Monday, May 22, 2017

New Paper From Gareth Fraser’s Group Confirms Common Ancestry

If P Implies Q, Then Q Implies P, Right?

A new paper out of Gareth Fraser’s laboratory explains that vertebrate epithelial appendages, such as feathers, hair, scales, and teeth, “have evolved to facilitate wide-ranging aspects of survival and reproduction.” Readers will note the infinitive form (“to facilitate”), which reveals the usual Aristotelianism / teleology under-girding evolutionary thought, but how do the evolutionists know that these structures “have evolved” in the first place? A hint comes in the next paragraph, which informs us that:

Recent research has revealed shared ancestry among amniote epithelial appendages, based on the observation that reptilian scales, avian feathers and mammalian hair share a common foundation during early development: the anatomical placode.

This is a good example of what passes as confirmation of common ancestry for evolutionists. These various vertebrate epithelial appendages “share a common foundation during early development,” so therefore they share a common ancestor.

Simply put, similarity proves evolution.

This, of course, is false. Similarity does not prove evolution. This is the age-old fallacy of affirming the consequent. If P implies Q, then Q implies P, right?

Wrong.

Nor is this example of fallacious reasoning a rare exception to otherwise air-tight, rigorous, thinking on the part of evolutionists.

Such fallacious reasoning is ubiquitous in evolutionary thought. It is everywhere. Not only does this example blatant fallacy appear right up front in peer-reviewed paper in a leading evolutionary journal, like a nasty virus it is literally rampant throughout the evolutionary literature.

Indeed, this example cites a 2016 paper with the same fallacy appearing in the very title:

Di-Poï N, Milinkovitch MC. The anatomical placode in reptile scale morphogenesis indicates shared ancestry among skin appendages in amniotes. Sci Adv. 2016;2:1–8.

Science, if anything, is logical. Philosophers never thought to deploy logic as a demarcation criterion because, frankly, they never in their wildest imagination could believe that people would seriously set forth fallacious reasoning, with a straight face, as legitimate science.

Think again.

6 comments:

  1. "This, of course, is false. Similarity does not prove evolution. This is the age-old fallacy of affirming the consequent. If P implies Q, then Q implies P, right?"

    Something like the similarity in biology to design is being used to affirm ID. Nice own goal.

    This OP is one of the best uses of the quote mine to misrepresent what others are saying that I have seen in a long time. You quote from the introduction of the paper, a sentence that is referencing another paper. If you bothered to actually read the paper you are quoting from you would have noticed that it was not claiming anything conclusive, only that their observations were evidence for common anscestry.

    Here is a quote from the paper that is far more representative of what the authors are saying.

    "Overall, these findings suggest the core GRN for building vertebrate integumentary epithelial appendages has been highly conserved over 450 million years. This provides evidence for the continuous, historical homology of epithelial appendage placodes throughout jawed vertebrates, from sharks to mammals. Epithelial placodes constitute the shared foundation upon which diverse vertebrate integumentary organs have evolved."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, you are confusing two different things. While your interpretation (that the paper is inconsistent between its opening and later discussion) is interesting; what you are pointing out is actually their discussion of their new shark results, whereas the opening discusses epithelial appendages in previously studied species, which you would have known if you had "actually read the paper." You also would have known that, in spite of your creative reinterpretation, the paper was indeed "claiming [something] conclusive." What exactly is it about "Recent research has revealed shared ancestry" that you don't understand?

      But this is always the argument. When you simply point out what evolutionists have said, in no uncertain terms, they attempt to walk it back, and pin the blame on you: "It's all your fault, don't you see."

      Delete
  2. Until scientists can account for the anatomical and physiological differences observed between alleged related species (like humans and chimps) common ancestry will remain an untestable and therefor unscientific concept. And to date no one has been able to link those differences to the genetic differences observed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Joe G
    "Until scientists can account for the anatomical and physiological differences observed between alleged related species (like humans and chimps) common ancestry will remain an untestable and therefor unscientific concept. And to date no one has been able to link those differences to the genetic differences observed."

    This theory got a little ahead of itself :-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Excellent point in a important thread.
    Yes they confirm bias.
    Evolutionists are not held to scrunity because thier ideas to not affect health, or buildings, or moving things amongst mankind.
    they , in tiny circles, can be sloppy.
    Johnathan Well's new book also brings up this faulty reasoning.
    Homology belongs to all mankind.
    Likeness in biology is observable.
    its the ORIGIN for why that is open to different hypothesis.
    right now evolutionists, literally in textbooks, define homology as from common descent.
    A great error in scientific classification. even if true its only a hypothesis. Homology only shows what it shows.
    A creator, another option, would also likely buold biology on a common blueprint just like in physics.
    Does likeness in physic laws prove common descent for those laws? No!

    Indeed evolutionism has no fuel except in comparisonology!
    In fact there is no biological scientific evidence. its other subjects that they prop up evolutionism on.
    Its falling before our eyes.
    Sure it is.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dr. Hunter, I've been trying for weeks to wrap my head around the current state of directed mutation. I don't have a biology background (MBA and computer science) but I'm getting comfortable with the terms. What I'm having trouble with, is the current status of the whole directed mutation controversy.
    foster, of Cairns and Foster, wrote at length that mutations are not directed. Reading the paper, it seems she is focused only on directed in the sense of targeting specific genes for change.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC451643/

    I'm also not sure how this study addresses the mutation rate issue. It seems to me that if a cell knows it has to adapt, and consequently increases mutation rates, then there is a self-diagnosis mechanism. Some way for a cell to "know" that it must adapt to survive. This defies evolution whether specific genes are targeted or not, cells can't "know" anything.

    Your post on protein evolution is related but I can't articulate how. If protein coding genes can't effectively find new function randomly, then some method of direction is implied. How would this be related to the Cairns et al paper, or is it?

    There are precious few places where science is allowed to be scientific. I hope you follow up on your directed mutation themes. Your style is unique and greatly appreciated.

    ReplyDelete