To show how futile T-Stone’s efforts would be, I am going to employ an over-simplification of the problem. If the theory, even stated in such an obviously simplified manner, is hard (read: impossible) to prove, then it is going to be even more difficult to prove it from the complicated reality.
Let us begin as simply as possible. Suppose that T-Stone finds two fossils of the same species. What type of fossils these are doesn’t really matter, but for the purposes of illustration let’s say they’re Cothurnocystis fossils (yes, I just wanted to include a "big word" here to give T-Stone something else to do a trivial Google search on). Let us also argue that, due to the rock strata they are discovered in, T-Stone knows for a fact which one of the fossils is older than the other fossil.
These fossils can fit somewhere on a “typical” genealogical branch:
But where do they fit in there? Is it possible for T-Stone to prove that one fossil is a descendant of the other? The answer is a resounding: no. Let us look at this. Suppose that the fossils are descendants of one another. In such a case, we’d have something looking like:
But it could just as easily be something like:
In fact, the odds that two fossils are actually in a direct lineage are small when you consider how many thousands of members of each species actually exist, and how many offspring come from each of these organisms. So right off the bat, we see that T-Stone cannot even prove two fossils are in direct lineage with each other.
If we cannot prove that two fossils of the same species are direct descendants, how can we demonstrate that a fossil of another species is directly descended from the previous fossil? Obviously we cannot.
One way that Darwinists avoid this problem is to ignore the direct lineage problem within the species itself. That is, the Darwinist will take each of the two fossils found for the same species as representative of the whole. Thus, the two Cothurnocystis fossils are arbitrarily allowed to stand for any of the points along the genealogical chart. This is because the species, as a whole, shares aspects; and thus, the Darwinists claims, we can treat each individual as typical of the whole.
Aside from the fact that this commits the error of composition and becomes a hasty generalization, it doesn’t really solve the problem for the evolutionist. After all, now instead of having individuals in the chart, we have entire species. If each dot represents an entire species instead of individuals within a species, we still cannot tell if fossils from two different species, a Cothurnocystis fossil and a more modern echinoderm (like a starfish) for instance, are direct descendants either. In other words, is the relationship direct:
Or indirect:
The Darwinist cannot say.
But there is another problem with these diagrams. The problem is that everything that is black in the diagrams is pure conjecture. That’s right; the relationships between various fossils are purely human invention. There is nothing in the fossil record that shows the links between the fossils.
As such, the relationship between two fossils is found only in the imagination of humans who interpret the fossil record. The fossil record does not show these relationships, for it is possible that there is yet another alternative explanation:
That’s right; the second fossil might not be related to the first fossil at all. Without being able to show the direct links, we have only the conjecture that there is a link.
But what is the conjecture based on? The conjecture is based on having already accepted the theory of Darwinistic Evolution as true. That is, the links between fossils are “discovered” only when one first assumes this kind of evolution is true. There is nothing in the fossil evidence that indicates whether there is a direct link, indirect link, or no link at all between two fossils. The evidence is not sufficient to say which one it is.
As such, my original comment—the one way back on the comments on this post still stands. I originally said:
Evolutionary claims are completely independent of the fossil record. Consider what the fossil record shows and compare that to the evolutionary theory.Evolution cannot be proven from the fossil record, because one can never show the direct lineage between two fossils of the same species, let alone between two different species. The Darwinist claims that they don’t need to show direct lineage between specific individuals can only be true if one first assumes Darwinian Evolution. In other words, belief in Evolution precedes this interpretation of the fossil record.
The fossil record shows only organisms that existed at some point in the past. That is it. It says nothing about the relationship between organisms--that is left to extrapolation.
Evolution, on the other hand, needs a process by which it can function (genetic mutation followed by natural selection). Mutations cannot be demonstrated by fossils since mutations require looking at DNA. Likewise, natural selection cannot be demonstrated by the fossil record either (except when natural selection is taken in its completely irrelevant tautological sense).
So the theory of evolution is quite independent of the fossil record. The fossil record is only used as a prop. The claim is that the fossil record is what we would expect given evolution. But as I pointed out above, given the inability to recreate this (due to the massive amount of time and the pure randomness of fossil formation), this claim is anything but empirical.
So at most, all the fossil record can be used for is to say that it is consistent with evolutionary theory. But then, the fossil record is so spotty that it is "consistent" with virtually any theory.
With this in mind, T-Stone should now return to ferrying his children to baseball games and drop this matter completely.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteGiven your theological/confessional investments here, I don't suppose you would accept *any* amount of evidence as "demonstration" of the value of evolution as an explanation for the biological development. I'm under no illusions of my prospects of convincing you, fossils, DNA or any other evidence. Others reading may be more open to this evidence, though, so it's worth point out how fossils integrate with the theory.
First, to my knowledge, except for fossils that have contextual cues indicating parent/offspring relationships (a pregnant female fossil that has the unborn offspring also fossilized in situ, for example) I'm not aware of any *attempts* to connect any fossil specimen to its parent, or grandparent, great-grandparent, etc. Individual connections like the ones you are apparently thinking of aren't at all interesting as support for the theory. And as a matter of taphonomy, it's remarkable that we have as many fossils as we do. It's not plausible to suppose we might recreate "family trees" of individuals with fossils. And that's just fine, because it would be irrelevant to the question anyway.
It may be helpful to remember that individuals don't *evolve*, popluations do, per NDE.
When we look at "tree of life" diagrams and cladograms, we are looking at *species*, not individuals, which, if I'm reading your post right, you are concerned with in your graphics (those dots are *individuals* as I understand your post, as I read it. ????)
Evolutionary theory suggests that the existing *species* are the manifestation of a progressive process of change in the genetic attributes of populations. A colony of finches migrates from Ecuador to the Galapagos, for example, and when sub-colonies become isolated from each other, those populations develop in different directions genetically, according to the specific pressures of the environment for each population (longer beaks in one ecological setting, shorter beaks in another, for example).
But the theory doesn't suppose that a "custodial chain" of all the bones or DNA codings of the original finches all the way through all the offspring of those finches, and their offspring, and their offpring... is needed or practically possible to validate the theory.
After your discussion of "direct lineage" -- your apparent concern for *invidual parentage* as a requirement for supporting evolution (!), you say:
If we cannot prove that two fossils of the same species are direct descendants, how can we demonstrate that a fossil of another species is directly descended from the previous fossil? Obviously we cannot.
We *infer* it Peter. Evolution offers a testable explanation of why the fossils appear as they do in the geological record (simplest forms are oldest, thus lower in the strata, for example). It doesn't suppose that the kind of connections you are thinking about are needed or possible. That's not what the science rests on.
One way that Darwinists avoid this problem is to ignore the direct lineage problem within the species itself. That is, the Darwinist will take each of the two fossils found for the same species as representative of the whole. Thus, the two Cothurnocystis fossils are arbitrarily allowed to stand for any of the points along the genealogical chart. This is because the species, as a whole, shares aspects; and thus, the Darwinists claims, we can treat each individual as typical of the whole.
There's nothing arbitrary about it, Peter. If we dig up fossils of a Trilobite of some kind, *that* fossil is considered a representative of the species it is classed as. If you find a horse skeleton (not a fossil) out in an abandoned field, do you suppose it would be representative of the species equus? If not, why not? Wouldn't you expect it to have the same skeletal structure as other horses? Individuals of a species *are* representative of that species, that's what "species" entails -- a set of atrributes and morphological structures that provide a logical grouping of individuals.
Aside from the fact that this commits the error of composition and becomes a hasty generalization, it doesn’t really solve the problem for the evolutionist. After all, now instead of having individuals in the chart, we have entire species. If each dot represents an entire species instead of individuals within a species, we still cannot tell if fossils from two different species, a Cothurnocystis fossil and a more modern echinoderm (like a starfish) for instance, are direct descendants either. In other words, is the relationship direct:
Peter, you have this backwards. A species is a logical grouping defined by humans
And please, forget the "individual lineage" idea. It's unfixably confused as a means of understanding evolutionary theory. Populations evolve, not individuals. Evolution is demonstrated through the changes that occur in populations. If you *could* locate that one-in-a-billion individual that demonstrated some notable new feature (ostensibly from a mutation), it doesn't mean squat for evolution unless that change becomes fixed in the population.
Your average high school or college textbook on biology should cover this.
OK, moving on....
But there is another problem with these diagrams. The problem is that everything that is black in the diagrams is pure conjecture. That’s right; the relationships between various fossils are purely human invention. There is nothing in the fossil record that shows the links between the fossils.
Well, it *would* be conjecture, at least in the initial hypothesis stage, if that's in fact what biologists were thinking. As it is, you're pursuing an "invidual-centric" view of evolution that is foreign to the theory. Let me put it this way: could you provide me with some paper/study/scientific treatise that is working of the ideas you've offered here for conceptualizing evolution? I think you cannot find a place where *individual* lineages are even contemplated as complete chains in the fossil record.
So what you are suggesting as the way biologists conceive of and work with evolutionary theory doesn't even *remotely* resemble the ideas espoused in the literature, from Darwin on forward.
That said, though, there has been a conjecture -- Darwin started the ball rolling -- about what might explain the development of biological life, including the fossil evidence left behind. That's a *good* thing, and such conjecture is the mechanism science relies on to further it's knowledge.
If Darwin supposes -- conjectures -- that all species are ultimately derived from an ancient common ancestor species, it stands as just that, initially: conjecture. Since we don't/didn't know what the natural processes were that accounted for the variety of species we have on the planet, any new knowledge must spring from some place that is not already "knowledge" (else we'd know our answer already!).
If that's the case, then the conjecture of Einstein with respect to special or general relativity, or Darwin with his conjectures about heritability, natural selection and common descent are the *engines* for growing the scientific knowledge base. The conjectures aren't just *accepted* at face value, as you apparently suggest here. Rather, these conjectures must be tested and evaluated against any and all competing theories, judged as to their performance in a) explaining the phenomena, b) accounting for existing evidence, c) making testable, non-trivial predictions, and d) surving plausible points of falsification.
So we look at Darwin's idea -- conjecture at that point, but exceedingly prescient conjecture, as it turns out -- and subject it to testing and verification. Older fossils should represent more primitive species, and be found in the lower (older) strata of the geologic column, for example. As more and more evidence comes into view, we have a stronger basis of support for theory, and the conjecture gets validated. A successful scientific theory, then, might well be thought of as "conjecture with evidence to support it".
The evolutionary explanation is the only game in town, now, so far as I'm aware. The only competitors for explanations are non-scientific ones -- creationist ideas of special creation through miraculous intervention to create each species, for example. As far as naturalistic explanations go, evolution has no remaining competitors. Nothing approaches it in terms of its performance agains the data, its predictions and its explanatory power.
All of which to say that *conjecture* is a good thing -- a powerful tool in the epistemic tool box. Conjecture needs to be tested and verified against the evidence and its own predictions, but considering evolution to be true in a *provisional* sense was one of the major breakthroughs in the history of science.
If your major criticism of evolution is that it is based, originally, on conjecture, then I'd say what you call a bug is really a feature; conjecture is essential to scientific discovery and growth of our knowledge base. I don't suppose that the fossils we have in view come inscribed with serial numbers in small print that establish each individuals place in the "individual family tree" of all biological life, and neither does any one else. But it's not needed to make the inferences that are made about the relationships between the species, and thus the fossils that remain from them.
-Touchstone
T-Stone said:
ReplyDelete---
It may be helpful to remember that individuals don't *evolve*, popluations do, per NDE.
---
This is a nonsense statement. What is a population made up of? Individuals. What actually has the mutations? Individuals.
You said:
---
When we look at "tree of life" diagrams and cladograms, we are looking at *species*, not individuals, which, if I'm reading your post right, you are concerned with in your graphics (those dots are *individuals* as I understand your post, as I read it. ????)
---
So you didn't read it. I said:
---
Thus, the two Cothurnocystis fossils are arbitrarily allowed to stand for any of the points along the genealogical chart. This is because the species, as a whole, shares aspects; and thus, the Darwinists claims, we can treat each individual as typical of the whole.
---
And, of course, the real kicker:
---
After all, now instead of having individuals in the chart, we have entire species. If each dot represents an entire species instead of individuals within a species, we still cannot tell if fossils from two different species, a Cothurnocystis fossil and a more modern echinoderm (like a starfish) for instance, are direct descendants either.
---
Yup. Nothing there about species. Just individuals....
You said:
---
But the theory doesn't suppose that a "custodial chain" of all the bones or DNA codings of the original finches all the way through all the offspring of those finches, and their offspring, and their offpring... is needed or practically possible to validate the theory.
---
Yes, far be it from us to actually demand evidence of what is claimed to have happened. We don't need that. We have Darwinian faith.
You said:
---
Evolution offers a testable explanation of why the fossils appear as they do in the geological record (simplest forms are oldest, thus lower in the strata, for example).
---
How exactly is it "testable"?
You said:
---
It doesn't suppose that the kind of connections you are thinking about are needed or possible. That's not what the science rests on.
---
I know. It rests on faith called "just-so stories".
You said:
---
There's nothing arbitrary about it, Peter. If we dig up fossils of a Trilobite of some kind, *that* fossil is considered a representative of the species it is classed as. If you find a horse skeleton (not a fossil) out in an abandoned field, do you suppose it would be representative of the species equus? If not, why not? Wouldn't you expect it to have the same skeletal structure as other horses? Individuals of a species *are* representative of that species, that's what "species" entails -- a set of atrributes and morphological structures that provide a logical grouping of individuals.
---
You're treating all inferences as if they are the same. If I saw a horse skeleton that was six feet tall, I would not infer that all horses are six feet tall. I would infer that that specific horse was six feet high. The individual only gives us evidence of the individual. We can pretend that the individual is the same as the group, but this is illogical and unsound.
This doesn't mean you can't do it ever, but it does mean you have to be very careful. As it is, we have many fossils with entire animals constructed out of teeth fragments then being used to "plug the gaps." All in the name of inference. Forgive me for having less faith than you.
I shall have more to say later, but for now I must depart.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteThis is a nonsense statement. What is a population made up of? Individuals. What actually has the mutations? Individuals.
Yes, but a mutatation doesn't mean anything in terms of evolution unless it becomes fixed in the population. It's only at the population level that changes in genetic traits become meaningful in terms of evolution.
After all, now instead of having individuals in the chart, we have entire species. If each dot represents an entire species instead of individuals within a species, we still cannot tell if fossils from two different species, a Cothurnocystis fossil and a more modern echinoderm (like a starfish) for instance, are direct descendants either.
---
Yup. Nothing there about species. Just individuals....
This is an equivocation, Peter. If the "dots" are individuals, we have no practical means of establishing *parentage* between individuals based on the fossil record, as parentage is not something we can infer from one fossil specimen to another -- the bones don't peak to *parentage* on an individual basis.
But as representatives of their species, the fossils *do* fit a pattern of development -- from primitive to more advanced and diverse, adding (and possibly taking away) features and morphological attributes incrementally. So, treating the fossil record as a collection of species that appear in a chronological fashion (and geography comes into play, too), they can and *do* tell us which species are related to which, ancestrally. If we apply evolutionary theory, the phylogenetics that emerge from the fossil analysis comes up consistent with it. (We don't find human skuls fossils in the Cambrian, for instance -- that would wreak havoc for the theory of evolution).
Yes, far be it from us to actually demand evidence of what is claimed to have happened. We don't need that. We have Darwinian faith.
It's just science, Peter. If you want to call inference "faith", go right ahead, but what is happening underneath whatever label you assign is an inference based on the available evidence.
How exactly is it "testable"?
Darwin predicted that more primitive forms would be found in the earlier fossil record if his conjecture was correct, and that more advanced and diverse forms would be found later in the fossil record. This is a prediction that non-trivial and testable: we can assess the fossil evidence to see if it comports with the prediction that early fossils would be of more primitive forms than later fossils.
And Darwin's prediction has been tested and found correct.
I know. It rests on faith called "just-so stories".
Have you ever flown on a jet plane, Peter? If so, how do you account for your demonstration of "faith" in science when you do that? If science is really just a collection of "just-so stories", it would be foolish to fly on a commercial jet, or do a thousand other things we routinely take for granted that depend critically on science.
You're treating all inferences as if they are the same. If I saw a horse skeleton that was six feet tall, I would not infer that all horses are six feet tall. I would infer that that specific horse was six feet high. The individual only gives us evidence of the individual. We can pretend that the individual is the same as the group, but this is illogical and unsound.
Size can vary within individuals of a species, no doubt. But the bone structure of the leg, for example, generally does not. If you find a skeleton with a specific bone structure for its hind legs, you would be justified in assuming that all individuals of the species have a similar bone structure for their hind legs. We have shorter and taller horses available to our experience. We do not have horses with forward-bending knees and others with backward-bending knees and yet others with no knees in there hind legs.
Our experience with animals provides a strong empirical basis for extrapolating the structural morphology of a species based on a single skeleton; these morphologies are observed to be extremely consistent across individuals of the species.
This doesn't mean you can't do it ever, but it does mean you have to be very careful. As it is, we have many fossils with entire animals constructed out of teeth fragments then being used to "plug the gaps." All in the name of inference. Forgive me for having less faith than you.
I think one of the main obstacles for you (beyond the massive theological investment barrier) is a lack of appreciation of just how careful and structured these processes are. I smell the foul stench of creationist misreprentation on your breath when you say things like "animals constructed out of teeth". To assert such is to belie one's ignorance of how the science here is applied.
-Touchstone
TOUCHSTONE SAID:
ReplyDelete"But as representatives of their species, the fossils *do* fit a pattern of development -- from primitive to more advanced and diverse, adding (and possibly taking away) features and morphological attributes incrementally."
i) No, not more "advanced." That's a teleological concept and anthropomorphic value-judgment.
That is disallowed in Darwinism. The watchmaker is blind.
This is a point which John C. Greene makes repeatedly in his book, Debating Darwin (Regina Books 1999).
ii) Conversely, if we do allow T-stoned to smuggle illicitly teleological categories and anthropomorphic value judgments into the evolutionary process, then in what sense are some organisms more "advanced" than others?
Advanced in relation to what? Purpose? Function?
Bacteria are very efficient at what they do. So are they more or less advanced than human beings?
Various animals have very specialized organs and sensory aptitudes that are more "advanced" than we have.
"Darwin predicted that more primitive forms would be found in the earlier fossil record if his conjecture was correct, and that more advanced and diverse forms would be found later in the fossil record."
i) Is that a prediction or retrodiction? Based on the fossil record with which he was acquainted, didn't he formulate a theory descriptive (rather than predictive) of what he thought he saw, viz., what's lower is earlier?
ii) And to the extent that his theory was predictive, hasn't it been necessary for Gould and others to retrofit the theory since the fossil record does not bear out his contentions?
"Have you ever flown on a jet plane, Peter? If so, how do you account for your demonstration of 'faith' in science when you do that?"
A blatant equivocation, as if what's true of one science is transferable to another "science."
"Our experience with animals provides a strong empirical basis for extrapolating the structural morphology of a species based on a single skeleton; these morphologies are observed to be extremely consistent across individuals of the species."
Which is exactly what Gee says. So we're reconstructing the past in light of the present. And that's the problem:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/evolutionary-mirror-reading.html
T-Stone said:
ReplyDelete---
Yes, but a mutatation doesn't mean anything in terms of evolution unless it becomes fixed in the population. It's only at the population level that changes in genetic traits become meaningful in terms of evolution.
---
Naturally, this once again is committing the error of composition. However, aside from that, the fossil record is not a record of populations--it is a record of individuals. Thus, if evolution is only "meaningful" at the population level, it is impossible to prove this from the fossil record, in which case my point is once again proven.
T-Stone said:
---
This is an equivocation, Peter.
---
Yes, you are equivocating.
T-Stone said:
---
If the "dots" are individuals, we have no practical means of establishing *parentage* between individuals based on the fossil record, as parentage is not something we can infer from one fossil specimen to another -- the bones don't peak to *parentage* on an individual basis.
---
Which was my point.
T-Stone said:
---
But as representatives of their species, the fossils *do* fit a pattern of development -- from primitive to more advanced and diverse, adding (and possibly taking away) features and morphological attributes incrementally.
---
Except you can't prove that. You're just asserting that. But for the same reasons that you cannot tell parentage within the same species in the fossil record, you cannot tell ANY lineage between species either.
Continuing:
---
So, treating the fossil record as a collection of species that appear in a chronological fashion (and geography comes into play, too), they can and *do* tell us which species are related to which, ancestrally.
---
No, that would tell us chronology only (your "inferences" are actually a post hoc fallacy). This could only tell us that B is after A. It wouldn't tell us B is descended from A. To get that, you have to first ASSUME all life comes from a common ancestor, which is begging the question.
Again, my point stands. The fossil record doesn't demonstrate the theory of evolution; the theory of evolution pre-exists the interpretation of the fossil record.
T-Stone said:
---
If science is really just a collection of "just-so stories"...
---
A) I never said Evolution was science, therefore saying Evolution is a collection of "just-so stories" (which it is) isn't impugning science.
B) Physics, the basis of commercial flight, is not historical inferences. We can conduct experiments in physics here and now. For the fossil record, we are reconstructing the past. You cannot test the past in a laboratory.
T-Stone said:
---
I smell the foul stench of creationist misreprentation on your breath when you say things like "animals constructed out of teeth". To assert such is to belie one's ignorance of how the science here is applied.
---
"Conodonts are tiny, toothlike fossils that geologists have studied for more than a century. ...Some conodonts are simple cones. Others are spiny and complicated, articulating to form apparatuses of unknown purpose. For decades, no evidence existed that might bear on what kind of creatures conodonts came from. Imagine the job facing palaeontologists of the future, obliged to reconstruct human history from billions of sets of discarded dentures alone. Despite the total lack of evidence, conodonts have been associated with all kinds of peculiar fossils.
...Most palaeontologists now agree that conodont animals are most closely allied to the vertebrates--backboned animals, including ourselves. At present, though, nobody really knows precisely where they fit into the vertebrate cladogram. Our uncertainty is a reflection simply of the lack of suitable models: although conodonts resemble vertebrate teeth in a general way, they are nothing like anything found in any living vertebrate."
Gee, Henry. In Search of Deep Time Cornell University Press, 1999 (p. 69-71).
Perhaps the foul stench you smell is your need to take a shower.
BTW, forgot to add that the emphasis in the Gee quote was added by me, not in the original.
ReplyDeleteAnother good quote regarding the "just-so stories" of science:
ReplyDelete---
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Richard Lewontin, 1997. Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997 (review of Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark).
---
But don't let atheistic Marxists like Lewontin and evolutionists like Gee stand in the way of T-Stone's theories! No sir. T-Stone is infallible.
Steve,
ReplyDeletei) No, not more "advanced." That's a teleological concept and anthropomorphic value-judgment.
Not even. "Advanced" is just a description of biological innovations that confer selective advantages. If those innovations arise from stochastic processes, or teleological intervention does not change the status of these innovations as *advances*. Claiming that the develop of an eye in trilobites is de facto evidence for teleology for example is nothing more than begging the question at hand.
Please don't beg the question at hand.
That is disallowed in Darwinism. The watchmaker is blind.
The very term "blind watchmaker" still implies that watches are being made -- advance through non-telic processes. The distinctions signified by "blind watchmaker" don't reject advances (watches), but rather reject teleology as a necessary causal component.
This is a point which John C. Greene makes repeatedly in his book, Debating Darwin (Regina Books 1999).
Ok, well, I can repeatedly offer the same response to him as I do you then, whoever he is.
ii) Conversely, if we do allow T-stoned to smuggle illicitly teleological categories and anthropomorphic value judgments into the evolutionary process, then in what sense are some organisms more "advanced" than others?
Well, again there's no smuggling needed. The innovations described by the term "advanced" are *not* inherently tied to teleological direction. To dispute this is to beg the question.
When I say some organisms are more advanced than others, I mean to point to biological innovations that confer a selective advantage for a given population in a given biotope. So, the development of ocular capabilites in trilobites would be an "advance" over earlier configurations of trilobite, in that visual awareness provides a significant advantage in locating and obtaining food, for example. In deep water environments where there's no appreciable ambient light, these "advances" in the shallows fail as "advances". It's not "innovative" -- it doesn't increase the yield of available resources -- to have an eye where there is no light.
Advanced in relation to what? Purpose? Function?
Advanced with respect to the biological optimization for a given environmental context. NDE supposes that a "root" community of organism will differentiate and speciate over team to become increasingly more efficient in their survival and propagation capabilities in diverse environments. The "advance" in this sense is the successful development of changes that optimize fitness for a given environment.
Bacteria are very efficient at what they do. So are they more or less advanced than human beings?
They are much more advanced in terms of their rates of reproduction, for esxample. But they are not nearly so advanced in their capability to identify survival threats, or reason as a means of acquiring food. They are optimized and specialized to a different environmental context.
Various animals have very specialized organs and sensory aptitudes that are more "advanced" than we have.
Right. Eagles have better vision than we do. They are more "visually advanced", at least at long range. Bats are far more advanced in their echolocation capabilites. Dolphins are more advanced in their swimming abilities....
"Darwin predicted that more primitive forms would be found in the earlier fossil record if his conjecture was correct, and that more advanced and diverse forms would be found later in the fossil record."
i) Is that a prediction or retrodiction? Based on the fossil record with which he was acquainted, didn't he formulate a theory descriptive (rather than predictive) of what he thought he saw, viz., what's lower is earlier?
It's both an appraisal of the existing evidence in view and a set of predictions about what should be true in the future, according to the theory.
ii) And to the extent that his theory was predictive, hasn't it been necessary for Gould and others to retrofit the theory since the fossil record does not bear out his contentions?
Gould & Eldredge didn't suppose that the Cambrian Explosion or their ideas about the varying rates of development in the fossil record overturned or contradicted Darwin's predictions. I realize many people think that Darwin advanced something like what Dawkins calls "constant speedism", but having looked in depth at this, I can't find those predictions. I think Darwin, on reviewing the "sudden" appearance of such a wealth of species over TEN MILLION YEARS in the Cambrian would feel quite vindicated by the fossil record. He may be as surprised as the rest of us our at the periods of relative stasis interrupted by periods of speciating fecundity, but the "Cambrian Explosion" even at its fastest clip is *plenty* slow and gradual enough to fit well within Darwin's parameters for his theory of speciaton and biological development.
"Have you ever flown on a jet plane, Peter? If so, how do you account for your demonstration of 'faith' in science when you do that?"
A blatant equivocation, as if what's true of one science is transferable to another "science."
I see both biology and aeronautics as applied physics, like all the hard sciences. In the sense that both reduce on a fundamental level to physics, I identify a common, core epistemology based on empirical observation and testing combined with inductive inference. What is it you think must be epistemologically transferred to biology from aeronautics to make biology trustworthy?
"Our experience with animals provides a strong empirical basis for extrapolating the structural morphology of a species based on a single skeleton; these morphologies are observed to be extremely consistent across individuals of the species."
Which is exactly what Gee says. So we're reconstructing the past in light of the present. And that's the problem:
The link didn't work for me, but no matter. Why would that be a problem, Steve? When you get on an airplane, you have faith in the physics of flight working for the next several hours as they have in the past, right? If we depend with our lives on the physics of the past holding into the present and on into the future, why would we have a problem with reversing the process?
-Touchstone
Peter,
ReplyDelete.Naturally, this once again is committing the error of composition.
Not. A composition fallacy arises when the the conclusion about the whole is unjustified. If we understand that every part of the house is brick, we are justified in concluding the whole structure is made of brick. If we split off a population and see that every individual has a four ventricle heart, and furthermore are able to identify the genetic coding for such a component, then we have inferential justification for concluding that the population as a whole is characterized by a four-ventricle heart.
However, aside from that, the fossil record is not a record of populations--it is a record of individuals. Thus, if evolution is only "meaningful" at the population level, it is impossible to prove this from the fossil record, in which case my point is once again proven.
We don't have "population fossils", Pete. A fossil is just the forensic remains of an individual as a *representative* of the population. Evolution as a *process* occurs as the population, but a snapshot of the *effects* of evolution is rendered in an individual. We certainly can see and measure the *effects* of evolution at the individual level, including analysis of individual's fossils remains. Individuals cannot engage in evolution on their own -- it's a population phenomenon.
"If the 'dots' are individuals, we have no practical means of establishing *parentage* between individuals based on the fossil record, as parentage is not something we can infer from one fossil specimen to another -- the bones don't peak to *parentage* on an individual basis."
---
Which was my point.
Thanks, Pete, your just confirming that this was an entirely misgiven line of argument in your post. My point, which you've now said is your point is that such individual analysis is utterly irrelevant to the analysis here. It doesn't help us a *bit* to know that trilobite fossil A was the father of trilobite fossil B in terms of genetic changes in the population.
T-Stone said:
---
But as representatives of their species, the fossils *do* fit a pattern of development -- from primitive to more advanced and diverse, adding (and possibly taking away) features and morphological attributes incrementally.
---
Except you can't prove that. You're just asserting that. But for the same reasons that you cannot tell parentage within the same species in the fossil record, you cannot tell ANY lineage between species either.
I guess that depends on what you mean by 'prove'. Given your post here, you'd expect to see individual-by-individual lineages documented in the fossil record as "proof" for evolution.
As if.
So, as I've said before, given your theological investments, I don't think any kind of scientific conclusion on this, no matter how deep and wide the evidence base, would rise to the level of proof for you, Peter. So I spend *zero* cycles worrying about you and proof. I just assume you have your mind made up before you even look.
So, treating the fossil record as a collection of species that appear in a chronological fashion (and geography comes into play, too), they can and *do* tell us which species are related to which, ancestrally.
---
No, that would tell us chronology only (your "inferences" are actually a post hoc fallacy). This could only tell us that B is after A. It wouldn't tell us B is descended from A. To get that, you have to first ASSUME all life comes from a common ancestor, which is begging the question.
That's how science WORKS, Peter. You are showing that science is an utterly foreign discipline to you. A hypothesis is ASSUMED to be true on a PROVISIONAL basis, and then is subjected to testing and verification. Science says "OK, for the purposes of evaluation, we are ASSUMING you are right, Mr. Theory. Now let's see how you perform against the evidences available, the predictions you make, and what falsifiability tests you survive."
That's a general foundation for science. We ASSUME general relativity is right on a provisional basis and see how it performs. Same with evolution, or any number of theories. Science is a "trial and error" system that tries on a number of competing "truths", and applies testing and verification to them.
So with evolution, science *does* ASSUME its truth on a provisional basis, for the purposes of evaluation. Under an enormous amount of evaluation against a mountain of evidence accumulated over the last 150+ years, the theory has performed extraordinarily well. So well, there aren't even any major contenders any more competing with it.
Again, my point stands. The fossil record doesn't demonstrate the theory of evolution; the theory of evolution pre-exists the interpretation of the fossil record.
If you read Darwin, one of the "triggers" for his conjecture *was* the fossil record. So in that sense, no, the fossils were the catalyst for Darwin's conjecture. But once the conjecture was developed it was adopted provisionally as a "working truth" to see how it performed. That's how science works, Peter.
T-Stone said:
---
If science is really just a collection of "just-so stories"...
---
A) I never said Evolution was science, therefore saying Evolution is a collection of "just-so stories" (which it is) isn't impugning science.
B) Physics, the basis of commercial flight, is not historical inferences. We can conduct experiments in physics here and now. For the fossil record, we are reconstructing the past. You cannot test the past in a laboratory.
T-Stone said:
---
I smell the foul stench of creationist misreprentation on your breath when you say things like "animals constructed out of teeth". To assert such is to belie one's ignorance of how the science here is applied.
---
"Conodonts are tiny, toothlike fossils that geologists have studied for more than a century. ...Some conodonts are simple cones. Others are spiny and complicated, articulating to form apparatuses of unknown purpose. For decades, no evidence existed that might bear on what kind of creatures conodonts came from. Imagine the job facing palaeontologists of the future, obliged to reconstruct human history from billions of sets of discarded dentures alone. Despite the total lack of evidence, conodonts have been associated with all kinds of peculiar fossils.
...Most palaeontologists now agree that conodont animals are most closely allied to the vertebrates--backboned animals, including ourselves. At present, though, nobody really knows precisely where they fit into the vertebrate cladogram. Our uncertainty is a reflection simply of the lack of suitable models: although conodonts resemble vertebrate teeth in a general way, they are nothing like anything found in any living vertebrate."
Gee, Henry. In Search of Deep Time Cornell University Press, 1999 (p. 69-71).
The problem is not the presence of fossil teeth without the rest of the organism. The problem is that you would suggest that this represents the wide fossil record that science has to work with. If you check it out, I think you will be surprised at the vast wealth of fossils, including a great many specimens that have substantial parts of the whole organism (the parts that *can* be fossilized, anyway). There's a whole lot out there beyond "just teeth", and if we were to throw out all the "just teeth" and all the inferential value assigned to them, we wouldn't even notice their effect on the inference to the evolutionary conclusion.
-Touchstone
Touchstone,
ReplyDeleteA few questions...
1. Do you then deny teleology?
2. Also, please show how the arrangement of fossils in a lineage can be falsified if it is part of an applied science.
3. And lastly, select any two fossils from the fossil record that you claim have an ancestor/descendant relationship, and show us the biochemical pathways that took it from one species to the next.
Thanks
I see T-Stone yet again demonstrates his incapability of reading and understanding someone's argument.
ReplyDeleteAllow me to summarize how this discussion has come about. I originally pointed out that the fossil record does not demonstrate evolution. Instead, Evolution is assumed apart from the fossil record, and then the fossil record is pushed into the doctrine (yes, doctrine) of evolution.
T-Stone disagreed, yet now he admits, when I point out the assumptions:
---
That's how science WORKS, Peter. You are showing that science is an utterly foreign discipline to you. A hypothesis is ASSUMED to be true on a PROVISIONAL basis, and then is subjected to testing and verification. Science says "OK, for the purposes of evaluation, we are ASSUMING you are right, Mr. Theory. Now let's see how you perform against the evidences available, the predictions you make, and what falsifiability tests you survive."
---
Which makes me wonder what in the world T-Stone is arguing with me for. Is it just because he cannot stand to agree with something a dreaded T-Blogger would say?
My entire argument has always been that Evolution is assumed first. He admits this, and says these assumptions are the very essence of science! Yet STILL he disagrees with me...somehow.
And T-Stone accuses us of being pedantic?
But I can be pedantic. T-Stone said:
---
If we understand that every part of the house is brick, we are justified in concluding the whole structure is made of brick.
---
But everyone knows that every part of a house is NOT made of brick. There are lights, furniature, windows, doors, etc.
Furthermore, you are now compounding your composition error with your begging the question problem.
You said:
---
If we split off a population and see that every individual has a four ventricle heart, and furthermore are able to identify the genetic coding for such a component, then we have inferential justification for concluding that the population as a whole is characterized by a four-ventricle heart.
---
It's interesting that you put the "and furthermore are able to identify the genetic coding for such a component" part in, since fossils don't store DNA information. Likewise, apparently you live in a magic world where existing DNA has been mapped 100% and scientists know everything about every gene.
Don't worry--when you wake up, reality will still be here.
T-Stone said:
---
We don't have "population fossils", Pete.
---
Could that POSSIBLY be the reason I said: "[T]he fossil record is not a record of populations--it is a record of individuals"??? Learn to read, T-Stone.
Speaking of you needing to learn to read, consider the following exchange:
T-Stone originally said:
---
"If the 'dots' are individuals, we have no practical means of establishing *parentage* between individuals based on the fossil record, as parentage is not something we can infer from one fossil specimen to another -- the bones don't peak to *parentage* on an individual basis."
---
I responded:
---
Which was my point.
---
And T-Stone now does his bait & switch:
---
Thanks, Pete, your just confirming that this was an entirely misgiven line of argument in your post. My point, which you've now said is your point is that such individual analysis is utterly irrelevant to the analysis here. It doesn't help us a *bit* to know that trilobite fossil A was the father of trilobite fossil B in terms of genetic changes in the population.
---
But if you read what you originally said, it was NOT "It doesn't help us a *bit* to know that trilobite fossil A was the father of trilobite fossil B in terms of genetic changes in the population." It was "we have no practical means of establishing *parentage* between individuals based on the fossil record." You said "X" and I said, "X was my point" and now you say, "See, Y is right."
Good grief, T-Stone. You don't even read what you wrote.
T-Stone said:
---
The problem is not the presence of fossil teeth without the rest of the organism. The problem is that you would suggest that this represents the wide fossil record that science has to work with.
---
No, the problem is that with your "wide fossil record that science has to work with" you've not ever bothered to demonstrate evolution from the fossil record, as I've asked you to do repeatedly. Just admit you cannot and be done with it.
By the way, I will also point out that on T-Stone's criteria, the following is a valid Scientific theory:
ReplyDeleteThere are aliens on the back-side of Alpha Centauri that use unicorns to make dark matter.
1) This is a falsifiable claim (T-Stone can start building his rocket ship today to disprove me).
2) It is predictive and explanatory (it predicts how and why dark matter exists).
3) It should be ASSUMED correct on a PROVISIONAL basis, according to Saint T-Stone.
Therefore, all TRUE Scientists (especially if they are Scottsmen) will accept this scientific theory.
Hi august,
ReplyDeleteA few questions...
1. Do you then deny teleology?
No. I don't think it's required, but I'm completely comfortable with the idea that "random mutations" may not be so random, ultimately. If there was some kind of "lever pulling" at the quantum level, we never be able to detect it, scientifically. I'm open to that possibility.
2. Also, please show how the arrangement of fossils in a lineage can be falsified if it is part of an applied science.
As I've said several times here, a human skull fossil retrieved from the Cambrian pretty much demolishes the theory of evolution. It's a trivial arrangement, and if we were to find such, it would be back to the drawing board, so to speak, with respect to theories of biological development.
3. And lastly, select any two fossils from the fossil record that you claim have an ancestor/descendant relationship, and show us the biochemical pathways that took it from one species to the next.
OK, tell me what you mean by "show". I'll just start with this for you to work with. Pick any two fossils you want, locate them in a cladogram of some kind (to satisfy your ancestor/descendant requirement), and draw a line between them labeled "gene regulatory and expression networks".
-Touchstone
Peter,
ReplyDeleteYou're making progress on the idea of scientific theories.
There are aliens on the back-side of Alpha Centauri that use unicorns to make dark matter.
1) This is a falsifiable claim (T-Stone can start building his rocket ship today to disprove me).
2) It is predictive and explanatory (it predicts how and why dark matter exists).
3) It should be ASSUMED correct on a PROVISIONAL basis, according to Saint T-Stone.
Therefore, all TRUE Scientists (especially if they are Scottsmen) will accept this scientific theory.
First, this would be a hypothesis to begin with, but other than that it's a lot better than your "T" and "F" 'theories' from before.
It *is* falsifiable, explanatory, and predictive. The only problem is that it doesn't fit with the existing data -- we have no basis for thinking that there are aliens in such a place, or that unicorns exist. Given that, it simply wouldn't get much attention, or be taken seriously as an avenue worth investigating. However, if science were to set those concerns aside, it *would* be assumed true on a provisional basis for the purposes of evaluation and verification. That's how science works.
So science would accept it as a valid hypothesis (with the caveats about no evidence for aliens and unicorns) iin *form*, but that's not to say it would be adopted as a theory. As theory, it would have to nominally perform.
Meaning that science wouldn't consider the hypothesis any more true than the idea that your "T" and "F" were scientific theories, but science would affirm the hypothesis as "well-formed" (with, again, the caveats related to no evidence for aliens or unicorns).
That's progress, Pete. Kudos.
-Touchstone
Touchstone,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the answers.
1. That's interesting. So as a Christian, does it follow that you deny that there is purpose in the physical world? How do you reconcile your unbelief in teleology with your belief in God?
2. I understand that you are saying about finding certain morphological characteristics in specific strata serving as sufficient for falsification, but I don't quite get how that follows. Without presupposing ancestral lineage, how do you predict what is expected to be found in specific strata? By finding no human skulls in the Cambrian, all you have shown is that there were no humans back then,something not inconsistent with progressive creation. Isn't lineage the whole point of the fossil record as proof for evolution?
3. Uh, that is what I asked that you do. Select two fossils that are presumed to have an ancestor/descendant relationship, and show how genetic changes at the cellular level lead to the formation of the novel characteristics of the descendant.
Hi August,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the answers.
1. That's interesting. So as a Christian, does it follow that you deny that there is purpose in the physical world?
No, quite the opposite. I affirm complete direction from the top down, God as plenopotentiary Creator. The world, and the whole universe is an instrument of His purpose. I just do not identify *local* tinkering or special creation as indicated in the evidence, or at all necessary to implement God's telic goals. I believe the universe is designed in a much more elegant and front-loaded way than to require endless tinkering and adjustment to achieve his ends. Evolution as expression of divine teleology, in other words.
How do you reconcile your unbelief in teleology with your belief in God?
I think you misread me, above. I said "No" to the question asking if I denied teleology. I do not deny it, but affirm it. I just identify it higher up the stack than many other Christians, based on my understanding of the evidence available from nature. I deny that "special creation" or "common design" or any of the other proposed alternatives I've seen are necessary mechanisms to fulfill God's telic ends.
2. I understand that you are saying about finding certain morphological characteristics in specific strata serving as sufficient for falsification, but I don't quite get how that follows. Without presupposing ancestral lineage, how do you predict what is expected to be found in specific strata? By finding no human skulls in the Cambrian, all you have shown is that there were no humans back then,something not inconsistent with progressive creation. Isn't lineage the whole point of the fossil record as proof for evolution?
I think finding a human skull fossil would be compatible with the idea of progressive creation, if only because I can't think of any phenomenon that *wouldn't* be compatible with progressive creation, so far as I understand it. God, as intervening agent, is certainly free to create in a pattern of speciation that resembles the NDE tree. But of course, God can design things how he wants, and if we posit Him as the intervening Designer of species, He can do as He wills. Creating man in the early Cambrian wouldn't falsify the idea, even if it's not rigidly progressive in its development hierarchy of species.
So, no, I don't bother with worrying about overlap with progressive creation, as progressive creation can't be falsified by *any* fossil evidence array I can think of. If that's the case, it can't ever be ruled out, and thus can't really ever be ruled in, scientifically. As soon as God is posited as a controlling agent in the mechanism of speciation, all bets are off, and we can no longer falsify any theory that relies on that. Only theories that suppose a development environment that is governed only by uniform and structured physical constraints is addressible scientifically.
If you can tell me how we might falsify progressive creation with fossil evidence, or any other evidence, then I'd say we have something to work with on that question.
3. Uh, that is what I asked that you do. Select two fossils that are presumed to have an ancestor/descendant relationship, and show how genetic changes at the cellular level lead to the formation of the novel characteristics of the descendant.
I don't think this is demonstrable from the fossils themselves, and don't suppose anyone else does, either. Darwin had no idea what a "gene expression network" when he formed his hypothesis, and his conjecture left the question open as to the specific mechanisms that gave rise to the heritable changes that produce speciation. Einstein left the specifics of gravity open, "to be filled in later". In both cases though, their theories offer explanations that constrain the model to testable predictions and outcomes.
With the knowledge we've acquired in genetics, we know have a beginning grasp of the biochemical process that produce these heritable changes. Observing them in animals and organisms we can test now, we can see processes like transcription in action as a basic, low-level organic process. We infer from this evidence that organisms in the past operated on the same basic biochemical constraints as they do today -- stereochemistry is stereochemistry now as it was a billion years ago, for example.
Given that, the biology we observe in living things today is inferred as the governing biology across the timeline, and thus superimposed on the fossil record. We suppose, for example, that trilobites were DNA-based creatures that created offspring through sexual reproduction that produces offspring with its one genetic information, including phenotypic differences from it's parents. This superimposition, as it turns out, is parsimonious, when it very well may not have been, given the nature of evolutionary theory.
-Touchstone
August,
ReplyDeleteReading my original "teleology answer" above, I can see where you got confused; my words weren't clear. I said:
No. I don't think it's required, but I'm completely comfortable with the idea that "random mutations" may not be so random, ultimately. If there was some kind of "lever pulling" at the quantum level, we never be able to detect it, scientifically. I'm open to that possibility.
Just so things are clear, I don't think teleology is required TO ACCOUNT FOR BIOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT. I wrote the original thinking that was assumed, but I can see that being read as "teleology is not required at all, at any point". That's not my view. It appears to me that evolution is the natural, orderly outworking of higher level teleology... "baked in during cosmic creation", as it were. I suspect that the more we learn about evolution, the more apparent it will be that the process is naturalistic -- working according to orderly physical laws.
I'm open to the idea of God manipulating things to His own ends behind the screen of "randomness" at the quantum level, but I also don't see that it's required to account for the things we observe. That *would* be telic influence with respect to evolution, but would be completely transparent to scientific investigation.
-Touchstone
“Not even. ‘Advanced’ is just a description of biological innovations that confer selective advantages.”
ReplyDeleteNo, “advanced” remains a teleological concept, as in a more advanced rocket design.
“Claiming that the develop of an eye in trilobites is de facto evidence for teleology for example is nothing more than begging the question at hand. Please don't beg the question at hand.”
I never said it was. More of your trademark reading incomprehension.
“The very term ‘blind watchmaker’ still implies that watches are being made -- advance through non-telic processes. The distinctions signified by "blind watchmaker" don't reject advances (watches), but rather reject teleology as a necessary causal component.”
A more advanced watch design would, indeed, be a teleological concept.
“Ok, well, I can repeatedly offer the same response to him as I do you then, whoever he is.”
Whoever he is? Thanks for advertising your ignorance of the evolutionary literature. He’s a distinguished, Harvard-trained, historian of evolutionary science. Taught at Chicago U. among other places.
http://www.lib.uconn.edu/online/research/speclib/ASC/findaids/Greene/MSS19960008.html#d0e56
“Well, again there's no smuggling needed. The innovations described by the term ‘advanced’ are *not* inherently tied to teleological direction. To dispute this is to beg the question.”
Like a lot of evolutionary dogmatists, you are either unconscious of your teleological presumptions or else you can’t come up with an adequate alternative, which is why I referred you to Greene’s extensively analysis, “whoever he is.”
“Advanced with respect to the biological optimization for a given environmental context.”
“Optimization” is another teleological concept.
“To become increasingly more efficient in their survival and propagation capabilities in diverse environments.”
“Efficiency” is yet another teleological concept.
“They are much more advanced in terms of their rates of reproduction, for esxample. But they are not nearly so advanced in their capability to identify survival threats, or reason as a means of acquiring food. They are optimized and specialized to a different environmental context…Right. Eagles have better vision than we do. They are more ‘visually advanced’, at least at long range. Bats are far more advanced in their echolocation capabilites. Dolphins are more advanced in their swimming abilities....”
You’ve now blown a hole in the bottom of your boat. Your original argument was:
“"But as representatives of their species, the fossils *do* fit a pattern of development -- from primitive to more advanced and diverse, adding (and possibly taking away) features and morphological attributes incrementally."
Now, however, you reverse yourself—having to admit that there is no linear progression from primitive species to more advanced species. For, by your own admission, species A can be more advanced than species B in one respect, but less advanced than species B in another respect.
“Gould & Eldredge didn't suppose that the Cambrian Explosion or their ideas about the varying rates of development in the fossil record overturned or contradicted Darwin's predictions.”
If one spends some time reviewing the attacks and counterattacks online, or reads Gould defending himself against his critics in his posthumous magnum opus (The Structure of Evolutionary Theory), one will see that T-stone’s special pleading doesn’t begin to describe the depth of the disagreement. Just for starters:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/06/darwinian-fundamentalism.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/06/human-chauvinism-by-richard-dawkins.html
“What is it you think must be epistemologically transferred to biology from aeronautics to make biology trustworthy?”
A tendentious characterization since one can affirm that biology is trustworthy without affirming that evolutionary biology is trustworthy—much less affirming that if aeronautics is trustworthy, then evolutionary biology is trustworthy.
“The link didn't work for me, but no matter. Why would that be a problem, Steve?”
Gee thinks it’s a problem. Read his explanation of the problem.
“When you get on an airplane, you have faith in the physics of flight working for the next several hours as they have in the past, right? If we depend with our lives on the physics of the past holding into the present and on into the future, why would we have a problem with reversing the process?”
An argument from analogy minus the argument.
My entire argument has always been that Evolution is assumed first. He admits this, and says these assumptions are the very essence of science! Yet STILL he disagrees with me...somehow.
ReplyDeleteIt's assumed *provisionally*, Peter, just for the purposes of evaluation and testing. That's a profound distinction from just plain presuming it's true in a general sense. It doesn't get accept as being true in the general sense until it has satisfied the demands of accounting for the evidence, making accurate non-trivial predictions and passing falsifiability tests, and doing so in such a way as to clear surpass any competing theories. I can't find anywhere that you make this distinction. Can you point me to where you acknowledge the difference between simply assuming an idea is true, and provisionally assuming same just for the sake of evaluation and verification? If you made that point, or even indicated that you understood it, I missed that.
And T-Stone accuses us of being pedantic?
Pedantic? We're talking Scientific Method and philosophy of Science 101, here, Peter. If you object to the provisional assumption of a hypothesis for the purposes of evaluation and verification, then I would suggest that's a very basic, fundamental problem in understanding science and how it works. It's hardly nitpicking to point out that such provisional assumptions are essential to the process of practicing science.
But I can be pedantic. T-Stone said:
---
If we understand that every part of the house is brick, we are justified in concluding the whole structure is made of brick.
---
But everyone knows that every part of a house is NOT made of brick. There are lights, furniature, windows, doors, etc.
Furthermore, you are now compounding your composition error with your begging the question problem.
You said:
---
If we split off a population and see that every individual has a four ventricle heart, and furthermore are able to identify the genetic coding for such a component, then we have inferential justification for concluding that the population as a whole is characterized by a four-ventricle heart.
---
It's interesting that you put the "and furthermore are able to identify the genetic coding for such a component" part in, since fossils don't store DNA information. Likewise, apparently you live in a magic world where existing DNA has been mapped 100% and scientists know everything about every gene.
Don't worry--when you wake up, reality will still be here.
As I said to August, Darwin had no knowledge of DNA when his conjectures were formed. The mechanism for biological transmission of heritable traits and their dynamics was left unspecified. The theory held that whatever that mechanism was, it would be such that populations can evolve over time, to the point where a distinct species is established (can't mate with members of the original species, for example).
Given that, I fail to see why you, or August (or anyone else) would suppose that *lineage* or biochemical pathways could be directly shown from fossils. That makes zero sense as a demand from the fossil evidence. Darwin didn't claim such, I haven't claimed such, and I can't see why it's even contemplated. Darwin's inference drew upon homologies, morphologic and phylogenic congruencies that suggested a common ancestor for all species, and a development path that developed like a tree of species over long periods of time.
If that's the case (and it is the case), it's terrific to come to an understanding of the chemistry of DNA that provides and answer to the "biochemical pathway" question, but it's as silly as ever to suppose that fossilized *bone* is going to demonstrate the chemistry.
The fossils, arrayed as they are, give rise to the inference of a hierarchy in speciating development, starting with a single (or small number of) starting species and developing into a "tree of life" that has millions and millions of species. The mechanics aren't revealed by the fossil, but the relationships between the species *are*.
T-Stone said:
---
We don't have "population fossils", Pete.
---
Could that POSSIBLY be the reason I said: "[T]he fossil record is not a record of populations--it is a record of individuals"??? Learn to read, T-Stone.
Speaking of you needing to learn to read, consider the following exchange:
T-Stone originally said:
---
"If the 'dots' are individuals, we have no practical means of establishing *parentage* between individuals based on the fossil record, as parentage is not something we can infer from one fossil specimen to another -- the bones don't peak to *parentage* on an individual basis."
---
I responded:
---
Which was my point.
---
And T-Stone now does his bait & switch:
---
Thanks, Pete, your just confirming that this was an entirely misgiven line of argument in your post. My point, which you've now said is your point is that such individual analysis is utterly irrelevant to the analysis here. It doesn't help us a *bit* to know that trilobite fossil A was the father of trilobite fossil B in terms of genetic changes in the population.
---
But if you read what you originally said, it was NOT "It doesn't help us a *bit* to know that trilobite fossil A was the father of trilobite fossil B in terms of genetic changes in the population." It was "we have no practical means of establishing *parentage* between individuals based on the fossil record." You said "X" and I said, "X was my point" and now you say, "See, Y is right."
Individual lineages don't help answer the question, either way, Peter. That's the point. Both statements of mine above are consistent and reflective of this. Why would you even *ask* for such in your post? You haven't provided a reason as to why this would even be *helpful*? I have no problem "conceding" that we can't establish that one trilobite fossil was the first-cousin-once-removed of this other trilobite fossil. It's meaningless noise here to even suppose it matters with respect to evaluating fossils in the light of evolutionary theory.
Good grief, T-Stone. You don't even read what you wrote.
T-Stone said:
---
The problem is not the presence of fossil teeth without the rest of the organism. The problem is that you would suggest that this represents the wide fossil record that science has to work with.
---
No, the problem is that with your "wide fossil record that science has to work with" you've not ever bothered to demonstrate evolution from the fossil record, as I've asked you to do repeatedly. Just admit you cannot and be done with it.
A man's blood is found all over the scene of his wife's murder, and this man has several cuts on his hands. Her blood is found on his clothes in the trunk of his car, along with her blood, and his on a knife that is compatible with the fatal wounds on his wife's body. Skin cells from the man are found under the fingernails of the woman, and the man has a number of scratches on his face and hands. Voice mail messages on the wife's cell phone contain threatening messages from the husband. The man was scene near the scene of the crime just before and just after the supposed time of death.
Now, given the body of that dead woman, how would you DEMONSTRATE that the man killed his wife? Or would you not be able to do so?
I think your answer to this has bearing on your demands of the fossil evidence for or against evolution.
-Touchstone
Steve,
ReplyDeleteNo, “advanced” remains a teleological concept, as in a more advanced rocket design.
That's just begging the question Steve. We can investigate and see that rockets are the products of human design and construction. Observed teleology. We have no such evidence in view for the advanced trilobite design, and suggesting that "advanced" is inherently teleological is just demonstrating a commitment to you a priori assumptions.
“Claiming that the develop of an eye in trilobites is de facto evidence for teleology for example is nothing more than begging the question at hand. Please don't beg the question at hand.”
I never said it was. More of your trademark reading incomprehension.
Well, the *eye* is an "advancement" in terms of evolution. So if you understand this, then it's premature to say that this advancement is a de facto indication of teleology.
“The very term ‘blind watchmaker’ still implies that watches are being made -- advance through non-telic processes. The distinctions signified by "blind watchmaker" don't reject advances (watches), but rather reject teleology as a necessary causal component.”
A more advanced watch design would, indeed, be a teleological concept.
Why, Steve. That's just a naked assertion. In the case of rockets -- and watches -- we can identify the causal factors: humans engaged in design and construction. But we have no such evidence for the advancement of the trilobite eye. Given that, how would the advancement of the trilobite eye be identified as a product of teleology?
“Ok, well, I can repeatedly offer the same response to him as I do you then, whoever he is.”
Whoever he is? Thanks for advertising your ignorance of the evolutionary literature. He’s a distinguished, Harvard-trained, historian of evolutionary science. Taught at Chicago U. among other places.
http://www.lib.uconn.edu/online/research/speclib/ASC/findaids/Greene/MSS19960008.html#d0e56
Never heard of the guy. I've read a lot of the literature, never heard of him. I'll ask, but I'd be surprised to hear my biologist pals tell me I've missed the boat, and this guys is required reading.
“Well, again there's no smuggling needed. The innovations described by the term ‘advanced’ are *not* inherently tied to teleological direction. To dispute this is to beg the question.”
Like a lot of evolutionary dogmatists, you are either unconscious of your teleological presumptions or else you can’t come up with an adequate alternative, which is why I referred you to Greene’s extensively analysis, “whoever he is.”
Well, can you tell me in your words why a physical phenomenon like the development of the trilobite eye *must* be a demonstration of telic intervention. I think such a development definitely could be, but I don't see how it *must* be. Maybe you could sketch out for me how you find this to be demonstrably *necessary*.
If not, then I ask whence your basis for assuming teleology for such a phenomenon?
“Advanced with respect to the biological optimization for a given environmental context.”
“Optimization” is another teleological concept.
Naked assertion. When a gas in a chamber is left to reach equilibrium, it is *optimizing* to its environment, seeking the state of least energy. Would you say that this optimization was an example of teleology? Equilibrium in physics *is* optimization, and I'd be interested to hear how you would establish the telic causes for the various trends toward equilibrium we find in nature. When a rain drop falls from the sky, it optimizes its shape to be the most efficient in its descent (areodynamically streamlined). Do you suppose this is another example of teleology in action.
“To become increasingly more efficient in their survival and propagation capabilities in diverse environments.”
“Efficiency” is yet another teleological concept.
Ugh. Naked assertion again. See above. You're clueless on this, Steve.
“They are much more advanced in terms of their rates of reproduction, for esxample. But they are not nearly so advanced in their capability to identify survival threats, or reason as a means of acquiring food. They are optimized and specialized to a different environmental context…Right. Eagles have better vision than we do. They are more ‘visually advanced’, at least at long range. Bats are far more advanced in their echolocation capabilites. Dolphins are more advanced in their swimming abilities....”
You’ve now blown a hole in the bottom of your boat. Your original argument was:
“"But as representatives of their species, the fossils *do* fit a pattern of development -- from primitive to more advanced and diverse, adding (and possibly taking away) features and morphological attributes incrementally."
Now, however, you reverse yourself—having to admit that there is no linear progression from primitive species to more advanced species. For, by your own admission, species A can be more advanced than species B in one respect, but less advanced than species B in another respect.
I said "fits the pattern". That's an inference conclusion as the progression, Steve. If I look at four colinear points on a graph, I might infer that there is a straight line that can be drawn through them all. That doesn't *demonstrate* the line, but it does provide a possible explanation as to why the dots are positioned as they are -- samples of a linear function. The inferences drawn from the fossil record are similar to this, inferences that provide parsimonious explanations as to why the data points are where they are.
“Gould & Eldredge didn't suppose that the Cambrian Explosion or their ideas about the varying rates of development in the fossil record overturned or contradicted Darwin's predictions.”
If one spends some time reviewing the attacks and counterattacks online, or reads Gould defending himself against his critics in his posthumous magnum opus (The Structure of Evolutionary Theory), one will see that T-stone’s special pleading doesn’t begin to describe the depth of the disagreement. Just for starters:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/06/darwinian-fundamentalism.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/06/human-chauvinism-by-richard-dawkins.html
I don't find that Gould, Eldredge or Punk Eek have a lot of freight in NDE. I don't think the "complexity of the disagreement" really matters much now, and am not convinced it ever did. If you disagree, maybe you can show me why this is important to NDE. In any case, if we take Gould at his most militant -- skipping all the complexity to take things in the most challenging form to Darwin, it doesn't overturn Darwin's predictions even so. Do you disagree with this?
“What is it you think must be epistemologically transferred to biology from aeronautics to make biology trustworthy?”
A tendentious characterization since one can affirm that biology is trustworthy without affirming that evolutionary biology is trustworthy—much less affirming that if aeronautics is trustworthy, then evolutionary biology is trustworthy.
What, then, establishes "trustworthiness" in science, for you? This looks like special pleading, and gerrymandering around your theological investments. If its not, what are the criteria that you apply to science to assess "trustworthiness"?
“The link didn't work for me, but no matter. Why would that be a problem, Steve?”
Gee thinks it’s a problem. Read his explanation of the problem.
All right, I'll try to take time to read that. But so much better if you could articulate the problem yourself.
“When you get on an airplane, you have faith in the physics of flight working for the next several hours as they have in the past, right? If we depend with our lives on the physics of the past holding into the present and on into the future, why would we have a problem with reversing the process?”
An argument from analogy minus the argument.
I think the "minus" here, is your answer, Steve.
-Touchstone
Touchstone,
ReplyDeleteThanks for clarifying your teleological view. But I am a little confused by what you said.
1. If you believe in teleological front-loading, then can you maybe explain what the universal common ancestor looked like that contained all the necessary information needed for complex life to evolve, given random mutations, gene drift and catastrophic extinction events, and the fact that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, not beneficial. To be clear, you are saying that the first life was front-loaded and allowed to evolve without any "interference" from God through the standard evolutionary mechanisms, right?
2. You latched onto my comment about progressive creation, but I still don't see an answer on how you can falsify or test fossil lineage without first assuming anatomical or even phylogenetic congruency, and posit ancestor/descendant relationships from there.
My point about progressive creation was that it fits the evidence equally as well. As for testability, there is clearly a sequence of creation that can be compared. I am also curious how you reconcile your version of theistic evolution and the specific creation deeds described in the Bible in the context of historic evidence. Can you maybe describe how you see the creation week reconciled with your view.
3. The problem with fossil evidence without demonstrating the biochemical pathways is that it becomes a bit of wishful thinking. We have mapped the genomes of many organisms now, and know in some instances what genetic information is required to specify traits. To move from ancestor to descendant, we know that the evolutionary hypothesis states that genetic information has to change, and that leads to differences in traits that ultimately result in a new species. In the fossil record, arrangements in a lineage are made on the basis of anatomical and phylogenetic similarities, but unless the biochemical journey is shown, we do not know that that arrangement is correct. In some cases we see descendants and ancestors dated to the same age, so the arrangement is tenuous at best. Showing the biochemical pathway is the only way to confirm for sure that the fossil arrangement is correct, and to confirm that the evolutionary mechanisms were responsible for the proposed progression.
If that cannot be done, then I am still at a loss as to how the arrangement of fossils in a lineage is anything but an exercise in circular reasoning.
John
TOUCHSTONE SAID:
ReplyDelete“That's just begging the question Steve. We can investigate and see that rockets are the products of human design and construction. Observed teleology.”
You’re committing the same fallacy as Hume. Not surprising. Infidels think alike.
For a corrective:
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.11.Hume_and_Reid.pdf
Of course, given your pathological hatred of IDT, I wouldn’t expect you to improve on Hume.
“Well, can you tell me in your words why a physical phenomenon like the development of the trilobite eye *must* be a demonstration of telic intervention.”
Never said it was. More reading incomprehension on your part.
You’re the one who keeps using this example, not me. I don’t believe that trilobites evolved, remember. And I don’t equate teleology with telic “intervention.”
But “development” is not the same thing as an “advanced” feature.
“When a gas in a chamber is left to reach equilibrium, it is *optimizing* to its environment, seeking the state of least energy.”
Now you’re backpedaling via equivocation, as if that means the same thing as:
“To become increasingly more efficient in their survival and propagation capabilities in diverse environments.”
Continuing:
“I said ‘fits the pattern’. That's an inference conclusion as the progression, Steve.”
This does nothing to salvage your original argument. There is no “progression” if one species can be more “advanced” in one respect, but less “advanced” in another.
BTW, “progression” is another teleological concept.
“If I look at four colinear points on a graph, I might infer that there is a straight line that can be drawn through them all. That doesn't *demonstrate* the line, but it does provide a possible explanation as to why the dots are positioned as they are -- samples of a linear function.”
Notice that T-stone is falling back on an illustration to do what he can’t do with the evidence. Another argument from analogy minus the argument.
You don’t have “samples of linear function” if, as you’ve been forced to admit, one species can be more “advanced” than another in one respect, but less “advanced” in another. No linearity at all. No evidence that “primitive” species are less “advanced” than later species.
“The inferences drawn from the fossil record are similar to this, inferences that provide parsimonious explanations as to why the data points are where they are.”
Which begs the question of where the data points are.
“In any case, if we take Gould at his most militant -- skipping all the complexity to take things in the most challenging form to Darwin, it doesn't overturn Darwin's predictions even so. Do you disagree with this?”
The problem is not with my disagreement, but with the disagreements between Gould and his voracious critics. They are acting as if he betrayed the cause.
“What, then, establishes ‘trustworthiness’ in science, for you?”
I didn’t say if I did or didn’t. But there’s an obvious difference between an applied science like aerospace engineering and a hypothetical reconstruction of distant origins.
“All right, I'll try to take time to read that. But so much better if you could articulate the problem yourself.”
To the contrary, it’s a standard form of argument to appeal to an authority from the opposing side when he makes a damaging concession.
T-Stone said:
ReplyDelete---
First, this would be a hypothesis to begin with, but other than that it's a lot better than your "T" and "F" 'theories' from before.
---
"In a sense, there is no formal distinction between an hypothesis and a theory. A theory is simply an hypothesis that experiments have not yet managed to refute, and that seems to explain many facts about the world in one inclusive framework."
(Gee, ibid p. 89).
Do you get tired of being wrong all the time, T-Stone?
By the way, I also like how you continue to attack the analogy rather than the argument. It would be like if someone shot you and the paramedic said, "Your wound is analogous to a knife wound" and you said, "No it's not, because blah blah blah" while you slowly bled to death.
In any case, you ought not think my alternate theory is an abandonment of my T & F theories earlier. I still maintain they are valid scientific theories in the same structure as Netwon's laws of motion. I only used a different theory here because A) you're being anal and, as a result, are willfully blinded and incapable of grasping anything with the T & F structure and B) the above pre-empts your trivial disputes before you can even launch them.
Thus, you should realize that the alien theory is merely presented as being specifically tailored to you. Such would not be necessary with someone who was better able to grasp logic. But I will do my part to help you learn.
T-Stone said:
---
It *is* falsifiable, explanatory, and predictive. The only problem is that it doesn't fit with the existing data -- we have no basis for thinking that there are aliens in such a place, or that unicorns exist. Given that, it simply wouldn't get much attention, or be taken seriously as an avenue worth investigating.
---
Ah, yes. The ol' tradition card gets played yet again. You are living evidence for Kuhn's idea that old scientific paradigms pass away only when old scientists die, since they're too stubborn to change their mind to grasp new concepts that challenge the old.
"We ain't never thought that way before, therefore even though it's in valid structure we're still going to not take it seriously. After all, it violates our provisionally-in-name-only held theories, and therefore couldn't possibly be provisionally true either."
Yup, when any scientist or group of scientits (or T-Stone) gets to stack the deck and decide beforehand what theories should be considered seriously and which one shouldn't, that's real science!