Statistical Analysis

We know that throughout history there have been sightings of, and spiritual encounters with, angels, demons, spirits, ghosts, even Jesus and God.  There have been healings and miracles and other types of personal experiences.  Yes, there are plenty of false reports from people wanting attention.  But there are a lot of credible people having experiences too.  I would be the first to agree that these experiences are difficult, if not impossible, to put to the scientific test.

If we were to look at the statistical significance of such events, however, surely on the whole they are considered statistically significant – a respectable percentage of these events are likely to have actually happened.  There is something to the eye witness accounts that, though not provable, can be shown statistically to be likely and therefore should not just merely be discounted altogether.

What about other statistical analyses? There are acceptable methods for calculating probabilities and performing statistical analysis and such methods are commonly used by scientists and engineers.  I’ve used them in my field as an engineer.  Using these methods, the probability of the earth being inhabitable at all or man evolving from sea worms or space dust has been calculated.  And, as you can guess, it is in the realm of impossible, mathematically speaking.

So here’s my quandary: These mathematical calculations of the earth being habitable or of man’s origins or of supernatural encounters, using scientifically accepted statistical analysis, are at odds with the broad claim that we evolved from sea worms (or whatever).  Quite frankly, I‘d bet on the math.

Do Pixels Reveal the Picture?

TalkOrigins.org is a website dedicated to explaining the various evidences for evolution.  On an intro to biology segment it explains that macroevolution (evolution from species to another species) cannot be observed but can be extrapolated from microevolution (evolutionary changes within a species), which has been observed.  It goes on to say “But this extrapolation, in and of itself, does not provide a compelling explanation of the patterns of biological diversity we see today.  Evidence for macroevolution, or common ancestry and modification with descent, comes from several other fields of study”

Many other fields of study are detailed, for example,  29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.  This article and others on that website contain many compelling arguments worthy of notice.

This evidence, however good, represents just a relative few pixels in the whole high definition screen of life origins.  The individual pixel arguments, yes, could be argued as fact and are presented as such.  But the whole extrapolation, and that is what it is, that we can trace our origins back to sea worms and the like – this part is not fact.  This part of it is unprovable – it is extrapolated from the existing pixel-like evidences.

The high definition image of life origins cannot be revealed from the limited number of existing pixel arguments, however bright they may be.

Microevolution or Macroevolution?

I’ve read often that the terms microevolution and macroevolution are just brought on by creationists to muddy the waters.  But microevolution and macroevolution are not terms that come from creationists.  Evolutionists’ own gurus explain it quite well.

This is a quote from TalkOrigins ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html): “Microevolution can be studied directly. Macroevolution cannot. Macroevolution is studied by examining patterns in biological populations and groups of related organisms and inferring process from pattern. Given the observation of microevolution and the knowledge that the earth is billions of years old — macroevolution could be postulated. But this extrapolation, in and of itself, does not provide a compelling explanation of the patterns of biological diversity we see today. Evidence for macroevolution, or common ancestry and modification with descent, comes from several other fields of study.”

This is the main point: Macroevolution is interpolated from studying microevolution.  I totally agree that microevolution (changes within species) is observed and “proven” by scientific method, and these microevolution studies are observable, repeatable, and have good accuracy.  But it is in the inferences to macroevolution (which cannot be observed, just like God cannot be observed) that the uncertainties I talk about arise.

Just because evolution exists within species does not automatically mean species evolve to other species.  Yes, that is what science is trying to show, and there is so called evidence (such as common DNA), but it is not yet in the “proven” realm.  The species to another species part of it is not yet considered “fact of evolution” and that is why it is termed with accuracy of only “fairly certain” or “informed speculation” (or something less than “proven”).   Evolutionists’ own publications indicate this.  This is where the confusion lies.  Why has this become the stumbling block for the public?

The Fact of Evolution

I took some heat for my recent post, The Exquisite Beauty of Women.  Do you not think the part about “our Neanderthal ancestors would have died in agony at a hollow dry tree knot” is at least a little bit funny?

That post was not meant to be a scientific discussion of evolution.  It was meant to be poking fun!  But yes, there was one serious point.  And that was to ask:  Can the lineage of beautiful women really be traced back to animals that looked like jellyfish, sea anemones and earthworms?

Evolutionists will point out that evolution should not be viewed as a “ladder.”  Point taken.  The heart of the matter, though (at least for me), is the tree truck.  “A Brief History of Life” is nicely detailed in http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html, with a caveat that “The material here ranges from some issues that are fairly certain to some topics that are nothing more than informed speculation.”

I am often reminded that “evolution does not attempt to explain how life began” (this is referring to abiogenesis). Perhaps that’s true.  But science certainly wants to explain life all the way back to the first life form and that’s what I’m talking about.  “Animals start appearing prior to the Cambrian, about 600 million years ago” (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html), and by animals they’re referring to things that look like jellyfish, sea anemones, earthworms and those sort of things.

In all my posts about uncertainties in scientific observations, data, etc. (supported precisely by the caveat from Talk Origins above), my case rests with this very issue:  Should we not question when the “fact of evolution” is mistakenly applied to too wide a range of scientific observations/extrapolations, implying that there must be negligible uncertainty in some of these things when in fact only “fairly certain” or “informed speculation” accuracy exists?  Please reread this paragraph because it is at the core of why many evolution claims should be seriously challenged.

So on the accuracy scale, where do statements such as this fall?: “Beautiful women can trace their lineage back to the first animals that looked like jellyfish, sea anemones and earthworms.”  Yes, this macroevolution claim is extrapolated from microevolution scientific research, but what is the accuracy in doing so?  Not the highest accuracy that should be demanded for such an important claim.  And certainly not enough to be in the category fact of evolution.  “Fairly certain” is fine for some details, but not this one.

This has been my beef all along.

It Is All Mostly Faith Anyway

What if I said that much, if not most, of the scientific or technical stuff you “know” is really based on faith that what you once read or heard is true?

“When you add technical jargon into the mix of subjective data interpretation and gifted creative writing, you get an elite class of self-proclaimed experts that have created their own special language so that others will have difficulty challenging their ideas. The common laypeople are steamrolled by the sheer magnitude of technical details and intimidated by the apparent authenticity.” DJ Minteer

I Say Tomato, You say Tamoto

Interpretations can differ over the very same observations and data. Regardless of the scientific, engineering or other technical field, the differences of opinion are often over controversial experimental and measurement errors, faulty assumptions and/or unrealistic estimates.

Every experiment and measurement has error. Most research also includes assumptions and estimates of unknown (and sometimes unverifiable) conditions. As a result, scientists, engineers and other technicians have to attempt to estimate and report the effects of these uncertainties on the final conclusions. So while a theory may be well supported by experimental repeatability, the associated data supporting the conclusions is only repeatable within some margin of error (which includes the experiment and measure errors, assumptions and estimates).

Margins of error are always open to debate, even though statistical methods may be used to try and make sense of the significance of the uncertainties. When there are differing opinions on popular theories it’s not always the scientific or technical methods that are questioned, but quite often the experimental and investigative uncertainties.

Spin That Record

Even with differing honest interpretations of data and the associated uncertainties, it’s still possible to spin the conclusions to support your own viewpoint. So now there is another added possibility – the agenda twist. Sounds like a dance…well, it is actually. After twenty two years of experience with technical writing in the engineering fields, I can attest to the fact that many not-so-great ideas can be made to appear well-supported by technical references, calculations and other records with nothing more that clever penmanship and data filtering. Is that good science or engineering? No! But it happens.

Depending on how much bias the researcher may or may not have, along with the significance of the assumptions and experimental errors themselves, the uncertainties in the final conclusions are either highlighted for all to see (if they are considered insignificant), or downplayed and put in an obscure appendix in the back of the report (or not even mentioned).

And when you add technical jargon into the mix of subjective data interpretation and gifted creative writing, you get an elite class of self-proclaimed experts that have created their own special language so that others will have difficulty challenging their ideas. The common laypeople are steamrolled by the sheer magnitude of technical details and intimidated by the apparent authenticity. This really happens, and on an unbelievable scale!

Let It Go Viral!

Opinions and misinformation have never before had the potential to reach such a wide audience as they do today with the internet. The old school methods of publishing, especially scientific or engineering data and reports, was that it had to meet industry standards for accuracy and peer reviews before it could be published. But today this step can be bypassed, and on a grand scale (though usually not by true scientists/engineers) thanks largely to the internet and, more recently, independent publishers and a variety of self-publishing methods.

As never before seen in the history of mankind, today anyone is able to self-publish an idea and immediately make it available to a very large world population via the internet, and have the potential for that piece of information to go “viral” (viewed by millions and millions of people in a short period of time). That can be a great thing! But misinformation abounds.

Whether mad scientist or phony philosopher or Joe-with-an-agenda, nothing precludes them from publishing material in the mainstream without any scrutiny over the content or bases for the conclusions. Sure, readers can disagree and negatively comment and otherwise attempt to discredit it, but that has no real effect and in fact can actually help increase popularity.

At its worst, data spinning gone viral is an excellent brainwashing technique. Joseph Goebbels (Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945) is credited with saying “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

Pass the Aspirin Please

A lot of legitimate technical reports are intentionally written for the “technically minded,“ using discipline-specific terms and very technical information. Nothing wrong with that. But understand that such information is largely unverifiable by the layperson. To fully grasp what is truth and what may be creative writing requires an education beyond the average person. It also would requires pulling every string and reviewing technical details associated with usually many years of research in order to come to any kind of reasonable conclusion on our own.

The typical person cannot or will not go to this effort. Those that are not scientific or technical nerd types may be prone to taking much of the conclusions at face value without questioning the supporting data (shame on us!). After all, these are respected and well educated people telling us this stuff, right? Should us average Joes believe them?

What happens when an article written for the scientifically or technically minded is put on the internet? What if it goes viral and gets ten million views? Nothing necessarily wrong with that either. But I would highly doubt that this many website hits are due to ten million scientists reading the article. Nope, average Joes like you and me are seeing what all the fuss is about. And so then millions of us are probably not taking the time to verify all the references. Might this be dangerous if the article purposely contained misinformation?

Remember those cigarette ads that were supposedly not targeted at minors? Or, suppose an adult stands before a class of first graders, tells them that the earth is flat and gives twenty-five scientific sounding reasons why it should be accepted as fact. The kids will believe them.

Your Faith in the Truth or a Scam?

Believing something that is written or said is frequently more about the persuasiveness and popularity of the writer or speaker, and less about the ever elusive proof.

Most of what the average person knows and believes about scientific, engineering or other technical “truths” is, plain and simple, taken purely on faith because it’s usually impossible for the layperson to verify the details.

Even though most scientists and engineer types make every effect to present truthful, unbiased information based on observable and repeatable experiments or methods, all experiments and measurements contain error and most research also contains assumptions and estimates.

Scientific and other technical uncertainties are sometimes downplayed and the conclusions given more weight than they deserve because biases and intentional misinformation persist in academia and nearly every other institution. We humans always seem to insert our selfish agendas in everything we touch.

Don’t believe everything you read, or it will cost you. But whatever you do don’t stop reading, or that may cost you even more!