none necessarily more “important” than any other, which nail the sucker down.

For the theory of gravity, would the key piece of evidence be the falling apple, the orbiting moon or the translation of Kepler’s Laws into Newtonian equations?

…and evolution has a _lot_ more broadly ranging implications than gravity.  Physics is _simple_. ;-)

Comment #3276

Posted by Navy Davy on June 1, 2004 08:06 PM (e) (s)

I did read Matt Young’s posting again — he offers a verbose hypothetical involving protons, neutrons, muons, hadrons and some other jive, that no sane person would ever care about. The central question of the day remains — Is macroevolution the best explanation of how complex organisms came to exist or not?

If so, Great! But, Why?

I reckon y’all object to my use of the word, “best” in request for the “best evidence.” What adjective would y’all prefer?

BTW, just so we clear up any misunderstanding — I ain’t a creationist. I’m just a bit more curious than some of you regimented, conformist science geeks:) Y’all need a big dose of Richard Feynman!

As Always,

Navy Davy

Comment #3277

Posted by Navy Davy on June 1, 2004 08:16 PM (e) (s)

Oh, Matt Young, before I forget,

If your gonna characterize my comments, you probably should avoid misleadin’ folks:

I’m interested in the best evidence of both macroevolution and ID. Fair is fair. No goal-post movin’ for either side.

Hey, my man Johnnie C! The ubiquitous commentator with nuthin’ to say. How ya been, boy?

Comment #3278

Posted by Army Barney on June 1, 2004 08:23 PM (e) (s)

Is macroevolution the best explanation of how complex organisms came to exist or not? If so, Great! But, Why?

Why?  Because that explanation perfectly justifies the secular humanist and materialistic naturalist beliefs of scientists by proposing that we arose randomly from muck rather than the hand of a loving God (the latter theory being the favorite theory of our mortal enemies, the Christians).  It seemed like a good theory for a while, but I guess the jig is up for us scientists.

Okay, everyone!  Show’s over!  Pack up the tent.  The age of science has officially ended, June 1, 2004 (rather fitting, as the summer is about to begin).  Enter the age of Feymanistic Design!  All hail Navy Davy for showing us the error of our ways!

Navy Davy, would you draft a letter to the President informing him of this change?  I expect it’s going to be a big deal at the National Academy and the NIH.  Thanks again for showing us the light.

Comment #3280

Posted by RBH on June 1, 2004 08:30 PM (e) (s)

Navy Davy wrote

I did read Matt Young’s posting again — he offers a verbose hypothetical involving protons, neutrons, muons, hadrons and some other jive, that no sane person would ever care about. The central question of the day remains — Is macroevolution the best explanation of how complex organisms came to exist or not?

It’s best that Navy Davy never practices before SCOTUS.  I’m told that they make heavy use of hypotheticals in their questioning during oral arguments.  Navy Davy may have reread Matt’s posting, but he either didn’t understand it or he’s still evading its point.  My vote is for the latter.

Navy Davy wrote

I’m just a bit more curious than some of you regimented, conformist science geeks:) Y’all need a big dose of Richard Feynman!

I doubt very much that Navy Davy is more curious than the average science geek.  Less critical perhaps, and less knowledgeable for sure, but no more curious.

I’ve read a bit of Feynman.  One thing that impressed me about him was that he knew how to proceed once he had done some speculative thinking.  He also knew how to synthesize disparate lines of evidence into a coherent picture.

RBH

Comment #3281

Posted by Navy Davy on June 1, 2004 08:40 PM (e) (s)

RBH,

It’s best that Navy Davy never practices before SCOTUS.  I’m told that they make heavy use of hypotheticals in their questioning during oral arguments.

Hypotheticals, Yes…..but not as a substitute for, well, the best evidence.

I bet I know more about physics than you ….. know about law:)

You boys really need to lighten up.

Nighty-night,

Navy Davy

Comment #3282

Posted by Virge on June 1, 2004 09:06 PM (e) (s)

Davy,
Yes it is the best explanation.
Why?
1. It provides a consistent, testable explanation for the huge mass of available evidence.
2. It provides a fruitful basis for discovering more.

The only thing that isn’t in its favour is that creationists find it conflicts with their beliefs. This makes them frightened and angry.

It would be nice to have one simple experiment that would convince even a frightened creationist, however Golomb’s Law (Everything in biology is more complicated than you think it is, even taking into account Golomb’s Law) forbids. This means that it takes effort to understand. It doesn’t get served up on a plate.

I’m a bit of a regimented, conformist geek when it comes to answers like “2 + 2 = 4”. I don’t think Richard Feynman can help me there.

“And he’s talking with Davy who’s still in the navy
And probably will be for life” - Billy Joel.
(a lightening up for Davy, who seems to be all at sea)

Comment #3285

Posted by steve on June 1, 2004 10:58 PM (e) (s)

In philosophy they call it Coherentism. Scientists often know it from the excellent book Web of Belief by Quine, or from picking it up subconsciously by participating in the machinations of science. Science seems to take a coherentist philosophy. The more connected a thing is to other known things, the more believable it is. When something’s sufficiently integral to and coherent with the total knowledge, it’s considered a fact. Evolution is just such a fact. Given what we know, it’s unreasonable to think evolution’s wrong. I started to write about why ID doesn’t address anything we know, and requires unreasonably large amounts of what we do know to be wrong, but I doubt I have the Michael Jordon-class rhetoric to persuade any of them, if it’s even possible, which I’m not convinced it is. Do check out Web of Belief, though. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0075536099/104…

Comment #3286

Posted by steve on June 1, 2004 11:26 PM (e) (s)

I do have a question for my science-oriented (i.e. evolutionist) friends, which I’ll try to word carefully because it could easily sound critical, which I don’t mean it to. Why argue with creationists? I’d like to know a good reason. Myself, I don’t see any.

And let me distinguish—I don’t mean, why argue against them in schools, or to the lay public. I mean, why argue with them in person, as if to persuade them? From years of observation I consider them essentially hostile and immune to persausion to the most basic fact if it disagrees with their religion. Evolution will conflict with conservative muslims, christians, jews, and so forth until the end of time.

Are you doing it to persuade them because you consider them persuadable? Or to excercise your rhetorical chops for when it matters? Or for amusement in making them deny the obvious? I’m curious as to the reason people do it, because I don’t understand why. 

(the implicit danger here is that someone will have a very good answer, and I’ll be back to arguing with them myself ;-) )

Comment #3287

Posted by RBH on June 2, 2004 12:00 AM (e) (s)

I’ve finally figured out why Navy Davy gets on my nerves.  Decades ago I did a (brief!) stint in graduate school in anthropology.  My advisor, who ran the first-year proseminar, asked lots of questions, some of them excellent questions, some wholly imcomprehensible.  That’s OK: badgering grad students with questions in proseminar is expected.  But what drove me bats about him was that he couldn’t recognize a good answer if it bit him on the ass.  Navy Davy reminds me of him, and of why I left anthro earlier than I planned.

RBH

Comment #3288

Posted by Jim Flannery on June 2, 2004 12:03 AM (e) (s)

Hey Davy a/k/a , is http://www.davidicke.net/emagazine/vol22/health/aids-atty.html you? Are you the guy whose name is next to Philip Johnson’s in the acknowledgements section of Duesberg’s “Chemical bases of the various AIDS Epidemics” paper?

Comment #3289

Posted by darwinfinch on June 2, 2004 12:42 AM (e) (s)

What a crashing bore it must be to you dedicated science-type guys to refute the endlessly “clever” bu—sh— of lillipution intellects such as N.D. - these demanders of fairness, equal shares of your time and space, but not of theirs, and logic, the apex of which is their own argument - only to then deal with bands of excrement-throwing/bible-quoting yahoos!
 

  In his mind, so-called, flies simply do not land upon N.D., perhaps.  He may believe (though I now doubt even this) that he is being open-minded, but the only question I have is: is he being dishonest with himself as well, or only with us?
  Why bother to present a mirror to a man vain enough to brag of his harelip?

Comment #3291

Posted by Matt Young on June 3, 2004 05:31 PM (e) (s)

Thanks to all who have posted comments to my original posting. 

I am grateful to Johnnie C. for his praise, though I must demur and add that I think there have been a lot of good articles on PT.  I am concerned, however, about Mr. C.’s intemperate, ad-hominem attack on Navy Davy.  I am sorry, but if those who respond to my postings cannot maintain decorum, I will either delete their responses or relegate them to the bathroom wall of PT.  I direct the same admonition to darwinfinch: If you have nothing of substance to say, please keep to yourself.  See also Jack Krebs’s second comment, above.

Steve (presumably S. B. Story) asks why debate with creationists?  A very fair question, and one my wife and harshest critic is constantly asking.  The answer is that I do not debate with creationists any more than I debate with Holocaust deniers, HIV deniers, or other evolution deniers.  There is nothing to debate.

The anti-science, anti-evolution movement is heavily funded.  It makes inroads every time it loses some school board vote to teach creationism (suitably disguised) by a 3-2 vote of a local school board.  It is necessary to expose their arguments for those willing to become informed about the issues.  If it looks as if we are trying to convince those who have made up their minds and are immune to evidence, that seems to me to be only an illusion.  We are, rather, trying to expose their falsehoods.

Mr. Navy Davy, I gather, is a lawyer.  I am certain that he understands far better than he pretends, and I think he is baiting us.  I do not take bait, but I will make one remark.

Suppose that some layperson came to Mr. Davy and said, it seems unreasonable that you can be held liable for something you did not know; the law can’t possibly say that.  Mr. Davy would begin by explaining that, indeed, you can be held liable for something that you should have known, even if you did not know it.  If the layperson persisted, Mr. Davy would show him or her law books and precedents (or whatever lawyers consider evidence).  If the layperson insisted that those law books were wrong, it couldn’t possibly be that way, Mr. Davy would no doubt give up in despair.  After all, he, not the layperson, is the expert, and the layperson is expected to listen when Mr. Davy authoritatively explains something about which he is an expert.

Not to put too fine a point on it, when you want a legal opinion, go to a lawyer, not a scientist; when you want a scientific opinion, go to a scientist, not a lawyer.  I cannot fathom what it is about evolution that makes laypersons think they can pontificate authoritatively about a subject they know only in passing.

Maybe Mr. Davy knows more about physics than we know about the law; so what?  He does not know enough about science, or pretends he doesn’t, and instead makes taunting, inappropriate comments that are sort of high-class Johnnie C.  My attitude to Mr. Davy and others like him is similar to that of the lawyer toward the layperson: I will be happy to explain something to him, if it is in my area of expertise, but I will not argue. It is up to Mr. Davy whether he pays attention or not.

Comment #3292

Posted by Matt Young on June 3, 2004 05:41 PM (e) (s)

I’m sorry; I omitted the following when I cut and pasted my comment above:

I am not familiar with Mr. Story’s term “coherentism,” but everything he says in his later comment seems sound to me, and I will check his reference on the weekend.  Thank you for adding that bit of information.

Comment #3296

Posted by steve on June 3, 2004 06:35 PM (e) (s)

Thanks Matt. I’m interested to see what everyone else thinks, too, regarding why to argue with the creationists.

You mention something else that’s interesting. I used to have a paralegal friend from South Cakilackey. He’d ask me science questions and I’d ask him law questions. In this case, I knew more about the law than he knew about science (He once asked how could it be true that some fish evolve coloration similar to toxic or dangerous fish as protection, since the emulating fish couldn’t be expected to understand he’d be protected that way.) But the point is, when I’d ask him something about law, and he’d explain that it’s well understood that so and so, I never argued the point. If I though I saw a problem I’d try to bring it up, or say “Well, doesn’t that conflict with…?” But even if it didn’t make sense to me I’d never just conclude that he’s wrong and I’m right. There’s a reason they’re the experts at law and I’m not. That means something. Yet I see people arguing evolution who couldn’t pass a freshman biology exam. One thing 30 physics, math, chemistry, and biology classes taught me is, when the experts say something, even if it looks wrong ten ways to Sunday, you can be skeptical, but don’t bet against them.

One of the reasons I don’t think it’s usually valuable to argue with creationists is they seldom know enough to understand what you’re saying. Look at these recent abuses of information theory and entropy. They don’t know enough to understand the explanation for why they’re wrong, and/or they’ve got so much misunderstanding that you can’t find where to begin.

Comment #3297

Posted by Scott Simmons on June 3, 2004 07:29 PM (e) (s)

Geez, guys, is it that hard to answer Navy Davy’s request? In the spirit of this essay, here’s some to get him started:

Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species (1859)
Darwin, Charles, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (1874)
Luria and Delbruck, 1943, Mutations of Bacteria from Virus Sensitivity to Virus Resistance, Genetics 28: 491 - 511
Lederberg and Lederberg, 1952, J. Bact. 63: 399 - 406
Crick 1968, The origin of the genetic code, Journal of Molecular Biology vol 38 pg 367
Dobhzansky 1973, Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution, American Biology Teacher 35: 125-129
Penney, et.al. 1982, Testing the theory of evolution by comparing phylogenetic trees constructed from five different protein sequences, Nature 297: 197-200
Cairns, et.al., 1988, The origin of mutants, Nature 335: 142 - 145
Hall, 1990, Spontaneous Point Mutations That Occur More Often When Advantageous Than When Neutral, Genetics 126: 5 - 16
Meyer, et. al., 1990, Monophyletic origin of Lake Victoria cichlid fishes suggested by mitochondrial DNA sequences, Nature 347: 550-553
Breeuwer and Werren, 1990, Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species, Nature 346: 558 - 560
Gwynne and Simmons, 1990, Experimental reversal of courtship roles in an insect, Nature 346: 172 - 174
Gingerich, et. el., 1990, Hind Limbs of Eocene Basilosaurus: Evidence of Feet in Whales, Science 249: 154-156
Golenberg, et.al., 1990, Chloroplast DNA sequence from a Miocene Magnolia species, Nature 344: 656 - 658
Houde and Endler, 1990, Correlated Evolution of Female Mating Preferences and Male Color Pattern in the Guppy Poecilia reticulata, Science 248: 1405 - 1408
Schwagmeyer and Parker, 1990, Male mate choice as predicted by sperm competition in thirteen lined ground squirrels, Nature 348: 62 - 64
Basolo, 1990, Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish, Science 250: 808 - 810
Chao, 1990, Fitness of an RNA virus decreased by Muller’s ratchet, Nature 348: 454 - 455
Bowcock, et. al., 1991, Drift, admixture and selection in human evolution: A study with DNA polymorphisms. PNAS 88: 893-843
Douglas, et. al., 1991, Cryptomonad algae are evolutionary chimaeras of two phylogenetically distinct unicellular eukaryotes, Nature 350: 148-150
eram, et. al., 1990, Land Animals in the Silurian: Arachnids and Myriapods from Shropshire, England, Science 250: 658 - 660
Pilbeam, et. al., 1990, New Sivapithecus humeri from Pakistan and the relationship of Sivapithecus and Pongo, Nature 348: 237 - 238
Turlings, et. al., Exploitation of Herbivore-Induced Plant Odors by Host-Seeking Parasitic Wasps, Science 250: 1251 - 1252
Soltis and Soltis, 1989, [the title is mangled on my photocopy], Amer. J. Bot. 76(8): 1119 - 1124
Roose and Gottlieb, 1976, Genetic and Biochemical Consequences of Polyploidy in Tragopogon, Evolution 30: 818 - 830
Xu, et. al., Bacterial Origin of a Chloroplast Intron: Conserved Self-Splicing Group I Introns in Cyanobacteria, Science 250: 1566 - 1569
Kuhsel, et. al., An Ancient Group I Intron Shared by Eubacteria and Chloroplasts, Science 250: 1570 - 1572
Conover and Voorhees, 1990, Evolution of a Balanced Sex Ratio by Frequency-Dependent Selection in a Fish, Science 250: 1556 - 1558
Roose and Gottlieb, 1976, Genetic and Biochemical Consequences of Polyploidy in Tragopogon, Evolution 30: 818 - 830
Benkman and Lindholm, 1991, The advantages and evolution of a morphological novelty, Nature 349: 519-521
Ritland and Brower, 1991, The viceroy butterfly is not a batesian mimic, Nature 350: 497- 498
Shuster and Wade, 1991, Equal mating success among male reproductive strategies in a marine isopod, Nature 350: 608 - 610
Wayne and Jenks, 1991, Mitochondrial DNA analysis implying extensive hybridization of the endangered red wolf Canis rufus, Nature 351: 565 - 567
Hall, 1991, Adaptive evolution that requires multiple spontaneous mutations: Mutations involving base substitutions, PNAS 88: 5882- 5886
Martin et.al., 1993, The reaction cycle of GroEL and GroES in Chaperonin-assisted protein folding, Nature 366: 228-233
McShea, 1993, Arguments, tests, and the Burgess shale-a commentary on the debate, Paleobiology 9:339-402

Navy Davy, there’s a sampling some of the best arguments in favor of evolution. Get back to us after you’ve read them all, and we can answer any questions you have & give you some more good stuff to read. There’s plenty more where that came from …

-Scott Simmons

Comment #3298

Posted by Bob Maurus on June 3, 2004 07:57 PM (e) (s)

Hey, NavyDavy,
I was beginning to wonder what had happened to you. You disappeared at the same time JDB was banned. Sure glad you weren’t an alter ego.

Comment #3299

Posted by Johnnie C. on June 3, 2004 08:08 PM (e) (s)

Matt,

My “intemperate ad-hominem” attack was nothing of the sort.  You make it sound as if Navy Davy posted something interesting here once and I launched on him. 

Do I need to re-list every one of Navy Davy’s bogus posts as proof that he is a dishonest ID apologist in iconoclasts clothing?  From his very first post here he smelled rotten and insincere (to me, anyway), his “cheers,” colloquialisms and apparent “open mindedness” notwithstanding.  I am happy that my bullshit detector is working so well.

I also have no doubt that Navy Davy is David Steele, as Jim hypothesizes above (great detective work, there!).  Navy Davy and Peter Douchebag (whom I had the pleasure of speaking with personally about his idiotic AIDS theories numerous times during the previous century) make a perfect pair.  When I spoke of a damp crotch, I could only have hoped it would turn out be the crotch of the popper-obsessed iconoclast Peter Douchebag.  So fitting.

I don’t believe there is anything to be gained by explaining scientific principles to a professional naysayer like Navy Davy Steele.  There is, however, something to be gained by immediately recognizing Navy Davy for what he is and letting him know that, in spite of his best efforts, he is not going to have as much fun as he’d like playing “uncritical” scientists like fiddles.  To the extent gullible people fall into Navy Davy’s trap, it only confirms his “skepticism” about the ability of scientists to think critically.  Screw him.

To the extent people reading the blog are disinclined to respond to Navy Davy’s repetitive spewager from this point forward, I believe that some good has been accomplished.  Flies should be swatted, not stroked.

Comment #3304

Posted by PennyBright on June 3, 2004 09:05 PM (e) (s)

Matt, thank you for putting this up.  I appreciate the chance to see the argument reframed so neatly.

It does make me wonder where the meme of ‘the smoking gun’ so to speak came from.  It seems to come up a lot in these kinds of discussions — people want some specific point that can be called ‘proof’ or ‘disproof’.  Is discomfort with uncertainty that powerful?  Why so much fear of the tentative?

On another note, though it is against my better judgement to get involved in this:  Does anyone else find it screamingly ironic for N.D. to call Matt’s physics example something ‘that no sane person would ever care about’, and then turn around and reference Richard Feynman repeatedly?

Penny

Comment #3305

Posted by Andrew on June 3, 2004 09:05 PM (e) (s)

Speaking as a laywer, it’s beyond obvious that Navy Davy has come no closer to a courtroom than watching “Law & Order” reruns on A&E.

If “Navy Davy” is indeed a lawyer, he could very easily provide us with a Martindale listing that verifies his claims.

I suspect he’ll come up with some lame excuse instead.

Comment #3307

Posted by Navy Davy on June 3, 2004 09:59 PM (e) (s)

“And he’s talking with Davy who’s still in the navy
And probably will be for life” - Billy Joel.
(a lightening up for Davy, who seems to be all at sea)

Good one, Steve. Yep, that’s where I got my college nickname:)

Wuz the blog down or sumptin? I was tryin’ to get on for 2 days, now.

Anyway, lotta comments about me, some good, some stupid. Myself, I prefer to stick to the issues!

RBH, you have a good debate about abiogenesis with JDB and others at ARN.org. How come you so polite there, but so prickly here?

Wow! A lotta hard-lookin’ citations by Steve Simmons — I got a lotta readin’ to do. Any chance I can get the Cliff Notes version:)

Read a good book over the weekend, Darwin v. Gould by Kim Sterelny (BTW, the author  sides with Dawkins). Good short synopsis of the debate (darn there’s that word again) between the gene selection folks and the population selection folks. No mention of ID.

No, I ain’t JDB in disguise! I’m just plain ‘ole me. That boy does debate prety well in the ARN and ISCID forums, er, I mean “fora”:)

Question: Does macroevolution speak to how the first “replicators” (such as DNA or RNA) were formed?

Anyway, I enjoy bein’ the subject of a post! Quite an honor, for a simple country lawyer, non-scientist.

Much obliged,

Navy Davy

Comment #3308

Posted by Eric on June 3, 2004 10:37 PM (e) (s)

Question: Does macroevolution speak to how the first “replicators” (such as DNA or RNA) were formed?

No, that’s properly the field of abiogenesis, I believe, though there is some crossover.  Evolution is what happens after you have replicators.

And, on an unrelated note, I think “coherentism” sometimes goes by the name “consilience,” which E.O. Wilson has written about.

Comment #3309

Posted by Virge on June 3, 2004 11:26 PM (e) (s)

Penny asks:

It does make me wonder where the meme of ‘the smoking gun’ so to speak came from.  It seems to come up a lot in these kinds of discussions — people want some specific point that can be called ‘proof’ or ‘disproof’.  Is discomfort with uncertainty that powerful?  Why so much fear of the tentative?

What else can a zealot do? The subject is too complicated for the bulk of the population to understand. The zealot knows that it must be wrong, must be fabrication, because it flies in the face of his faith. Refusing to examine the evidence with an open mind (or not having the intellectual capacity to do so) he tries to find one simplified example that can prove that it’s all lies e.g.

Dr. Hovind: It only takes one proof of a young earth to decide between CREATION and EVOLUTION.

Does anyone else find it screamingly ironic for N.D. to call Matt’s physics example something ‘that no sane person would ever care about’, and then turn around and reference Richard Feynman repeatedly?

If it wasn’t for the irony I’d have to stop reading creationist arguments. It’s like watching Basil Fawlty — embarrassing but perversely amusing.

Comment #3323

Posted by Smokey on June 4, 2004 08:26 AM (e) (s)

Navy Davy,

Good short synopsis of the debate (darn there’s that word again) between the gene selection folks and the population selection folks.

Darn, there’s that confusion over the meaning of the word “debate” again.  Are you saying that the book contains a synopsis of the sort of debate you keep proposing, where two “experts” engage in a back and forth, statement and rebuttal style of formal debate?  I suspect not.

Anyway, I enjoy bein’ the subject of a post! Quite an honor, for a simple country lawyer, non-scientist.

If you choose to see it as an honor, far be it from me to prick your balloon.  But I feel I should point out that the post is not really about you, but rather about a certain ignorance of the way science works which is displayed by so many IDists and ID apologists.  You simply provide a convenient example of this ignorance. 

BTW, how are things going in the AIDS denial business?  Still think AIDS is caused by amyl nitrate poppers and not HIV?  I’d almost rather you were a creationist, that would be a lot less dangerous.  If this is still your position, it seems to provide yet another example of your disregard for multiply converging lines of evidence.

Comment #3325

Posted by Navy Davy on June 4, 2004 09:08 AM (e) (s)

Eric,

Question: Does macroevolution speak to how the first “replicators” (such as DNA or RNA) were formed?

No, that’s properly the field of abiogenesis, I believe, though there is some crossover.  Evolution is what happens after you have replicators.

Thanks! Quick follow-ups:

1. If macroevolution has no answer to how life originated , is it an incomplete theory?

2. What’s a good book to read on abiogenesis?  (Not that Miller-Urey stuff — already got that)

3. Is abiogenesis testable?

You’re allright, Eric.

Smokey,

Are you saying that the book contains a synopsis of the sort of debate you keep proposing, where two “experts” engage in a back and forth, statement and rebuttal style of formal debate?

In light of the fossil record, the book examines the competing arguments posited by Darwin contra Gould. That’s what the word debate means.

If you choose to see it as an honor, far be it from me to prick your balloon.

Prick away:)

But I feel I should point out that the post is not really about you..

Why mention my name then?

.. but rather about a certain ignorance of the way science works which is displayed by so many IDists and ID apologists.

Science works like this, don’t it?

1. Form a theory;
2. Test it;
3. Analyze the data;
4. Draw conclusion;
5. Make prediction.

You seem a little slow today, Smokey.

  You simply provide a convenient example of this ignorance. 

It seems pretty ignorant to continually avoid steps 1-5.

BTW, how are things going in the AIDS denial business?

Huh? Ain’t in AIDS denial business. AIDS is terrible disease. 20,000/year deaths from AIDS in USA. Kinda callous of you, Smokey.

Still think AIDS is caused by amyl nitrate poppers and not HIV?

Huh? Don’t think AIDS is caused by amyl nitrate, but isn’t this way off thread and worthy of removal to bathroom wall?

I’d almost rather you were a creationist, that would be a lot less dangerous.

I’m simultaneously ignorant and dangerous?  That’s seem kinda paranoid.

If this is still your position, it seems to provide yet another example of your disregard for multiply converging lines of evidence.

What position are you talking about? Creationism, ID, AIDS or something else? You’re really all over the map, here.

Oh well,

Cheers, Navy Davy

Comment #3332

Posted by Pim van Meurs on June 4, 2004 09:37 AM (e) (s)

Navy: 1. If macroevolution has no answer to how life originated , is it an incomplete theory?

Nope. If the theory of gravitation has no answer to how the universe originated, is it incomplete? But that does not mean that evolutionary theory cannot provide answers as to how life may have originated. Based on evolutionary findings, RNA world seems to be more and more a likely reality.

Abiogenesis is a fascinating endeavor in trying to unravel what happened 4 billion years ago. And despite many complications, science has done a good job at presenting likely scenarios.

What has ID done?

Comment #3334

Posted by mattH on June 4, 2004 09:53 AM (e) (s)

Eric posted:

And, on an unrelated note, I think “coherentism” sometimes goes by the name “consilience,” which E.O. Wilson has written about.

They’re two different things actually. Coherentism is a philosophical approach to knowledge developed in response to the inherent difficulties that arise out of a Foundationalist approach. The Wiki does a good job of explaining it’s relationship with Foundationalism and the one inherent weakness of a Coherentist epistemological system.

Wilson’s idea of consilience deals strictly with the hope that human behavioral studies will one day be subsumed by the biological sciences, even though his model implies a greater impact of the social sciences on biology.

Davy posted:

Science works like this, don’t it?

1. Form a theory;
2. Test it;
3. Analyze the data;
4. Draw conclusion;
5. Make prediction.

Substitute hypothesis for theory and you’ve got a very loose beginning to the scientific method, which unfortunately leaves out the checking mechanism established in the journal review.

Comment #3336

Posted by Russell on June 4, 2004 09:58 AM (e) (s)

Huh? Ain’t in AIDS denial business. AIDS is terrible disease. 20,000/year deaths from AIDS in USA. Kinda callous of you, Smokey.
…
Huh? Don’t think AIDS is caused by amyl nitrate, but isn’t this way off thread and worthy of removal to bathroom wall?

Well, perhaps. But I can see where Smokey might have been confused. He probably noticed your email address () and confused you with this guy

Who is David Steele?
…
David Steele is an attorney practicing in San Francisco. His area of specialty is toxic torte with particular focus on cases involving asbestos. David told me he “stumbled on the AIDS issue” and after becoming intrigued, investigated the evidence. He now relishes opportunities to share his discoveries with skeptical friends and colleagues.


because your an asbestos suit attorney, too, IIRC.

The article in question is here Among other things, it says

The most logical explanation for the AIDS phenomenon is that prolific drug use (cocaine, heroin, amyl nitrates, amphetamines, etc.) wrecks your immune system.

By a remarkable coincidence, the opening sentence of that unfortunate piece is:

The great Albert Einstein once said that in science, “the most important thing is to never stop questioning.”

which you also wrote in one of your comments here.

The subject of HIV denial is one I’m kind of interested in (I do virology), and I do think it’s highly relevant to this post, all about synthesizing multiple lines of evidence.

So, yes Smokey’s comment (and this one) probably do belong on the bathroom wall, because this really is nothing more than a series of remarkable coincidences. Right?

Comment #3337

Posted by Navy Davy on June 4, 2004 10:06 AM (e) (s)

Pim,

Navy: 1. If macroevolution has no answer to how life originated , is it an incomplete theory?

Nope. If the theory of gravitation has no answer to how the universe originated, is it incomplete?

Fair enough. I’m a big fan of gravity. Prediction: If I drop my pencil, it will move towards, not away, from the earth.  [pause] Yup, tested and confirmed again:)

But, on a similar tangent for example, the law of energy conservation perplexes me on a very simple level — if energy cannot be created or destroyed, How did we get energy in the first place?

BTW, Are there any contrarian viewpoints about  gravity or would that just be moronic? I haven’t heard any.

But that does not mean that evolutionary theory cannot provide answers as to how life may have originated.

That’s fine with me. I guess my basic, ultimate question is, How did life emerge? All scientific theories and evidence used to answer that question are welcome.

Based on evolutionary findings, RNA world seems to be more and more a likely reality.

So, my great-great granddady is a retro-virus?:)

Abiogenesis is a fascinating endeavor in trying to unravel what happened 4 billion years ago. And despite many complications, science has done a good job at presenting likely scenarios.

Would love to hear/read more about abiogenesis.

What has ID done?

Not much. As far as I can tell, Johnson, Dembski and Behe have written several books on it, started several web-sites, have a hard time publishing in the scientific literature, engendered the wrath of folks at Panda’s Thumb, given hope to a large segment of creationists, and that’s about it.

But it’s a pretty new theory, though. When I was in college, it wasn’t around.  So, depending on the evidence, it may fizzle out or it may win the hearts and minds of scientists. Who knows — not my fight.

I’m still of the view, though, that it should be engaged in a civil manner — which, apparently, sends people into fits on this site. 

Cheers, Pim — You’re a righteous, dude.

Navy Davy

Comment #3338

Posted by Smokey on June 4, 2004 10:11 AM (e) (s)

Navy Davy,

Your continued repetition of “5 quick and easy steps to a science makeover,” or whatever that’s supposed to be (The Idiot’s Guide to Science, maybe?) is non-responsive and evasive.  What is your point?  That evolutionists employ some other methodology?  As MattH points out, you can’t even get a basic statement of the scientific method right.  There is a rather large difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

It seems pretty ignorant to continually avoid steps 1-5.

Wow!  Zing!  Or not.  Nobody is avoiding your simplistic view of science.  We are trying to explain to you that evolutionary theory has been tested, repeatedly and in many diverse areas of biology, and that the results of virtually all of these experiments are consistent with, and supportive of, modern evolutionary theory.  This is not the case with ID.

That’s what the word debate means.

Really?  Then why have you been accusing people of ducking the “debate” for ignoring your requests for a formal debate with FL or JDB or whoever your champion of the moment is?  Do you understand that debate means different things in different contexts, like the difference between a “scientific debate” and a “Lincoln-Douglas debate”, for instance?

As for my questions regarding your opinions on AIDS/HIV, it is slightly off-topic, and I’d be glad to move it over to the Bathroom Wall.  I haven’t seen you post in there, so there was little point in posting my questions there with no guarantee you’d read it.  That said, I think that is is somewhat on topic, in that it shows your fundamental disregard for the process of science and what constitutes acceptable evidence in support of (or against) a scientific theory. You claim to be a disinterested observer, but you seem to be, as JohnnieC says, a “professional naysayer”.

Comment #3339

Posted by Navy Davy on June 4, 2004 10:16 AM (e) (s)

Matt Young,

Help me out here on proper protocal, Matt. The topic here is whether to teach the controversy over ID. Now, we got jokers who use my e-mail address, apparently to google my name (if they think it’s correct), and then jump into totally unrelated (but interesting) topics.

Would rather stay on topic with Pim and others. Should I respond to them, shut up, go away,  — all the above?:)

Advice from the chairman would be nice.

Best,

Navy Davy

Comment #3340

Posted by Navy Davy on June 4, 2004 10:26 AM (e) (s)

Smokey,

You have 2 choices:

(1)We can discuss ID or AIDS or creationism or evolution — provided it’s civil; or

(2)You can be uncivil and then it’s a waste of time and detracts from my effort to learn things.

So far, you’ve been uncivil.

Pick one

Comment #3343

Posted by mattH on June 4, 2004 10:48 AM (e) (s)

Smokey,

You have 2 choices:

(1)We can discuss ID or AIDS or creationism or evolution — provided it’s civil; or

(2)You can be uncivil and then it’s a waste of time and detracts from my effort to learn things.

So far, you’ve been uncivil.

Pick one

I can’t say that you’ve been all that civil yourself. Perhaps you should rectify that first. It usually goes a long way towards a civil discussion if you don’t react to a perceived insult by insulting the other person, especially if you are looking to learn something from them.

Comment #3344

Posted by Russell on June 4, 2004 10:52 AM (e) (s)

The topic here is whether to teach the controversy over ID.

Well, no, the topic is “There are no crucial experiments”, and it’s about how science actually works and how it doesn’t work. Smokey mistook you for this other guy, who makes exactly the same mistakes that Matt addresses. (Whose argument, in fact, probably makes a better analogy than Matt’s protons and neutrons.)

HIV-denial is very much on topic, but there’s no need for you to address it.

(Unless of course you are this guy. In which case

Huh? Ain’t in AIDS denial business. AIDS is terrible disease. 20,000/year deaths from AIDS in USA. Kinda callous of you, Smokey.
…
Huh? Don’t think AIDS is caused by amyl nitrate, but isn’t this way off thread and worthy of removal to bathroom wall?

would seem a little disingenuous. And if there’s one thing Navy Davy is not, it’s disingenuous.

Comment #3345

Posted by Smokey on June 4, 2004 11:00 AM (e) (s)

Navy Davy,

So far, you’ve been uncivil.

How so?  Please show me what I have said that you deem uncivil, that I may amend my behavior in the future.  Was it that I called you ignorant?  This would only be uncivil if it was meant as an insult or ad hominem attack, which it is not.  You are demonstrably ignorant of scientific methodology (and evolutionary theory and virology, apparently) so how is it uncivil to point this out?

Btw, you hardly seem in a position to complain about civility, master of the snarky non-response that you are.  Or are you just working the refs?

Comment #3347

Posted by Navy Davy on June 4, 2004 11:01 AM (e) (s)

Sorry, Russell the virologist, I can’t respond - I’m still waiting for the call from Matt Young, the honorable author of this particular thread.

In my view, you, Johnnie C, and Smokey should be removed to the Bathroom Wall — but that’s purely an advisory opinion:)

Comment #3351

Posted by Smokey on June 4, 2004 11:33 AM (e) (s)

Navy Davy,

Sorry, Russell the virologist, I can’t respond - I’m still waiting for the call from Matt Young, the honorable author of this particular thread.

Feel free to respond on the Bathroom Wall.  No permission is needed to post there.  I offered earlier to move this portion of the discussion there, but got no response from you, other than accusations regarding my lack of civility.  If you truly want to respond, and aren’t just looking for a pretext to avoid the issue, you can respond to either my or Russell’s comments there, or do it here and a moderator will move it if they deem it excessively off-topic.  There’s no need to wait for Matt to pass judgement.

Matt Young, please correct me if I am wrong about this.

Comment #3353

Posted by Navy Davy on June 4, 2004 11:38 AM (e) (s)

Smokey,

You didn’t pick one. I repeat, do you or do you not want to engage in civil discourse?

Answer the question.

Comment #3356

Posted by ck on June 4, 2004 11:47 AM (e) (s)

Navy Davy, 10:06 AM June 4 said:
Fair enough. I’m a big fan of gravity. Prediction: If I drop my pencil, it will move towards, not away, from the earth…Yup, tested and confirmed again

This is supposed to be an example of a scientific test of the theory of gravity, right? The kind of scientific test that you sincerely wish we could do to test the theory of evolution?

In response, a couple of points:

First, predictions based on the theory of evolution have been confirmed, many times. See the reading list above for some examples.

Second, the fact that things fall is not a confirmation of the theory of gravity. Everybody knows that things fall, and people knew that long before they had our current theory of gravity. The theory of gravity explains why things fall.

In order to really test the theory of gravity, in the way that you want us to test the theory of evolution, you would have to come up with a prediction about some phenomenon that hasn’t yet been observed, and test that prediction. That’s why science is a little harder to do than you seem to think.

Your example would be like “confirming” the theory of evolution by going home and observing that my dog and my cat are still different species with four legs and a tail. (fake pause) Tested and confirmed again!

Comment #3357

Posted by Matt Young on June 4, 2004 12:00 PM (e) (s)

I’m sorry, but I am teaching all day today and can’t keep up with all of you.  Navy Davy, however, has asked me for an opinion regarding “protocal.”  The question is not well posed, but I think the thrust is whether his alleged HIV denial is a legitimate issue for this thread.  The topic here is the nature of evidence and whether there is one “crucial” or “best” bit of evidence (not whether to teach ID in schools).  If Mr. Davy is indeed an HIV denier (or was), it seems to me that the fact is relevant to the discussion, inasmuch as it sheds light on his scientific judgement or lack thereof.  Thus, I would not rule out a discussion of HIV denial, as long as it kept civil.

In this regard, it seems to me appropriate to ask Mr. Davy specifically, are you the HIV denier in question?  If you will not answer, then maybe you can explain why answering is inappropriate.

As to civility, several people are being uncivil, but I did not think that Smokey was among them, though he could have been more circumspect if he had wanted to be. Navy Davy’s crowing seems to me much more uncivil than Smokey’s comments, which I would describe only as hardhitting.

A belated thanks to Penny Bright, by the way, for her thoughtful comment, which could be used as a model for civility.

Comment #3358

Posted by Smokey on June 4, 2004 12:00 PM (e) (s)

Navy Davy,

You didn’t pick one. I repeat, do you or do you not want to engage in civil discourse?

And I asked you to show me how my prior postings have been uncivil, or at least less civil than your own.  What is it that I have said that you take issue with?

Answer the question.

Yes, please do.

Comment #3359

Posted by Jason on June 4, 2004 12:02 PM (e) (s)

As a veteran of so many online debates with creationists, I can say that Navy Davy’s tactics are pretty standard. 

“Prove evolution to me.”

“How did the first life form originate?”

Asking those types of questions takes about 5 seconds of effort and puts one’s opponents on the defensive.  Of course answering the questions requires considerably more effort and time, the likes of which most of us don’t have.  If we can’t answer, then the creationist is apparently vindicated. 

“If you can’t answer my questions, then my skepticism is justified.”

The reality is that this approach betrays the intellectual laziness of the person employing it.  Instead of going out, buying a few textbooks and reading some journal articles, the person expects everyone else to do his work for him.  And if they don’t….well, they must be wrong then.

IOW:  “If you guys can’t explain it to me, right here, right now, then an explanation must not exist.”

Comment #3360

Posted by Navy Davy on June 4, 2004 12:09 PM (e) (s)

Ck,

This is supposed to be an example of a scientific test of the theory of gravity, right? The kind of scientific test that you sincerely wish we could do to test the theory of evolution?

Well, I’m not a complete idiot. I suspect that the test for evolution might be more complex than a mere pencil drop. But, yes, a roughly similar test would be nice.

First, predictions based on the theory of evolution have been confirmed, many times. See the reading list above for some examples.

Well, instead of that long list, How ‘bout a good example? I trust ya. (note: I didn’t say “best example” — don’t want to go on further goose chases:)

Second, the fact that things fall is not a confirmation of the theory of gravity.

Hmmm. If on my next pencil drop, it suddenly starts rising, wouldn’t that be remarkable enough to warrant further investigation? If it happened 100 times, wouldn’t we look to modifying our current law of gravity.

Perhaps a pencil drop is not a confirmation, but it is definitely consistent with the theory. Probably orbiting celestial bodies is the better confirmation.

Everybody knows that things fall, and people knew that long before they had our current theory of gravity.

Right. By obervation.

The theory of gravity explains why things fall.

Agreed. Harmonizes all the pencil drops, celestial orbits, etc, etc.

In order to really test the theory of gravity, in the way that you want us to test the theory of evolution, you would have to come up with a prediction about some phenomenon that hasn’t yet been observed, and test that prediction.

Huh? I thought you already had a long list of previous predictions evaluated?

Your example would be like “confirming” the theory of evolution by going home and observing that my dog and my cat are still different species with four legs and a tail.

No:) But it would be interesting to know what the outer boundaries of cross-species fertilization would be and why offspring of such (like mules) are usually sterile. Off the top of my head, I guess I’d like to find some equivalents to non-sterile mules. Hell, there be a lot of them! I just don’t know.

Good post, CK.

Comment #3363

Posted by Johnnie C. on June 4, 2004 12:22 PM (e) (s)

But it would be interesting to know what the outer boundaries of cross-species fertilization would be and why offspring of such (like mules) are usually sterile.

As an alleged lawyer, Navy Davy, one would imagine that you could use your “intellect” or call up one of your “zillions of experts” to gather information related to the topic.

Then you could return here and post an accurate summary of what you’ve read and understand along with some intelligent questions (assuming you are capable of formulating an intelligent question).

You might want to start here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

Good luck.

Comment #3365

Posted by Navy Davy on June 4, 2004 12:38 PM (e) (s)

Thanks, Matt …. I guess;)

No, I think the earth is round, not flat; I think the holocaust tragically happened, and I think AIDS is a terrible disease.

But my main concern with AIDS science is not whether HIV is necessary and sufficient to cause AIDS, but rather the use of AZT to treat AIDS patients. A few facts about AZT:

1.  From McLeod, Zidoudine: Five Years Later, Annals of Internal Medicine, (1992) 117: 487 -501

Zidovudine [AZT] was first synthesized in 1964 by Horwitz and colleagues as a potential chemotherapeutic agent

2. And then I review the Horwitz paper, and I see all these cancer researchers developing AZT as cancer chemotherapy in 1964 — 17 years before the first AIDS case. Called a “nucleoside analogue”

So, this nucleoside analogue targets DNA (chain of nucleosides + phoshates) to kill the cells, (by stifling mitosis) hopefully killing more malignant cells than healthy cells.

From oncology textbooks, we know that cancer chemo is (a) highly immunosupressant (meaning it kills white blood cells) and (b) causes second malignancies like lymphoma and leukemia down the road.

So, it strikes me as bizarre to use such a toxic drug, that causes immunosupression to treat a disease, characterized by immunosupression.

That seems to me like a recipe for worsening the already immuno-compromised patient.

AZT undoubtedly will kill the DNA of the virus, but won’t it also kill cellular DNA, too?

That’s my main thought about AIDS.

Cheers, Navy Davy

p.s. Perhaps, a topic for a new thread? Gotta lot of citations to the peer-reviewed published literature, unlike those dastardly ID folks:)

Comment #3367

Posted by Navy Davy on June 4, 2004 01:18 PM (e) (s)

As an alleged lawyer, Navy Davy, one would imagine that you could use your “intellect” or call up one of your “zillions of experts” to gather information related to the topic.

Yup, probably could.

Then you could return here and post an accurate summary of what you’ve read and understand along with some intelligent questions

Probably bore most folks.

(assuming you are capable of formulating an intelligent question).

Here’s an intelligent question: When’s the last time you did 10 push-ups?

You might want to start here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi…

A government website? bwa ha aha ha wa!

You really are an authoritarian. You’re like the scientific equivalent of Niedermeyer from “Animal House”

Comment #3370

Posted by Bob Maurus on June 4, 2004 01:46 PM (e) (s)

Navy Davey,

Concerning the fertility of cross-species offspring - mules are usually, but not always, sterile. Lion/tiger offspring are, I believe, more often fertile, and wolf/coyote offspring would also seem to be, according to research on the subject. If you’re interested, I’ll see if I can find some more reading for you.

As to why mules are usually sterile, I would guess that it has to do with the length of time since horses and asses diverged from a common ancestor.

Bob

Comment #3372

Posted by Navy Davy on June 4, 2004 02:07 PM (e) (s)

Appreciated, Bob

Here’s my thought: the theory of macroevolution must have a palpable engine for how DNA  changes over time. So, that leaves at least 2 possible mechanisms:

1. The DNA of an organism changes during its life-time, (perhaps environmental factors?) and is passed on to its offspring. (But several smart people here, say this has never been observed.)

2. Organism (with X DNA) mates with organism (with X’DNA) producing offspring with slightly new and better and more complex DNA. Repeat for millions of years.

But, again, it’s gotta be greater changes in DNA than just intra-species variation.

A surge in Chinese men impregnating Blonde women, ain’t gonna move our species forward — we’re juss gonna get blonde Chinese babies.

So, it seems to me, we should be looking for horse/ass/mule type of examples of species with similar DNA, that are capable of producing fertile offspring.

That, to me, would show a potential, concrete mechanism of speciation. Perhaps, it has already been done. I have no idea.

Cheers, Navy Davy

Comment #3373

Posted by Jack Krebs on June 4, 2004 02:20 PM (e) (s)

Davy, I think you need to read some basic biology books.  DNA does change via an organisms lifetime, yes this can be due to environmental factors, and yes this is known scientifically to occur.

Furthermore, other types of genetic changes can happen during cell division and when an egg and sperm join.  This is all basic high school biology.

Secondly, your understanding of speciation is wrong - new species in general do not arise from crosses between different species such as the horse/ass/mule example you mention.

It is true that variation that arises from sexual reproduction (without any “mutation”) can effect the overall gene pool of a species, but mutations are happening all the time, and so the pool is always being altered in some ways.

Let me reiterate - and this should be a rule for all evolution critics: if you want to critique some aspect of evolutionary theory, you should study enough (which could be a lot) to accurately describe the aspect that you wish to critique.  It is not very useful (or effective) to critique a caricature that is in fact wrong or uselessly oversimplified.

Comment #3374

Posted by Russell on June 4, 2004 02:23 PM (e) (s)

But my main concern with AIDS science is not whether HIV is necessary and sufficient to cause AIDS, but rather the use of AZT to treat AIDS patients…. That’s my main thought about AIDS.

Then I am satisfied that you are not this guy, and Smokey owes you an apology. The gist of his essay was that there is no good reason to implicate HIV as a cause of AIDS at all.

Another clue should have been this guy’s snarky tone:

In fact, the same yahoo,
Dr. Fauci, who predicted 1 million American AIDS deaths by 1996, published a paper in 1993, which concluded that ICL could not possibly be caused by a virus, because the resulting diseases were too “heterogeneous.” (Fauci, New England Journal of Medicine, 1993.)

Earth to Dr. Fauci —- comprised of 30 unrelated diseases ranging from diarrhea to
cervical cancer, AIDS is fairly heterogeneous, too! Even though Dr. Fauci may not be
the sharpest knife in the drawer, the real travesty lies with his conscious disregard
for genuine scientific inquiry.

  which no one could confuse with you.

p.s. Perhaps, a topic for a new thread?

Maybe a good idea. Though, this site being what it is, that thread should probably try to reasonably confine itself to parallels between the HIV-denial and evolution-denial phenomena. Perhaps, if the good barkeep here at Panda’s Thumb will allow me, I can contribute a post to get that ball rolling.

Comment #3376

Posted by Navy Davy on June 4, 2004 02:31 PM (e) (s)

  DNA does change via an organisms lifetime, yes this can be due to environmental factors, and yes this is known scientifically to occur.

First, lose your attitude. Second, of course the DNA of a few cells change during the lifetime of the organism.  I’m talking about a change in DNA for the entire organism — each and every cell.  2 or 3 people on this blog have already told me, that this has never been observed.

In what organism has this occurred? (Hopefully, sumptin’ more complex than a bacterium, too)

Comment #3377

Posted by andrew ti on June 4, 2004 02:36 PM (e) (s)

russell:

Another clue should have been this guy’s snarky tone:

In fact, the same yahoo,
Dr. Fauci, who predicted 1 million American AIDS deaths by 1996, published a paper in 1993, which concluded that ICL could not possibly be caused by a virus, because the resulting diseases were too “heterogeneous.” (Fauci, New England Journal of Medicine, 1993.)

Earth to Dr. Fauci —- comprised of 30 unrelated diseases ranging from diarrhea to
cervical cancer, AIDS is fairly heterogeneous, too! Even though Dr. Fauci may not be
the sharpest knife in the drawer, the real travesty lies with his conscious disregard
for genuine scientific inquiry.

  which no one could confuse with you.

you’re joking, right? that looks like a nearly identical brand of folksy/annoying to me.

Comment #3378

Posted by Joe P Guy on June 4, 2004 02:38 PM (e) (s)

I won’t claim to be an unbiased observer, but I think I can objectively state that Navy Davy has avoided answering at least the following two questions:

1. When and how was Smokey uncivil to you, Navy Davy?

2. Are you, Navy Davy, with the e-mail address , the HIV denialist and attorney who specializes in asbestos cases, by the name of D. David Steele, as documented here and here?

As I’ve said, I don’t claim to be an unbiased observer.  However, you, Navy Davy, have made such claims on various threads on the Panda’s Thumb website.  In order to validate this claim, you would be wise to respond to question #2.  In order to not be perceived as either over-sensitive or a liar, you would be wise to respond to question #1.

Your constant evasion of such questions, and your tendency to ignore explanations of how scientific theories work, leave most of the people here with the perception that you are indeed firmly in the Intelligent Design/Creationism camp.  If that is not how you wish to be perceived, you have to begin addressing some of these issues.

Comment #3379

Posted by Johnnie C. on June 4, 2004 02:41 PM (e) (s)

1. The DNA of an organism changes during its life-time, (perhaps environmental factors?) and is passed on to its offspring. (But several smart people here, say this has never been observed.)

Huh?  Please name of the “several smart people” and link us to the quote.  I suspect you are being careless (again).

A surge in Chinese men impregnating Blonde women, ain’t gonna move our species forward — we’re juss gonna get blonde Chinese babies.

Really?  And this assertion must be based on your travels in the future 5 million years from now.  Right?  Or is it based on an acid trip you took with your hero, Dr. Mullis?  How else do you purport to know what genetic combinations are going to “move our species forward”?  And please define what you mean by “forward”?

A government website? bwa ha aha ha wa!
You really are an authoritarian.

Nope. 

When’s the last time you did 10 push-ups?

You can fantasize about me exercising any time you want, Amyl Davy.  I’m sure you can get yourself plenty hot without me providing you with additional details.

Comment #3380

Posted by Navy Davy on June 4, 2004 02:52 PM (e) (s)

Sorry boys, gettin’ a little too hostile for me.

Ain’t interested in HIV-denials, very much interested in AZT.

Ain’t interested in ad hominem, very much interested in evolution.

Ain’t interested in unscientific creationism, very much interested in whether ID is testable.

Cheers, Navy Davy

Comment #3383

Posted by Jack Krebs on June 4, 2004 03:29 PM (e) (s)

I’m sorry that some people are being rude here, but I’ll try to stay with the facts:

Davy wrote,

Of course the DNA of a few cells change during the lifetime of the organism.  I’m talking about a change in DNA for the entire  organism — each and every cell.  2 or 3 people on this blog have already told me, that this has never been observed.

No, but this is not all necessary for evolution to occur.  It is only mutations in the reproductive cells that meet to make a new individual that make any difference for evolution.  Why dio you think it is even relevant to think about all the cells in the entire organism to undergo DNA change?

Comment #3387

Posted by Jon Fleming on June 4, 2004 05:06 PM (e) (s)

Navy Davy wrote:

Good short synopsis of the debate (darn there’s that word again)

Darn, there’s Navy Davy, conflating two different meanings of the word debate again.

Comment #3390

Posted by Lord Owen on June 4, 2004 05:35 PM (e) (s)

ND’s quest for the “best evidence…that supports the theory of evolution.” has clearly been satisfied, hence the retreat. Unless his trolling was merely a lightweight affair…

Cheers, Lord Owen.

Comment #3392

Posted by Mark Cartwright on June 4, 2004 05:54 PM (e) (s)

Click the link below to find out the most likely explanation for how good ol’ Navy Davy got his “college nickname.”

http://www.yaronlaw.com/bio_dsteele.htm

I like the part that says his hobbies include “sports, politics and reading novels” but do not mention anything about his moonlighting as a professional gadfly.  Perhaps ND believes that his clients aren’t interested in his astonishing ability to spark scintillating “debates” on evolutionary biology blogs.

Here’s a link to a letter printed in the SF Examiner in Navy’s incomparable style:

http://www.eionews.addr.com/epaper/eio010201.htm

And in spite of his failure to show much integrity here, he is still an active member of the California State Bar:  http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=171636

I can sympathize with Navy’s desires to find something “exciting” to keep his mind off his law practice.  But the intellectual dishonesty he displayed here is appalling.

Comment #3397

Posted by Russell on June 4, 2004 09:46 PM (e) (s)

Mark Cartwright:
Here’s a link to a letter printed in the SF Examiner in Navy’s incomparable style:
http://www.eionews.addr.com/epaper/eio010201.htm…

Pasquarelli and Bellefountaine, although subversive and unorthodox, have it about right. The drugs prescribed by the orthodox medical community don’t work and are highly toxic. The genuine science underpinning AIDS is nonexistent…
D. David Steele
San Francisco

It should be noted that Pasquarelli died just two months ago. The cause sounds remarkably like AIDS, but HIV-deniers still deny it, since he wasn’t taking any of those toxic anti-retrovirals they claim cause AIDS.

Well, here’s more proof that our Navy Davy is not the same D. David Steele that wrote this letter. ND has been very upfront about the fact that he knows next to nothing about biology. This guy, on the other hand, is so confident that he knows more than the “medical establishment” about virology, immunology, pharmacology… he’s willing to bet Pasquarelli’s life on it.

Comment #3400

Posted by Eric on June 4, 2004 11:11 PM (e) (s)

A surge in Chinese men impregnating Blonde women, ain’t gonna move our species forward — we’re juss gonna get blonde Chinese babies.

The moment “blonde chinese” are unable to mate with the rest of humanity, they become a separate species.  A single gene pool slowly divides into two with sexual isolation occuring for a wide variety of reasons.  Speciation is a process we’ve observed in the wild and in the lab countless times.

The phrase “moving forward” also betrays a misunderstanding of evolution.  There’s no “goal,” no destination to move twoard.  Progress is an illusion based on humanity’s assuption of its innate superiority.

And the only cell in an organism’s body that has to undergo mutation in order for that mutation to be inherited, is the sperm or egg.  Why/how would a mutation appear _globally_ in all the cells of an organism (let alone the relevance of such an act to evolution)?  Applying the slightest consideration to that scenario ought to be enough to demonstrate its ridiculousness.

Ain’t interested in unscientific creationism, very much interested in whether ID is testable.

As it currently stands, ID (which is much nearer to “unscientific creationism” than you appear to believe) is _not_ testable.  The “hypothesis” (to use the term loosely) pretty much comes down to, in the words of a friend:

“An unknown something doing an unknown something by means of an unknown something.”

We don’t have any knowledge of the designer, its specific actions or the means by which those actions were undertaken.  What’s more, there’s really no way to find out.  Worst case scenario: the designer could skillfully have done its work (whatever that might have been) in such a way as to blend seamlessly with the results derived from natural selection. 

This is the same as saying God created the world as if it had been in existence for billions of years.  It cannot be falsified and it contains no explicative power (two major criteria for any scientific hypothesis). 

It’d be easy to falsify evolution.  Just unearth human remains beneath trilobite fossils…or unique genes shared by peacocks and dandelions, but nothing else.  I’m not sure how you could conclusively demonstrate the _non_existence of a designer.

Meanwhile, the only positive proof IDers are able to muster is Dawkin’s ‘Argument from