Conservapedia vs Evolution: Vol 5

In volume 4 of this ridiculous series, I addressed Conservapedia's claim that the second law of thermodynamics was a counterexample to evolution. Click here to read that. (Same window)

This time, Conservapedia shifts from thermodynamics to mathematics. Let's see what they have to say about the Law of Large Numbers:

"The Law of Large Numbers states that things tend to revert to their average over time (the large number of examples), while evolution requires the opposite: that things become more complex and depart further from their average over time."

To understand the Law of Large Numbers, take a six sided die and begin rolling it. It can only land on 1-6, with 3.5 being the average. You might get a series of 'runs' where your average outcome is 1 or 2, but after a few hundred rolls, your average will grow closer and closer to 3.5.

Refuting the central point...

The claim "evolution requires...that things become more complex" isn't true. Evolution is just small changes over large periods of time. The process we call Natural Selection does usually result in things becoming more complex, but natural selection has more to do with how likely traits are to pass on.

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

Some researchers believe that sponges may have evolved from more complex ancestors by becoming simpler [1], but counterexamples aren't necessary after refuting a central point.

TLDR; Evolution does not require growth in complexity, and The Law of Large Numbers applies to Evolution differently because parameters change. Evolution IS change. 

But how do parameters change throughout evolution? Let's take our six sided die. We'll let the D-6 represent a specific gene in wolves; a gene for aggression. Let's let each numbered side represent how strongly that gene is expressed. Roll the die 10 times. Each roll represents a wolf in our pack, and each outcome represents how aggressive that particular wolf is.

Wolves with traits 1 and 2 are more vicious, cruel, and are very likely to kill for food without a second thought. Wolves with traits 5 and 6 are less confrontational. They're less likely to kill for food, and more likely to stealthily steal meat from the other wolves. Wolves with traits 1 and 2 are better fighters, but wolves with traits 5 and 6 are more inclined to avoid fights.

So far, all wolves in this tribe have an equal chance of surviving, and passing on their genes. The parameters representing their aggression remain 1-6.

But meat has become scarce, and they have no choice but to find new territory. They claim land neighbored by humans. They grow hungry.

Our wolves with traits 1 and 2 immediately go for the humans. These guys readied their guns, and most of them are shot. However, the less aggressive wolves wait, and are fed by sneaking unattended food.


Wolves with traits 3 and 4 are slightly confrontational and not very sneaky, so most of them are eventually shot. Due to these environmental changes, wolves with traits 5 and 6 now greatly outnumber the others. Wolves with these traits are significantly more likely to breed, so the next generation of wolves are less aggressive than the original pack.

When we roll a D-6, we have solid parameters. Every outcome will be a random number between 1-6. The average outcome will always drift towards 3.5. But genes aren't so random in the same sense. They're self replicating, and certain traits are likely to be passed on from parents. With our wolf pack, the parameters associated with aggressiveness changed. The average aggressiveness in these wolves is getting closer to 5.5 with every pup born. The average will drift as survival dictates. When aggression is needed, the parameters change again. This goes for every trait; speed, boldness, temperature sensitivity, cuteness, etc.

Clearly, the Law of Large numbers doesn't apply to evolution in the same sense as the author suggests.

Want more? Next time: Is Evolution untrue because a historically recorded ancient flood conflict with the fossil record? (Placeholder)
___________________________________

Originally posted on Blogspot.com/RationalJesse.
Twitter: @RationalJesse
Facebook: /RationalJesse.
Youtube: Click here.

 __________________________________________

[1]
http://phys.org/news/2012-09-evolution-meant-simpler-complex.html#jCp

CT School Blocks Conservative Websites

On June 16th, a Connecticut student vented to Facebook after discovering that his school had blocked several right-leaning websites. 

"Is the region supporting the religion of Islam, whose radical believers wage war against this nation, who murdered almost 3000 Americans on 9/11, and vow to continue these acts of terrorism, but are rejecting the principles of Christianity which this nation was founded upon?"

His entire rant and a list of websites that were blocked can be read here. Although his rant contains inaccuracies, this central point is still concerning.

The school's superintendent responds:

Many of the liberal sites accessible to the student fell into the “not rated” category, which was unblocked while many of the conservative sites were in the “political/advocacy group” which is accessible to teachers but not to students.  The district is trying to determine the reason for the inconsistency and if the bias is pervasive enough to justify switching to another content filtering provider.

The school's entire reply is found here. Several questions have yet to be answered.
Are right-leaning websites actually being blocked disproportionately?
If true, could this be due to any reason other than a person/company's political bias?
If conservative websites disproportionately contained inaccuracies or incited leaps in logic to a greater extent than left-leaning websites, should a school then be allowed to block those sites?

I'm not jumping to conclusions until more information is provided. Those who battle confirmation bias understand how important it can be to read material that conflicts with their points of view. However, if these websites were blocked for legitimate reasons, it may not be wise to unblock them for the sake of political correctness.

Stay rational, my friends.

Jesse
___________________________________
Originally posted on Blogspot.com/RationalJesse.
Twitter: @RationalJesse
Facebook: /RationalJesse.
Youtube: Click here.
___________________________________

Conservapedia vs Evolution: Vol 4

Last time, we countered Conservapedia's claim that Evolution doesn't account for the current rate of extinction. Click here to read that. (Same window)

Conservapedia hits a new low, as their fourth counter-example to evolution misrepresents yet another scientific theory. This is what they say:

“The Second Law of Thermodynamics establishes that everything in the world becomes more disordered over time, in the absence of intelligent intervention; the theory of evolution falsely claims that some systems can become more ordered, like an impossible perpetual motion machine."

There are two separate claims in this argument. Let’s look at the first one.

“The Second Law of Thermodynamics establishes that everything in the world becomes more disordered over time, in the absence of intelligent intervention.”

The Second Law of Thermodynamics establishes that isolated systems lose the ability to do work. Since some energy is lost due to heat and other factors, an isolated system can’t convert all of its energy into working energy. This is why perpetual motion machines don’t work forever. Even the most efficient ones will leak energy, and eventually slow down.  

The phrase ‘in the absence of intelligent intervention’ is incorrect. A working phrase would be ‘within a closed system’. It seems like the author chose this misleading phrase just to make evolution seems impossible. After misrepresenting thermodynamics, the author immediately says this about Evolution:

"The theory of evolution falsely claims that some systems can become more ordered, like an impossible perpetual motion machine."

The theory of evolution does conclude that systems may become more ordered, but this doesn't contradict the actual Second Law of Thermodynamics. It only contradicts Conservapedias incorrect version which claims that intelligent intervention is needed to maintain order. The difference is that Evolution is not confided to a closed system, like impossible perpetual motion machines. 

Living organisms are not closed systems either[1]. They gain energy by eating other organisms. Most of life on Earth wouldn't even be possible without the constant intervention of the Sun, which heats organisms and even allows humans to convert cholesterol into vitamin D. Organs and the cells within them are extremely ordered[2]. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in no way implies that these open systems can't become more ordered.

TLDR; "Within closed systems" =/= "without intelligent intervention." Conservapedia's entire counterexample rests on their incorrectly defined version of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Next: Does the Law of Large Numbers disprove Evolution? (Same window)
_____________________________________________
Originally posted on Blogspot.com/RationalJesse.
Twitter: @RationalJesse
Facebook: /RationalJesse.
Youtube: Click here.

 ________________________________________

[1]
John W. Patterson, "Thermodynamics and Evolution," in Laurie R. Godfrey, ed., Scientists Confront Creationism, W. W. Norton, New York, 1983, pg. 99-116.

[2]
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/45182/excerpt/9780521845182_excerpt.pdf

A beginner level lesson on Thermodynamics:
Thermodynamic Laws that Explain Systems

Ridiculously high level reading on the subject:
Open Systems and Organization Theories 
Thermodynamics of Living Systems .___________________________________________
.

Comedian Burns Dr Oz (John Oliver)

(After Dr Oz touted a substance called Green Coffee Bean Extract, one company in Florida sold half a million bottles.)

"The main ingredient in those magic beans not only fails to help lab mice, it gave them the early symptoms of diabetes. [...] If you wanna keep spouting this bullshit, that's fine; but don't call your show Dr. Oz. Call it, 'Check This Shit Out, with Some Guy Named Mehmet'."

If the glorious video doesn't load below this sentence, you can watch it by clicking the link below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAZe1jMASVc

Should Dr. Oz be held accountable for using misleading terms, like 'simple solution' and '#1 miracle in a bottle?' Is he using his title as a doctor to promote potentially dangerous products ?
_______________
Posted on Blogspot.com/RationalJesse.
I'm on Twitter! @RationalJesse
I'm on Facebook!
_______________

Acupuncture Trials Under Serious Review

Acupuncture uses heat and sharp needles to supposedly correct imbalances in the flow of qi through different qi channels. Acupuncture is used in the treatment of stress, chronic pain [1], and even nausea in chemotherapy patients [2]. Acupuncture is possibly the backbone of alternative traditional Chinese medicine, and the skeptical researchers have taken notice.

A team of 8 supervised medical students began their research by searching for randomized, controlled trials in 28 journals of traditional Chinese medicine. They then examined the quality of methodology used. Here's what they had to say:

The method of randomization was often described incorrectly. Only 15% of trials were blind, out of which only a few used a large number (300+) of subjects.

Here's the weirdest part. Many of these "trials" use other Chinese treatments on their control subjects. These were treatments which may or may not have been effective themselves. 

Here's the kicker. Effectiveness was rarely reported in terms of actual numbers. Out of this inconclusive mess, take a look at how effective acupuncture was reported in Stroke trials.

Out of these trials, many of which were incorrectly randomized, non-blind, small, without proper controls, and without actual numbers... the overwhelming majority of scientists reported acupuncture and other traditional Chinese treatments as effective. 

As news stations and social media sites buzz about the newest slanted studies reporting how effective alternative treatment is, the skeptics ask for more.

And heads collide with desks, because skeptical scientists would rather have one good study than 1,000 slanted ones. They know that methodology is everything. Skepticism is essential for unbiased science.

This doesn't necessarily indicate that acupuncture is ineffective, but this does mean that there's really no good reason to believe it's effective. This treatment has had hundreds of years to prove its effectiveness, and we still can't say it works due to inadequate methodology and researcher bias.

Read the original study here.
_______________
Posted on Blogspot.com/RationalJesse.
You should definitely add me on twitter. @RationalJesse
You should probably add me on facebook here.
_______________
[1] 
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/acupuncture-is-worth-a-try-for-chronic-pain-201304016042
[2] 
http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/manualhealingandphysicaltouch/acupuncture

Conservapedia vs Evolution: Vol 3

Last time, we countered Conservapedia's claim that "Evolution predicts that human intelligence should increase over time" .  Click here to read that. (Same window)

Conservapedia's third counter-example to evolution reads: 

3. "The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely." 

Entire species are rapidly becoming extinct every year, and it takes a lot longer for new species to emerge (speciation), according to evolution. That part's correct. (That's a first!) The second sentence argues that evolution becomes less and less plausible the longer this trend continues, since everything should have already been dead by now. That's also correct.

Note that the first sentence deals with the "current rate" of something, and the second sentence deals with applying that current rate to the past".

If we flat-out assume that Conservapedia's assertions are correct, the conclusion still does not follow. This is called an unsound syllogism. We can examine the truth value of the premises for fun, but this syllogism is already flawed, so we really don't have to. Here's why:
This argument conflates the current rate of extinction/speciation with past rates of extinction/speciation.

"Stocks are up 20% this quarter. Expanding our timeline back 10 years when we started, stocks must have increased by 20% every quarter! We're up 800%!"
- Conservapedia's Head Business Adviser.

Do you see the conflation? It happens as soon as the expanding timeline is mentioned, because the conclusion is based on the assumption that those rates are static. To lay the premises out in a way that avoids this logical fallacy, we have to take away the conflation tactic.

P1] The current rate of extinction exceeds speciation.
P2] Rates of extinction have always exceeded rates of speciation.
C] Expanding a given timeline reveals that extinction always exceeds speciation

Here, the argument avoids the logical fallacy. The argument's now stronger because it is sound. Now, the conclusion actually makes sense if the premises are true. You're welcome, Conservapedia.

In order to counter this, we now have to actually show that one of the premises is incorrect. In an actual argument, Conservapedia would have to prove the second premise. Us having to prove it's wrong is a shifting of the burden of proof, but we don't care since the second premise is so easy to refute.

If the second premise is false, this conclusion:

Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely

becomes unsound, and crumbles apart. Let's do it.
(Conservapedia's conclusion also seems to argue against how long scientists believe life has existed on earth. Conservapedia is known for young-earth arguments, but it's beyond the scope of this article.). 

Let's talk about death and destruction. Between the Permian and Triassic period about 250 million years ago [1], an event occurred that we now call the Great Dying [2].

Up to 96% of all marine life [3] became extinct. This was one of the few times in history where insects [4] took a massive hit. This event also wasn't isolated.

440 Million years ago, 60%-70% of all species became extinct[6]. 200 million years ago, 70-75% of all life was wiped out[5]. 66 million years ago, it happened again[6]. In fact, we know of 5 great extinction periods, and several smaller extinction periods, where the rates of extinction have far exceeded rates of speciation. This confirms that rates of extinction vary greatly from time to time.

When laid out on a timeline, the trend looks like spikes in extinction followed by longer periods of speciation. Keep in mind that speciation isn't always gradual[7].

It's literally not possible for the average extinction rate to exceed the average speciation rate. Otherwise, 11 species can become extinct when only 10 species have ever existed.

This proves that rates of extinction do NOT always exceeded rates of speciation. Therefore, this conclusion:

"Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely"

is logically impossible. The necessary second premise (which fixed the conflation problem) is incorrect, there's no reason to ever reach the conclusion. Because we actually know of periods where speciation exceeds extinction, the conclusion that we shouldn't reach is demonstrably false.

TLDR; The current rate of extinction is a trend and speciation rates generally exceed extinction rates. Therefore, Conservapedia's counter-example fails to reach it's conclusion. 

Next:: Does the Second Law of Thermodynamics invalidate Evolution? Conservapedia thinks so! (Same Window)
____________________________________
Originally posted on Blogspot.com/RationalJesse.
You should definitely add me on twitter. @RationalJesse
You should probably add me on facebook here.
____________________________________
[1] 
250m years ago 
 Shen S.-Z. et al. (2011). "Calibrating the End-Permian Mass Extinction". Science. Bibcode:2011Sci...334.1367S. doi:10.1126/science.1213454.

[2] 
death due to carbon 
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/03/26/1318106111.full.pdf+html

[3] 
marine life
126/science.1213454.
^ Jump up to: a b c Benton M J (2005). When life nearly died: the greatest mass extinction of all time. London: Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0-500-28573-X.

[4] 
insects
Labandeira CC, Sepkoski JJ (1993). "Insect diversity in the fossil record". Science 261 (5119): 310–315. Bibcode:1993Sci...261..310L. doi:10.1126/science.11536548. PMID 11536548.

[5] 
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/extinction

[6] 
Raup, D.; Sepkoski Jr, J. (1982). "Mass extinctions in the marine fossil record". Science 215 (4539): 1501–1503. Bibcode:1982Sci...215.1501R. doi:10.1126/science.215.4539.1501. PMID 17788674. 

[7] 
https://www.inkling.com/read/biology-marielle-hoefnagels-2nd/chapter-13/13-4-speciation-may-be-gradual 

Conservapedia vs Evolution: Vol 2

Last time, we countered Conservapedia's claim that artistic beauty lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation by refuting the central point and providing counter-examples- the very ones Conservapedia tried to use to dismiss evolution. Click here to read that (Same window).

Today, we're discussing Conservapedia's second counter-example to evolution. It reads: 

2) Evolution predicts that human intelligence should increase over time, when in fact all evidence is that it is decreasing: declining SAT scores, shortening attention spans, and increasing mental problems.

This is the kind of claim that a child would make after watching a Science Fiction movie. “The X-men  have reached the pinnacle of human Evolution! Smarter, stronger, faster, telekinetic abilities!” This view of Evolution is so fundamentally absurd and movie-like that I can't tell if it's satire or not. SAT scores have been declining for 50 years.

Checkmate, Evolutionists? Humor aside, this claim is demonstrably false. 

Evolution itself makes no claims to human intelligence. We can attempt to predict how an environment may affect a certain species to evolve over extended periods of time, but incorrect predictions wouldn't necessarily disprove evolution.

An incorrect prediction would only turn the scientific community on its head if one of the laws of evolution (that the theory is built upon) couldn't account for what actually happened.

So using "Evolution predicts X, and X did not occur" as a counter-example is inherently flawed. I could end the article here, but I'll continue for educational purposes, and because I like talking about gorillas.

Before that, I need to clear the air. Conservapedia makes it seem like there's some massive conspiracy, where the majority of scientists are plotting against God or something. Let's look at reality. I can only think of 3 possibilities.
1) Either 99% of biological scientists are wrong, 
2) there's a massive conspiracy between them, or
3) a portion of the population misunderstands a commonly misrepresented scientific theory.
Occam's Razor demands rational thinkers to contemplate which of these choices makes the least assumptions. Now let's talk about monkeys.


Sometimes, there's no need increased intelligence. Some primates have kept the same level of intelligence for 10,000,000 years. Let's look at a family of gorillas in the wild.

If their environment generally stayed the same, there would be no demand for an adaptation. They're already smart enough to survive, breed, and pass on their genes. If nothing in the environment kills off the unintelligent ones, they also pass on their genes. 

Furthermore, traits of intelligent may actually be unfavorable to survival. Going back to our gorilla family, throw in the very recent presence of poachers. Suddenly, traits such as the curiosity to investigate may cause immediate death. If the curious gorillas don't run away from poachers, they may be more likely to be picked off, thus never passing on those genes. 

Enough about gorillas, let's talk about us. Why did us humans develop such intelligence in the first place?  Some of our finer aspects of intelligence, such as higher communication, may not have been necessary for survival. They could have easily developed by proxy via sexual selection. [1] This conclusion is pretty likely, since intelligence was a good indicator of general fitness.

I could stop here, but there's a glaringly obvious example that destroys Conservapedia's claim about human intelligence. It's something we've observed as early as 1939. There's a very real, very noticeable inverse relationship between intelligence and fertility. [2] This means that upper-class humans with higher intelligence have less children than lower-class humans with less intelligence. I'm not generalizing here, this is all on average. This may be due to better family planning, easier access to birth control, more independence, or other factors.

Idiocracy puts a hilarious spin on what could happen if this trend continues.

To put it bluntly, 'less intelligent' people have more children. Given this fact, we can easily predict decreasing SAT scores. However, Conservapedia should know that these problems go much deeper than the theory of evolution. Other factors, such as school funding and lower standards affect SAT scores. Not only that, human intelligence may have more to do with nutrition [3] than anything else. 

So to even consider the possibility that lower SAT scores counter evolution is wishful thinking at best, and the fact that intelligent people are less likely to pass on their DNA basically destroys Conservapedia's claim. Boo!

Next: Can Evolution account for the current rate of extinction? (Same window)

_________
I made a twitter. Message me or something. @RationalJesse
_________

[1]  
Miller. The Mating Mind. ISBN 0-8058-5749-4.
[2]
The Sociological Review
olume a31, Issue 2, pages 144–165, April 1939
[3] 
Dewar, C.S; Psych, M.R.C (2004). "Enhanced nutrition of offspring as a crucial factor for the evolution of intelligence on land".Medical Hypotheses 62 (5): 802–7. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2003.11.031. PMID 15082111.