Piles and piles of evidence
Evidence is the most ubiquitous thing on our planet. Sometimes, though, it has a doubtful releationship with our theories, and it is always tricky to bring it in quantity to support anything.
Over at ID the Future Cornelius Hunter takes a look at one small piece of the mountains of evidence for evolution, a PNAS article on the highly fascinating electric fish (subscription required, so go through the Cornell library if you’re home for spring break). The article itself, entitled Sodium channel genes and the evolution of diversity in communication signals of electric fishes: Convergent molecular evolution is a look at "whether the evolution of electric organs and electric signal diversity of electric fishes was accompanied by convergent changes on the molecular level". It appears to investigate this point very thoroughly, and the conclusion is that it does; "changes in the expression and sequence of the same gene are associated with the independent evolution of signal complexity".
Or almost; if you assume the (independent) evolution of signal complexity, the authors show it is accompanied by convergent, molecular level changes. Hunter’s conclusion:
It turns out that there really isn’t any evidence, in particular, for the evolution of these electric organs or their sodium channels. …
The bulk of the paper reports empirical findings that do not hinge on, nor support, evolution. The force-fitting of the results into the evolution paradigm is gratuitous. Of course this assumption of evolution is no surprise. But this means that such papers do not help evolution as is claimed. Piles and piles of papers that presuppose evolution and force-fit results do little to rescue evolution from its many evidential problems.
It is important to note that there is nothing wrong with making assumptions; sometimes they are essential for any productivity. But it’s also important to remember when we’re making them, and to be careful not to assume evolution in order to prove it.
If we want to avoid circular reasoning we need a high standard for papers called in to support any theory. After all, if there is any contradiction in your premises, from them you can prove anything…
Suppose for a moment that Darwinian evolution was not consistent with reality. What would it mean, then, to assume it?
