Thousands upon thousands of research articles use the word “evolution” …

Comment on ‘Yes, Creation!’ at the General Conference Session by Professor Kent.

Thousands upon thousands of research articles use the word “evolution” in a microevolutionary sense. If you don’t believe me I suggest you spend some time learning facts for yourselves rather than making them up and accusing me of making inappropriate claims. Here are but a few recent examples:

Title: ALTERNATIVE MATING STRATEGIES AND THE EVOLUTION OF SEXUAL SIZE DIMORPHISM IN THE SIDE-BLOTCHED LIZARD, UTA STANSBURIANA: A POPULATION-LEVEL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Author(s): Corl A, Davis AR, Kuchta SR, et al.
Source: EVOLUTION Volume: 64 Issue: 1 Pages: 79-96 Published: JAN 2010

In this recent issue of the journal Evolution, “evolution” refers to how size differences between males and females have come about within a single lizard species.

Title: Current selection for lower migratory activity will drive the evolution of residency in a migratory bird population
Author(s): Pulido F, Berthold P
Source: PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Volume: 107 Issue: 16 Pages: 7341-7346 Published: APR 20 2010

In this recent issue of one of the world’s premier journals, “evolution” refers to how a single population of blackcaps (Sylvia atricapilla) has evolved to become more stationary due to recent climate change.

Title: THE ROLES OF LIFE-HISTORY SELECTION AND SEXUAL SELECTION IN THE ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION OF MATING BEHAVIOR IN A BEETLE
Author(s): Maklakov AA, Cayetano L, Brooks RC, et al.
Source: EVOLUTION Volume: 64 Issue: 5 Pages: 1273-1282 Published: MAY 2010

This article explored how mating systems (monogamy, polygamy) influenced the evolution of age at first mating within a single species of seed beetles.

Title: Quantifying Adaptive Evolution in the Drosophila Immune System
Author(s): Obbard DJ, Welch JJ, Kim KW, et al.
Source: PLOS GENETICS Volume: 5 Issue: 10 Article Number: e1000698 Published: OCT 2009

This article describes how fruit flies have evolved an immune system that helps them survive better. The immune system genes have changed more rapidly than the rest of the genome.

Title: The impact of clonal mixing on the evolution of social behaviour in aphids
Author(s): Bryden J, Jansen VAA
Source: PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES Volume: 277 Issue: 1688 Pages: 1651-1657 Published: JUN 7 2010

This article describes how ecological factors and trade-offs between investing in social behaviour and investing in reproduction has influenced the evolution of aphid social behavior.

Each of these articles uses the word “evolution” in the title, abstract, and elsewhere in the text in a microevolutionary sense. There is absolutely no inference to “reptiles to birds” or other high level types of change. If you guys insist that I am using “evolution” improperly, the burden of proof now shifts to you.

By the way, I’m posting these messages for Geanna Dane. Sorry about the confusion.

The issue isn’t over if mainstream scientists use the term “evolution” to describe changes in allelic frequencies which would be better described by the term “Mendelian variation”. This is done all the time. Darwin’s own observations of evolution in action were largely descriptions of Mendelian variation as well within the same gene pool of pre-established functional options.

The real disagreement between creationists and evolutionists isn’t over the multitude definitions of “species” that are used quite subjectively by various scientists, but over the level of qualitative functional change that can be realized by a gene pool itself over time.

So, all your arguments regarding the use of “species evolution” that are not based on qualitatively novel functional changes to the underlying gene pool of options are simply irrelevant to the creation/evolution debate…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Professor Kent Also Commented

‘Yes, Creation!’ at the General Conference Session
I asked Bob Ryan how many papers it would take to convince him that evolutionary biologists use the term “evolution” all the time in a microevolutionary sense far removed from the bigger picture of “reptiles-to-birds”. Rather than an answer, all I got was abuse.

From Bob Ryan: Once in the door they put on the clown-costume and start talking about “well now we all agree that birds come from reptiles cause evolution is a fact”.

From Ron Stone: Well stated Bob, Geanna’s bait and switch tactic regarding the “definition” of evolution is well analyzed by ID advocates. And, Geanna simply follows the evolutionary dogma of confusion of terms when discussing Darwinism.

I fail to understand why the most faithful and devoted creationists resort to mockery and derision when it comes to treating fellow creationists who seek to be informed and honest. I’m accused of making things up and using the term “evolution” inappropriately, but consider the facts in my next post.


Recent Comments by Professor Kent

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes

Sean Pitman: Science isn’t about “cold hard facts.” Science is about interpreting the “facts” as best as one can given limited background experiences and information. Such interpretations can be wrong and when shown to be wrong, the honest will in fact change to follow where the “weight of evidence” seems to be leading.

Much of science is based on highly technical data that few other than those who generate it can understand. For most questions, science yields data insufficient to support a single interpretation. And much of science leads to contradictory interpretations. Honest individuals will admit that they have a limited understanding of the science, and base their opinions on an extremely limited subset of information which they happen to find compelling whether or not the overall body of science backs it up.


Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes

Sean Pitman: The process of detecting artefacts as true artefacts is a real science based on prior experience, experimentation, and testing with the potential of future falsification. Oh, and I do happen to own a bona fide polished granite cube.

Not from Mars. Finding the cube on Mars is the basis of your cubical caricature of science, not some artefact under your roof.

Sean Pitman:
Professor Kent: If you think my brother-in-law who loves to fish in the Sea of Cortez is a scientist because he is trying to catch a wee little fish in a big vast sea, then I guess I need to view fishermen in a different light. I thought they were hobbyists.

The question is not if one will catch a fish, but if one will recognize a fish as a fish if one ever did catch a fish. That’s the scientific question here. And, yet again, the clear answer to this question is – Yes.

I think I’m going to spend the afternoon with my favorite scientist–my 8-year-old nephew. We’re going to go fishing at Lake Elsinore. He wants to know if we might catch a shark there. Brilliant scientist, that lad. He already grasps the importance of potentially falsifiable empirical evidence. I’m doubtful we’ll catch a fish, but I think he’ll recognize a fish if we do catch one.

While fishing, we’ll be scanning the skies to catch a glimpse of archaeopteryx flying by. He believes they might exist, and why not? Like the SETI scientist, he’s doing science to find the elusive evidence.

He scratched himself with a fish hook the other day and asked whether he was going to bleed. A few moments later, some blood emerged from the scratched. Talk about potentilly falsifiable data derived from a brilliant experiment. I’m telling you, the kid’s a brilliant scientist.

What’s really cool about science is that he doesn’t have to publish his observations (or lack thereof) to be doing very meaningful science. He doesn’t even need formal training or a brilliant mind. Did I mention he’s the only autistic scientist I’ve ever met?

As most everyone here knows, I have a poor understanding of science. But I’m pretty sure this nephew of mine will never lecture me or Pauluc on what constitutes science. He’s the most humble, polite, and soft-spoken scientist I’ve ever met.


Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes

Sean Pitman: I don’t think you understand the science or rational arguments behind the detection of an artefact as a true artefact. In fact, I don’t think you understand the basis of science in general.

I’m amused by this response. I don’t think you understand the limits of a philosophical argument based on a hypothetical situation, which is all that your convoluted cube story comprises, and nothing more. Whether the artefact is an artefact is immaterial to an argument that is philosophical and does not even consider an actual, bona fide artefact.

Sean Pitman: You argue that such conclusions aren’t “scientific”. If true, you’ve just removed forensic science, anthropology, history in general, and even SETI science from the realm of true fields of scientific study and investigation.

Forensic science, anthropology, and history in general all assume that humans exist and are responsible for the phenomenon examined. Authorities in these disciplines can devise hypotheses to explain the phenomenon they observe and can test them.

SETI assumes there might be non-human life elsewhere in the universe and is nothing more than an expensive fishing expedition. If you think my brother-in-law who loves to fish in the Sea of Cortez is a scientist because he is trying to catch a wee little fish in a big vast sea, then I guess I need to view fishermen in a different light. I thought they were hobbyists.

The search for a granite cube on Mars is nothing more than an exercise in hypotheticals. Call it science if you insist; I don’t see how it is different than a child waiting breathlessly all night beside the fireplace hoping to find Santa coming down the chimney.

I guess the number of science colleagues I acknowledge needs to grow exponentially. I apologize to those I have failed to recognize before as scientists.


Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes

Sean Pitman: The observation alone, of the granite cube on an alien planet, informs us that the creator of the cube was intelligent on at least the human level of intelligence – that’s it. You are correct that this observation, alone, would not inform us as to the identity or anything else about the creator beyond the fact that the creator of this particular granite cube was intelligent and deliberate in the creation of the cube.

Your frank admission concedes that the creator of the cube could itself be an evolved being, and therefore you’re back to square one. Thus, your hypothetical argument offers no support for either evolutionism or creationism, and cannot distinguish between them.


Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
I have taken much abuse by pointing out the simple fact that SDAs have specific interpretations of origins that originate from scripture and cannot be supported by science (if science is “potentially falsifiable empirical evidence”). The beliefs include:

o fiat creation by voice command from a supernatural being
o all major life forms created in a 6-day period
o original creation of major life forms approximately 6,000 years ago

None of these can be falsified by experimental evidence, and therefore are accepted on faith.

Sean Pitman’s responses to this are predictably all over the place. They include:

[This] is a request for absolute demonstration. That’s not what science does.” [totally agreed; science can’t examine these beliefs]

The Biblical account of origins can in fact be supported by strong empirical evidence.” [not any of these three major interpretations of Genesis 1]

Does real science require leaps of faith? Absolutely!

I think it’s fair to say from Pitman’s perspective that faith derived from science is laudable, whereas faith derived from scripture–God’s word–is useless.

Don’t fret, Dr. Pitman. I won’t lure you into further pointless discussion. While I am greatly amused by all of this nonsense and deliberation (hardly angry, as you often suggest) for a small handful of largely disinterested readers, I am finished. I won’t be responding to any further remarks or questions.