Excellent! Excellent! Excellent!

*nature

Adding video to channels (Nature) - requested by ant.

You don't confuse me with all that science talk, you expect me to believe I evolved from a monkey? I don't even like bananas! Ha! You aint gots nuff science in yas to beat dat logic.

Okay, up front: I'm a vision scientist. I've also read Behe's arguments re: the irreducible complexity of vision. It's odd the way the introduction to this video characterizes his argument. Everything it says regarding the evolution of vision is correct. It is so accepted in fact that Behe even lays it out in his paper. He openly admits how easy it is to get from the eyespots on a mollusk to the human eye. He lays out all the steps, and explains how advantages are conferred at each stage, and thus how it is conceivable that such a thing could have evolved.

Behe, as a biochemist, was most concerned with how it is one gets to the simple eyespot in the first place. The biochemical machinery required for phototransduction is extraordinarily complicated. Many of the substances involved are in fact toxic to cells, and special mechanisms are needed to safely quarantine them. The process relies on extremely complicated proteins, for instance opsin barrels precisely tuned in order to create the appropriate energy barriers to 11-cis retinal isomerization. There are a multitude of other chemicals involved, which I won't go into, but frankly most are required for phototransduction as we know it.

Now, I agree, Behe is guilty of other logical problems, for instance poverty of imagination != QED, but he is well aware of the evolution of the gross anatomical aspects of the human eye. His critique of the blind watchmaker centered on the biochemistry of the eye, and it would be better if the video did as well. Instead, by writing him off as a "pseudoscientific" fraud, or similar ad hominem attacks, they are guilty of equivalent logical fallacies, and should be given equivalent respect. The guy is actually a scientist, with publications in journals such as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the Journal of Molecular Biology, and the Journal of Biophysiology, on topics like DNA and protein structure. Frankly, unless there is a CV somewhere I can see for these qualia-soup people, Behe has them trumped on credentials, so they might avoid the ad hominem, and critique the substance of the actual arguments put forth.

Where in the video does he call Behe a "fraud"? I was listening for it and it never came. Calling Behe "pseudoscientific" is not an ad hominem attack.

Furthermore, the suggestion that QualiaSoup's arguments and logic are insufficient because you don't see journal publications with his name attached to them is a red herring fallacy of its own - Appeal to Accomplishment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_accomplishment).

>> ^bmacs27:
Instead, by writing him off as a "pseudoscientific" fraud, or similar ad hominem attacks, they are guilty of equivalent logical fallacies, and should be given equivalent respect. The guy is actually a scientist, with publications in journals such as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the Journal of Molecular Biology, and the Journal of Biophysiology, on topics like DNA and protein structure. Frankly, unless there is a CV somewhere I can see for these qualia-soup people, Behe has them trumped on credentials, so they might avoid the ad hominem, and critique the substance of the actual arguments put forth.

There was a reason I put pseudoscientific in quotes, and left fraud out of quotes. Calling him pseudoscientific implies he is a fraud, as he claims to be a scientist. It is ad hominem. An appeal to accomplishment is a valid response to an argument that rests on ad hominem attacks.

Further, as far as logical fallacies go, particularly within science, an appeal to expertise hardly seems inappropriate. In fact happens all the time. That's why courts employ expert witnesses, and we accept the recommendations of grants reviewed by peers not laymen. While there is of course always room for arguments from evidence, in the absence of such we generally defer to the intuitions of experts.

There are plenty of arguments that suggest the biochemical mechanisms of phototransduction could have evolved. Why not make them?

>> ^bmacs27:

Calling him pseudoscientific implies he is a fraud, as he claims to be a scientist. It is ad hominem.

Not quite.

"Pseudo-scientific" implies that his methods are, for whatever reason, not scientifically rigorous.

"Fraud" implies an intent to knowingly deceive.


A person can be wrong without being a fraud. Pointing out that someone is factually or methodologically incorrect is not, in itself, a personal attack.

Except QualiaSoup's argument doesn't rest on ad hominem attacks. You're pointing to the single use of a word, "pseudoscientific," which in context (about 4:23) was used as "Some anti-evolutionists repeat an argument put forward by Michael Behe - an advocate of the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement..." (and again, no mention of the word fraud, that was your own addition). That is simply not an ad hominem fallacy, since he is not attacking Behe's character. Perhaps it's just you who interprets it as such? If we're going to debate semantics here, the word "pseudoscience" has a formal definition (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pseudoscience) that, while pejorative, is still not an ad hominem attack against Behe. QualiaSoup used it as an adjective to describe intelligent design, suggesting that it does not conform to the principles of the scientific method. Which is a true statement. It doesn't. QualiaSoup is not questioning Behe's wealth or IQ or sexuality or what Behe's mother did last night or any other personal quality completely unrelated to the issue at hand. Ad hominem = "to the man" - Behe the man is not under attack. Behe's beliefs/opinions are.

Behe's scientific knowledge and work can absolutely be isolated from his pseudoscientific beliefs/advocacy. Isaac Newton sought ways to perform alchemy, does that mean his contributions to fundamental physics are invalid or that it's an ad hominem attack against him personally if I were to say that alchemy is pseudoscience?

Also, would it help put your mind at ease that QualiaSoup isn't blowing smoke out of his ass if a noted and widely published evolutionary scientist like Richard Dawkins made the exact same argument years ago?

>> ^bmacs27:

There was a reason I put pseudoscientific in quotes, and left fraud out of quotes. Calling him pseudoscientific implies he is a fraud, as he claims to be a scientist. It is ad hominem. An appeal to accomplishment is a valid response to an argument that rests on ad hominem attacks.
Further, as far as logical fallacies go, particularly within science, an appeal to expertise hardly seems inappropriate. In fact happens all the time. That's why courts employ expert witnesses, and we accept the recommendations of grants reviewed by peers not laymen. While there is of course always room for arguments from evidence, in the absence of such we generally defer to the intuitions of experts.
There are plenty of arguments that suggest the biochemical mechanisms of phototransduction could have evolved. Why not make them?

Ok, as you cited wikipedia, I will as well. "Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument." It's ad hominem. Further, as you stated, pseudoscientific is a pejorative. It's an attack on his credibility as a scientist by associating him with people like what's his name from Growing Pains.

I never criticized his discussion of the beetle. I am not an entomologist, I'm a vision scientist. I criticized the implication that people who believe like Behe also believe that the eye was too complicated to have evolved. On the contrary, Behe openly admits the likelihood of the evolution of the eye once started from an eyespot, or simple photoreceptor of any sort. Where he noted the possibility of irreducible complexity was in the biochemical transduction of light into electrochemical gradients. That argument was never addressed in the video.

Further, when talking about his views as pseudoscientific, I presume you are referring the common complaint that ID is unfalsifiable. Well, then, I would challenge you to express how the theory of evolution itself could be falsified? Here's Darwin's take from the Origin of Species: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." If you take the position that all claims of irreducible complexity are simply matters of the poverty of imagination, and as such it is not demonstrable, you open evolution up to the same criticism.

While I agree, a hole in our understanding of the universe should not invite the cure-all "God did it," the problem of the falsifiability of evolution remains. That is, those that wish to put evolution into the purview of science, should precisely define what they would accept as evidence it is wrong. While Dawkins often claims scientists do this, I've rarely seen him publicly explain what such evidence would be. When he does, it is usually something snide, such as "finding precambrian fossils of hippos." I find that argument about as appealing as the crocoduck.

God exists.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'evolution, creationists, complexity, darwin, debunking' to 'evolution, creationists, complexity, darwin, debunking, qualiasoup' - edited by xxovercastxx

Actually, QS didn't call Behe pseudo-scientific... he called ID pseudo-scientific and I don't see how ID's validity can be seriously debated.

>> ^bmacs27:

His critique of the blind watchmaker centered on the biochemistry of the eye, and it would be better if the video did as well. Instead, by writing him off as a "pseudoscientific" fraud, or similar ad hominem attacks, they are guilty of equivalent logical fallacies, and should be given equivalent respect.

>> ^bmacs27:

Well, then, I would challenge you to express how the theory of evolution itself could be falsified?


I'm not going to repeat all the arguments here, but talk origins has a pretty good page on the falsifiability of evolution.

>> ^bmacs27:
... I would challenge you to express how the theory of evolution itself could be falsified? Here's Darwin's take from the Origin of Species: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." If you take the position that all claims of irreducible complexity are simply matters of the poverty of imagination, and as such it is not demonstrable, you open evolution up to the same criticism.

Evolution could be falsified by demonstrating that a lineage of reproducing organisms cannot develop new genetic traits over time, though that would be difficult considering we have multiple examples of new traits being formed under observation.

Darwin's quote is mainly pointless because Irreducible Complexity can't be tested. There is nothing even remotely scientific about a "theory" that relies on what we don't know for evidence. We can, however, demonstrate how the genetic traits of reproducing organisms change over time, and if nothing else that gives us avenues of further research regarding the origins of life.

Wow, great comments. I would just like to humbly add that maybe both parties are right? On the ad hominem count, it doesn't seem like an intentional attempt to discredit Behe to me but that doesn't mean it wasn't intentional. You'd have to ask QS about it I suppose.

On the falsifiability of evolution... I think Psychologic is right that we have ample evidence that evolution accounts for organisms developing new traits over time, but that is not the same thing as meaning evolution accounts for the development of all traits in all organisms. I think this is a mistake many (non-scientist) adherents of evolution make--claiming evolution explains a particular trait without having any scientific evidence that evolution actually accounts for that trait. Even if such an explanation is plausible, without scientific evidence it is nothing more than an untested hypothesis (even though it may be a reasonable one).

So, while I don't think we can falsify the idea that "evolution" takes place at this point, I think we might be able to falsify the idea that evolution alone accounts for the development of certain traits (I'm thinking mostly of the recent forays some scientists have made in trying to use evolution theory to explain not just biological but also social and cultural traits).

It's pretty absurd to hear a creationist/ID proponent talk about evolution being unfalsifiable and then, in the same breath, push their evidence-less pet theory that claims to...err...falsify evolution.

If you've got me pegged as a creationist/ID proponent, you've got me pegged wrong. I specifically said, filling gaps in knowledge with divine intervention is obviously not valid. My point is simply that many who claim ID is unfalsifiable also claim irreducible complexity as impossible to demonstrate, thus they might open evolution up to the same criticism. I don't really care what side I argue for, I'm just interested in hearing a higher level of debate. Frankly, I didn't want to talk about logical fallacies, I wanted to talk about biochemical processes, like opsin barrels, and energy barriers. That shit is dope.

Now, the real problem here is that what we mean by "evolution" is a moving target. It's so broad it's meaningless. In many ways "Darwinian evolution" has been falsified hundreds of times, much like Newtonian mechanics. It was wrong in the details. In fact, almost every rule I was ever taught at an elementary level about any sort of obviously falsifiable detail of evolution has turned out to be false in some weird or possibly limited case (e.g. epigenetics smells awfully Lamarckian). Still, we don't say "Darwin was wrong." You can't falsify evolution in the broad sense the same way you can't falsify gravity. At this point it's common sense more than science. It's more like a world view we use to form specific falsifiable theories than a theory itself. It's a world view that has been shown to be extraordinarily enlightening for sure. So much so, that at this point even with that Hippo fossil, I don't think people would change their minds.

That's fine. I just get worried about how far people push the assumption of natural selection (e.g. evolutionary psychology). I feel that there would more constructive arguments resulting from a healthy skepticism about it. I understand that there is a sociopolitical undertone to the whole debate, and I respect that. I just happen to think that those with the better arguments will win (natural selection). So often I see bullshit jive being put forth as reasoned debate, which I think is what happens when ideas gain too much popular acceptance. Thus, I'd like to see an elevated level of debate about the topic. Since you aren't going to get QM to form a coherent paragraph, I might as well be the uke.

>> ^bmacs27:
Now, the real problem here is that what we mean by "evolution" is a moving target. It's so broad it's meaningless.

Indeed. I would much prefer more specific designations for particular ideas within evolution (micro, macro, etc). "Evolution" seems to have a different meaning for everyone so at times it's difficult to know if two sides of a conversation are discussing the same idea.

If it helps, I never thought you were advocating for creationism. =)

That quote from Darwin perfectly demonstrates at least one way in which evolution could be falsified.

If you take the position that all claims of irreducible complexity are simply matters of the poverty of imagination, and as such it is not demonstrable, you open evolution up to the same criticism.


Except one has boatloads of evidence from a large variety of scientific fields, all corroborating near perfectly with each other, and the other has nothing but personal incredulity; no mechanism, no predictions, no real-world application, and most importantly no evidence. Never mind that the term "irreducible complexity" is essentially meaningless. I think evolution can live with the shame of not being a phantasm of people's imaginations.

If you've got me pegged as a creationist/ID proponent, you've got me pegged wrong.

Don't worry there, I wasn't referring to you as one, but am noting that you are using the identical argument. Almost every time I have this argument with someone pushing ID, the whole "evolution is unfalsifiable" meme inevitably comes up. It's really not too hard to think of the ways in which the details of evolution via natural selection could be falsified or to even Google them if you can't.

Also, the admission that evolution would be hard to falsify with only one piece of evidence isn't an argument against its so-called unfalsifiable character, merely that there's an immense wealth of evidence that serves as further confirmation that yes, what we humans label evolution by natural selection is/has been certainly happening and it would take pretty extraordinarily multitudinous counter-evidence to prove(?) otherwise (of course, even still, it wouldn't make any form of ID automatically true). The information is readily available to anyone with a genuine inclination to look for it.

I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what your position is, if you don't mind shortly clarifying again in a couple of sentences. Thanks.

>> ^Psychologic:

Indeed. I would much prefer more specific designations for particular ideas within evolution (micro, macro, etc). "Evolution" seems to have a different meaning for everyone so at times it's difficult to know if two sides of a conversation are discussing the same idea.


"There is nothing mysterious or purposeful about evolution...it just happens. It is an automatic consequence of cold, simple mathematics." -- Scott Freeman & Jon C. Herron, Evolutionary Analysis

Microevolution is the change in an allele's frequency over multiple generations. Macroevolution is commonly referred to as speciation, the formation of new species via microevolutionary methods along with the isolation of organisms (either geographically or otherwise) and their eventual genetic divergence due to this isolation.

>> ^bmacs27:

Now, the real problem here is that what we mean by "evolution" is a moving target. It's so broad it's meaningless. In many ways "Darwinian evolution" has been falsified hundreds of times, much like Newtonian mechanics. It was wrong in the details.

I just get worried about how far people push the assumption of natural selection (e.g. evolutionary psychology).


Evolution is a moving target in as so much as any scientific discipline is. I'm sure if we started arguing about the physiology of vision, there would come a point where theory is still changing and, if I may, evolving within the scientific community. As I'm sure you know, this is just how science works.

Darwin was wrong in the details, true. Up to his death, Darwin believed in gemmules (small particles that travel through the body and deposit their "characteristics" into the gentialia) but that does not make his ideas any less sound. Modern evolutionary theory has filled in the gaps of Darwinian evolutionary theory. The fact that we can even reference Darwin 150+ years later should be a testament to how radically brilliant his ideas were and it should not undermine them just because he lived in a time where nothing was known about genetics (save Mendel's small garden patch).

About your last point concerning natural selection, I agree in so far that natural selection is not the only cause of evolution. Since evolution is merely the change in allele frequency over time, this can also be caused by migration and genetic drift, two very powerful forces and often more powerful in shorter time spans than natural selection. Albeit these forces are not influenced by agents of selection such as the environment, competition, predation, or sexual selection, they are still effective at causing the evolution of populations.

Pseudoscience is that which masquerades as science without actually concerning itself with using science to prove the truth of its claims. It is therefore simply a statement of fact to call Intelligent Design pseudoscientific.

@zombieater bravo sir.

>> ^bmacs27:

If you've got me pegged as a creationist/ID proponent, you've got me pegged wrong. I specifically said, filling gaps in knowledge with divine intervention is obviously not valid. My point is simply that many who claim ID is unfalsifiable also claim irreducible complexity as impossible to demonstrate you might open evolution up to the same criticism. I don't really care what side I argue for, I'm just interested in hearing a hire level of debate. Frankly, I didn't want to talk about logical fallacies, I wanted to talk about biochemical processes, like opsin barrels, and energy barriers. That shit is dope.
Now, the real problem here is that what we mean by "evolution" is a moving target. It's so broad it's meaningless. In many ways "Darwinian evolution" has been falsified hundreds of times, much like Newtonian mechanics. It was wrong in the details. In fact, almost every rule I was ever taught at an elementary level about any sort of obviously falsifiable detail of evolution has turned out to be false in some weird or possibly limited case (e.g. epigenetics smells awfully Lamarckian). Still, we don't say "Darwin was wrong." You can't falsify evolution in the broad sense the same way you can't falsify gravity. At this point it's common sense more than science. It's more like a world view we use to form specific falsifiable theories than a theory itself. It's a world view that has been shown to be extraordinarily enlightening for sure. So much so, that at this point even with that Hippo fossil, I don't think people would change their minds.
That's fine. I just get worried about how far people push the assumption of natural selection (e.g. evolutionary psychology). I feel that there would more constructive arguments resulting from a healthy skepticism about it. I understand that there is a sociopolitical undertone to the whole debate, and I respect that. I just happen to think that those with the better arguments will win (natural selection). So often I see bullshit jive being put forth as reasoned debate, which I think is what happens when ideas gain too much popular acceptance. Thus, I'd like to see an elevated level of debate about the topic. Since you aren't going to get QM to form a coherent paragraph, I might as well be the uke.


Well, you may not remember, but not long ago "gravity" was thought not to exist. It took Galileo to prove without a doubt that it did. Same thing with "evolution": the concept was understood before Darwin (by, among others, Lamarck), but it took Darwin and his idea of natural selection to prove it (with Mendelian genetics being the Newtonian mechanics's analog). Newton said that two mass attract each other, and it still is true today only now we know that it is so because they each form a gravity well. In the same way Darwin said evolution happens by natural selection. I do not know how our understanding of the concept will change (or not, which is possible) in the future, but it will still be recognizable as being that the most fit (adapted) organism in a situation surviving and producing more offspring than the rest. What will change, I think, will be how we define fitness, organism, survival and reproduction. Already, the concept of "meme" shows how broadening some of the terms can lead to new understanding in the psychological realm. If you want to show that Darwin is wrong, then by all means attack natural selection and show us a better mechanism for evolution, the same way Einstein replaced Newtonian mechanics with general relativity. But really, I don't see how talking about biochemical processes will ever falsify natural selection. In fact, I don't even see how a flaw in natural selection could be revealed by some biochemical process: they seem to be on two different levels of abstraction. But if you know of one, then by all means enlighten us.

*length=10:52

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 10:52 - length declared by radx.