Hi Tara. A really good read as usual. WinAce's piece on organisms that look designed is priceless, I'd not seen that before 
I agree with you entirely about how fascinating biology is, even if I only do it in my spare time these days.
Very pretty
My high school experience was similar, at least at the junior level (1978 or thereabouts, hate to date myself). At the back of our text, I think it was Helena Curtis' Biology, there were many pages of latinized classification. And we had to memorize all of it (Class Mammalia - bear live young, give milk, have hair, teeth, have 4-chambred heart, etc., etc.). Fortunately for me, I actually enjoyed the challenge of memorization and am fairly adept at it, but I could see how it could deaden minds to biology.
In my senior year I took the advanced class which involved class presetations and a year long set of experiments on soil. Still, I can't recall doing a whole lot of evolution, which would tie it all together.
Actually theologians have a name for tis view 'Pantheist' - a case where giving something a name rather spoils it, and is inadaquate for the purpose.
They are also pretty sniffy about it - considering it not unlike the view of a 'primitive' tribe that sees 'spirits' in all living creatures.
I think this is there problem because of the habit they have of understanding only literal 'supernatural' explanations for everything.
Wonder at the natural world itself may not as count as 'spiritual' in their sense - but it sure does in your's mine and Darwin's as far as I can see.
Happy New Year Tara! - and a joyous springtime to come with lots of good pond-dipping for you and the kids!
Dean Morrison wrote:
"Actually theologians have a name for tis view 'Pantheist' - a case where giving something a name rather spoils it, and is inadaquate for the purpose. They are also pretty sniffy about it - considering it not unlike the view of a 'primitive' tribe that sees 'spirits' in all living creatures."
This reminds me of my experience in high school. It was a private Episcopal school and religion ("sacred studies") was a required course. I can't remember exactly what the assignment was, but I wrote an essay in which I tried to express honestly my take on the kind of metaphysical stuff we were supposed to be contemplating. (Knowing, of course, that we were really *supposed* to regurgitate dogma.) I'll never forget the big red letters the priest/teacher had scrawled across the top when I got it back:
"This is *pantheism*. This is not what you believe."
That may have been the defining moment when I gave up any thought of reconciling myself to christianity.
I'l echo the first poster. Again, an excellent post. Thanks!
Unfortunatelly, in the UK, the lack of emphasis on Evolution in Biology classes doesn't seem to be restricted to secondary school (UK High School equivelant). I recall completing the whole first term of my Biological Sciences degree at University with Evolution having been mentioned perhaps 5 or 10 times (in fact, a module specifically on Evolution wasn't even offered until the 2nd year - and i went to one of the better scored universities for Biological Sciences in the UK!). My understanding of evolution was only due to supplementary reading. At the time, most other students on my course that I spoke too (well, argued with..) about Evolution had often based their entire understanding on Evolutionary theory on a single reading of "The Selfish Gene" and thought they knew all they needed. It was very disapointing.
.. but at least we have Darwin on our ten pound notes!
The next time I pull one out in a pub I'm going to ask my mates if they know who he is and what he did - just as a test....
Funny How IDers didn’t cite Cotesia congregata life cycle is IC (irreducibly complex) - eggs, ovipositor, virus - maybe because is the other IC, incredibly cruel.
They would probably respond that design "theory" only says that intelligent design is extant, it makes no moral quality judgements on the designer. No matter how cruel it may seem to us at first blush, the design can always be rationalized as 'good' in the minds of the adherents anyhow. As long as you accept design, they don't care that it's with the proviso that the designer cannot have the properties attributed to the Judeo-Islamo-Christian God figure. They can ignore that part.
It should be remembered that design advocates of the Discovery Institute ilk don't really care any more about intellegent design than they do evolution as far as an explanatory "theory" goes. That's why they ignore any suggestions that ID might be appropriate in a high school philosophy or religion or social studies course (but not science). The whole point is to attack and weaken the scientific theory of evolution, to have it accepted as genuine scientific controversy. If they can't do that, then it's not much good to them.
Fair point, Dave. But they don't want something that doesn't suggest "god is love" as their poster child. Look at those cute Bacteria go...
What was your friends' main objection?
Gaps in the fossil record?
Curious,
Tara wrote - For whatever reason, the topic turned to evolution--and we quickly realized that we had, erm, differing opinions on whether evolution actually occurred or not. Now, this was pretty depressing to me, as both of them are very intelligent women, and one happens to work in a scientific field.
Tara,
Could you clarify what you mean by that statement (i.e., by connecting one's acceptance of evolutionary theory with the level of one's intelligence)?
Thanks
NL,
Neither really articulated anything specific, and I don't want to discuss my impressions too much for fear of misrepresenting them. Part of it was religious, part was an idea that science isn't always correct, and there were other issues as well.
Rusty,
As I mentioned, one of them is highly science-educated herself (in chemistry, however). She's also interested in other biology issues, and works in a position that employs scientific methods--so I'd hope she'd understand the value of data and evidence in support of a theory. I also consider both to have fairly well-tuned BS detectors. Finally, they obviously know that I'm a biologist, though they may not have previously known how much of a role evolutionary theory plays in my own work.
I'm trying to think of a way to say this without sounding elitist or stereotyping, and not coming up with a good way to do it. It's just more depressing to me that intelligent people dismiss the entire basis of a scientific field without much study in the area. For some people, I understand that this kind of thing simply isn't interesting to them, or they feel (rightly or wrongly) that it's over their head. So they accept what they hear from an authority they trust--even if that authority isn't an expert in the subject they're discussing. I get that, though I don't endorse it. But people who have the intellect to understand these things at a higher level, IMO, should attempt to do so before they dismiss them, y'know?
Maybe its a kind of 'tough love' Rich, like the God of the Old Testament. Anyway, they consider those questions beyond science since for some reason (why exactly they never explain) design itself can be determined scientifically, but we are not allowed to ask anything about the identity of the designer(s), motivation, capabilities or methods as these are all metaphysical questions.
Tara,
Fabulous post I'll save for my kids. With your comment posting you addressed the big question I think we need to resolve, which is why people believe these things. It does seem that on any subject, we all fall back on what we "trust". Even though I may know Information Theory well, I still rely on in-field experts for detailed analysis of biological aspects and bleeding edge papers can usually only be reviewed by subject area experts. So everyone falls back on what sounds good or "correct" to them. So I suspect it has to do with the "world view" people have and therefore that would have to change. Now maybe the only way to change that is by repeatedly demonstrating that it is inconsistant/insufficient. Does that seem to resonate with what you've seen?
BTW - nice blog.
apav,
It just depends. That's enough for some people--like going from a strict creationist POV to a theistic evolutionist view. They can see that the evidence around them doesn't fit a literal Genesis, and adapt their view to fit the evidence. For others, though, a literal Bible is too important. Look at the statement of faith required to work somewhere like Answers in Genesis, for example--essentially saying that if science conflicts with their interpretation of the Bible, science is the one that's wrong. So sure, sometimes just showing how something is wrong works well. Other times, we do that only to hear we're deceived by Satan or something.
Tara,
Your post has stirred my interest on a number of levels.
First off, I have encountered many friends and even family members that aren't so willing to accept the fact that evolution happens. It usually all comes down to religious reasons for being uncomfortable with the theory.
I've found that having a friend who shares (or even just understands) their religious reasons and reservations helps tremendously in talking about the subject. For example, I consider myself a religious person, and I've taught lessons on evolutionary theory and faith in church before. Despite expecting the worst kinds of reactions, most people have actually been very appreciative of the discussion. It makes a huge difference if the person discussing evolution is perceived as trustworthy by the audience.
I think one of the things that disappoints me about some scientists is the outright hostility towards religion. I have no problem is someone is an atheist or agnostic. Some of my good friends are. We are free to disagree -- but the fact that we simply respect our differing views allows us to build a friendship in so many other areas.
I think that some people's insistance that any logical or rational person would never practice a faith continuously widens the chasm between the two sides. It's not hard to find these people. Some of them have really good blogs I enjoy frequenting.
The final thing that's really interesting is this idea about education and evolution. I got a poor (almost non existant) understanding of evolution from my public high school. I attended college at religious instution that did a surprisingly good job of protecting their faculty's academic freedom. Their biology department, where I was a major, taught evolution pretty well.
The real problem is that people can still "turn the lights off upstairs" if they don't want to learn it. You might fail a test, drop a letter grade, or you can just memorize some facts and regurgitate them. However they did it, plenty of students got by without having to truly think about the theory and why it's so useful in biology.
(As an aside, since it was a small university, the department was aimed overwhelmingly towards pre-med type students. I loathed many of them -- referring to the pre-med side of biology as the "dark side" -- as I found many of them to be uninterested in the philosophical, ethical, and even religious implications of the science they were learning about. Many people who wanted to work in the medical field truely lacked the curiousity about the world around them that ought to be inherit to any person interested in biology.)
Hi Tara,
Okay, so if I’m understanding you correctly, you think that if an intelligent person made a reasonable effort to study the field (of evolutionary theory), then they would be better able to evaluate the data and evidence (in support of the theory). That said, they should then be expected to come to the conclusion that the data and evidence does, in fact, support the theory. Or, to state it another way, if an intelligent person has dismissed the validity of evolutionary theory, then they must not have made a reasonable effort to understand the theory (an effort which, by virtue of their intelligence, should be relatively easy for them).
Or… are you stating that, while an intelligent person can certainly dismiss evolutionary theory, they should at least understand it to the point where they can evaluate the data and evidence?
Thanks
Olivia Judson wrote:
"Biology was a subject that seemed as exciting as a clump of cotton wool. It was a dreary exercise in the memorization and regurgitation of apparently unconnected facts. Only later did I learn about evolution and how it transforms biology from that mass of cotton wool into a magnificent tapestry, a tapestry we can contemplate and begin to understand."
Sorry Olivia, but it wasn't evolution that rang your chimes. The "magnificent tapestry" that you refer to is the unity of life. Similar genes, similar processes and similar structures are used over and over again across a wide range of different forms. We're all part of the same "web of life" and we're all cut from the same cloth. This is the profound truth of biology and it's this relatedness that binds us all together and gives meaning to the study of life science. It leads us to the conclusion that we probably all came from a common origin. And it is an understanding that has great significance.
It also has nothing at all to do with "evolution".
Okay apart form the last bit Charlie. If you have to ignore 'relative relatedness' and what it informs us about the 'tree of life' you are missing out - really.
You are just looking at a lot of 'random' stuff put together for no knowable reason by a supernatural man with a beard. And that's it for this world..
I'm looking at a breathtaking library with more books in it than I could possibly read - all catalogued and ready for my perusal - Origin of the Species was the first guidebook to this wonderful world, and scientists have been mapping it out ever since. I can even explore it ove 3 billion years of time.
Beat that.
Wow, such long posts.
Well, anyway, I don't know why you would chose that particular op-ed piece. While it speaks of some fascinating organisms, it doesn't say anything about evolution.
Or rather, it only speaks of the "wonder" the author feels about biology. Then she just states how she doesn't believe in special creation.
No other animal that I have heard of can live so peaceably in such close quarters with so many individuals that are unrelated.
Ants, Cockroaches, Termites, Fish, Birds, Squirrels, Mice, Buffalo, etc. etc.
No, but anyway, I'm sure if you HAD shown your friends that op-ed, they would have said that these were examples of the wonder of special creation. (You don't think all those things came about randomly, do you? 
)
Jason wrote:
"No other animal that I have heard of can live so peaceably in such close quarters with so many individuals that are unrelated.
Ants, Cockroaches, Termites, Fish, Birds, Squirrels, Mice, Buffalo, etc. etc."
Tara had a special reason for using the word 'unrelated':
Ants, and termites are all very closely related - that's why they have special societies - something that can only be understood by a deeper understanding of evolutionary biology - try the Selfish Gene and some reading of Hamilton and Nash as a primer.
Some birds live in truly social groups to a lesser degree - where offspring help adults raise extra young - again closely related.
The rest group in herds for protection , but have less-developed 'social systems' - and start acting a lot less peaceably in the breeding season.
and as for squirrels - you might get a lot around? - but they are pretty territorial and act aggressively towards each other. Your American Grey Squirrel has all but wiped out our native Red one by the way.
A lot less randomness than you observe Jason. In fact order created by evolution through the mechanism of Natural Selection.
What is your explanation for hymenopteran societies other than 'godidit'?
Tara,
I had a similar experience about 3 years ago when a friend, who had a nursing background, asked me what I thought about evolution. She made it clear she did not want to be "convinced," she just wanted to get my take and for me to recommend some readings.
My understanding of evolution had come not from my long ago public schooling but from my volunteer work and training as a zoo docent: I was mildly knowledgeable. The incident motivated me to get busy reading and understanding what was going on in the so-called culture wars and to learn more about evolution and biology. (I've had to expand my world beyond primatology and paleoanthropology.)
I'm facing a new challenge: a friend who teaches jr high science (not life sciences)in another state has recommended that I read "Icons of Evolution." (She said it opened her eyes.) I have countered that I will forward her some links about the people behind the book. I think I'll also send a link to the Kitzmiller ruling.
Tara - I have been in the exact same situation - finding out that otherwise intelligent and well educated friends don't believe in evolution. Huge disappointment. I agree with you that it is because they have not put any effort into investigating it, and our American schools often shy away from teaching it which results in ignorance of the overwhelming support for evolution among a huge percentage of our population. I recently gave a friend a copy of Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God." I don't agree with Miller on everything but have tremendous admiration for his attempts to explain to his fellow christians that evolution is correct and "intelligent design" is nonsense. He has no problem reconciling his religious faith with evolution.
It is interesting that the Baptist faith, in which I grew up, has the lowest average level of education when compared with other mainstream christian groups. Episcopalians have the highest. I think the ability to understand that creation myths reflect cultures and should not be treated as historical accounts is more common among those with higher levels of education.
[Part 1 of 2]
Tara,
Just as creationists caracaturize the scientific theory/law of "Evolution," scientists all too often caracaturize and conflate ID.
ID has been hijacked by Bible fundies who wish to "rationalize" biblical notions of creation. Freed of its absurd use as an alibi for bible fundies, ID lends ZERO support to Judeo-Christian creationists. Freeman Dyson, for example, is no intellectual ostrich. He articulates one strand of ID concepts that are entirely unrelated to stereotypical Judeo-Christian origin myths.
Tara, your scientifically educated friends shouldn't necessarily be consigned to the dust heap of bible belt bimbettes - it might conceivably be worth your while to acquaint yourself with non-biblical ID lines of thought, if for no other reason than to avoid underestimating the intellectual rigor and honesty of those you come across.
Likewise, the theory/law of evolution is far from monolithic. One blog that links to yours, John Hawks.net, posted an article this evening entitled Canalization [ http://johnhawks.net/weblog/
revi..._2005.htmlefers ] that ties into a growing area of research that undermines one prong of the traditional Darwinian central dogma : NS + RM.
You won't find too many educated people who'd argue against NS -- Natural Selection -- as a key parameter to evolution.
RM -- Random Mutation -- however, is an entirely different can of worms.
[Part 2 of 2]
Interestingly enough, 'twas Richard Dawkins, a leading partisan against our society's over-dependence on "Gerin Oil" [or to use the technical term: Geriniol] who inadvertently fired the opening salvo against RM in his essay on the "Evolvability of Evolution."
Dawkins -- and many others, I believe -- have pointed out that there are certain non-random "hotspots" in the genome that are evolving faster than others.
Random mutation -- a fundamental pillar of faith -- commences its slide down the slippery slope of accumulating data. But removing pillars of faith takes time, as Ole Roemer could well attest.
Canalization is another route by which non-randomness may come into play. As described by Dr. Hawks, mutations can pile up while the phenotype remains unchanged, awaiting ENVIRONMENTAL cues (stress induced, among various possibilities) for the canalized phenotypical expression to undergo a "punctuated" phase of disequilibrium.
Whazallzis gotta do wit ID.
Lemme just suggest that with the toppling of the RM dogma, it may just be time to step back, take a deep breath, and acknowledge that there's more under the sun and the stars than we're quite yet ready to understand.
By NO means does that mean that ANY answers to evolutionary questions are to be found in scripture.
It does mean that the question that Darwin sidestepped -- what is mutation all about, anyway -- remains deeply mysterious.
Regardless whether we've come to understand a dozen or so mechanisms of mutagenesis, may I respectfully suggest we've hardly discovered the whole -- or even the crucial keys -- to this process.
Your intriguing post on prions in the grass is but one example -- and an excellent one -- of how little we know about fundamental biology.
Dyson charges ahead where angels fear to tread. To wit: there's no obvious reason why the disconcerting, utterly counter-intuitive discoveries in physics are not relevent to biology.
I'll leave it at that.
Plus a couple of essays on evolution from the Edge (by Greg Cochran and Freeman Dyson), not having anything to do with ID, but quite fascinating in their own right, don't you think?
http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_4.html
Happy New Year!
LPB
Leopold..
I fail to see your point..
and you forgot to mention these essays in the same journal slamming 'Intelligent design':
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/
...ne05_index.html
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/
...er05_index.html
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/
...ne05_index.html
"You won't find too many educated people who'd argue against NS -- Natural Selection -- as a key parameter to evolution."
I'm currently discussing ID with one (non-religious) proponent on the ARN boards who believes just that. He seems to be working off the idea that at some level organisms can "will" changes into existence as a result of chronic but (critically) nondestructive pressure.
He has yet to prevent a mechanism or to explain why, if organisms can do that, the males in my family are still cracking their heads on ceilings at least four generations after this propensity arose (probably more). Surely we'd have managed to shrink ourselves by now...
"Dawkins -- and many others, I believe -- have pointed out that there are certain non-random "hotspots" in the genome that are evolving faster than others."
You're conflating two different uses of the word "random". No-one nowadays argues that mutations are random in their location or effect, in fact we have quite detailed data on the probability of any given change (google on BLOSUM matrices). However, the point that mutations are random in their effect (i.e. there's no way to "force" a beneficial mutation) is, I believe, relatively unchallenged.
"Lemme just suggest that with the toppling of the RM dogma, it may just be time to step back, take a deep breath, and acknowledge that there's more under the sun and the stars than we're quite yet ready to understand."
You could say exactly the same thing about quantum field theory (and probably with more validity), and yet strangely no-one's suggesting that M-theory may be something that "we're not quite yet ready to understand". I wonder why?
Wow, lots of stuff. Just a few of my own comments.
ocellated--I agree, and religious reasons and objections were definitely one we touched on. I think it's a combo of not only some scientists being hostile to religion, but also many religious people being hostile to science that combine to make some people truly believe the two can't be reconciled at all--it has to be one or the other. Good to hear you're having some fruitful discussions about it at your church.
Rusty--a bit of both. Obviously I feel evolution is very well-supported, so it's my feeling that other intelligent people should come to the same conclusion after an examination of the evidence. I realize there are smart people who do disagree with me, and I can accept that, but dang it, my friends shouldn't be among them.
Gerry--Make sure to send your friend a link to Icons of Obfuscation and other rebuttals at TalkOrigins.
Sandra--I'm also sending out copies of Miller's book. I bought one for my dad a few years back, and he enjoyed it. I figure it can't hurt...
Leopold--First, I want to make it clear I never "consigned [my friends] to the dust heap of bible belt bimbettes." Like I said, they're smart, they're talented, and heck, they're gorgeous to boot. I just happen to think they're wrong on this issue. (Well, that and their enjoyment of Bill O'Reilly...)
Second, there are indeed folks who argue against NS. Those same people are often ones who say they won't argue against RM, because it's "so obvious!" And certainly, any biologist should know there are mutational and recombinatorial "hot spots" in genomes, that, as far as I know, aren't completely understood. That's not quite the same as arguing against RM, though--mutations are still random (as far as we can tell), they just occur more often in certain places for a variety of reasons. Think of a car crash. Still an accidental thing, yet they occur more often at some intersections for a number of reasons--higher traffic, poorly designed traffic patterns, broken traffic signals, etc. No reason why mutational "hot spots" can't be similar.
"Like I said, they're smart, they're talented, and heck, they're gorgeous to boot."
- like I said at PT Tara - if any of them are single and interested in Englishmen??
Phone numbers Tara, Phone Numbers??? ;D
Or if they're anything like those 'Sex in the City girls' just tell them that reading up on evolution might be good for dating smart guys.. ;D
http://www.partiallyclips.com/pc...php?id=1345&
b=1
Heh. I'll be sure to pass that along.
Hi Tara,
Despite all the data being thrown about regarding evolutionary principles, I think that this notion that education and intelligence somehow equate to an acceptance of evolutionary theory is begging the question, to say the least. The grandest claims of evolutionary theory are not testable in a manner like, for instance, the elementary laws of physics. Data is gathered, analysis is made, and conclusions are drawn. That there are organisms such as Elysia chlorotica certainly testifies to the wonder and grandeur of the biological realm, but wonder and grandeur are not essential elements of evolutionary theory. Such examples do not demonstrate that a land-based wolf-like (or hippo-like) creature evolved into a saltwater dwelling whale. For such a conclusion one must look at the fossil data and attempt to correlate morphological changes in such a way that they fit within the constraints (geographical, chronological, genetic, etc.) of the model. At that point one can then take the “real-time” observable data and extrapolate it to account for the diversity and change seen in the fossil record.
Yet the final conclusions – the grandest claims of evolutionary theory – are ultimately based on the extrapolations made. In a complex science, such as biology, such extrapolations are typically much more subjective than those found in a “simple” science such as physics (e.g., compare the debate regarding primate lineages vs. testable predictions from the theory of relativity). The essence of the extrapolated conclusion(s) of evolutionary theory is, essentially, an argument based on the evidence presented. To be persuaded by such conclusions is a quantitatively different act than to, for instance, accept the notion that at sea level water boils at 212F.
Hence, to argue that since one’s education/intelligence equates to a better understanding of evolutionary theory, then there should be a corresponding acceptance of the conclusions of evolutionary theory, seems faulty at best.*
You see, what is being missed here is an understanding of the explanatory power of science as well as just how it is we “know” things. If our reality was entirely composed of the tangible, then perhaps naturalistic science would be sufficient to explain it all. Then perhaps it would simply be a matter of education and intelligence being the means to the acceptance of evolutionary theory.
FYI, I have read Origin of Species, Finding Darwin's God, and Tower of Babel (and I'll eventually get to some of Gould and Dawkin's work).
* Along a similar vein, you might want to read what fellow PT contributor Ed Brayton wrote about the notion of intelligence being related to belief in God.
Thanks,
Rusty: Quantuum mechanics is a long way from:
"To be persuaded by such conclusions is a quantitatively different act than to, for instance, accept the notion that at sea level water boils at 212F."
Physics is not quite such a simple subject as it may seem to you - (and lets not go anywhere near cosmology!).
I'm sure you'll find an 'extrapolation' or two along the way from boiling water to particle physics. In physics we are dealing with intangible elements of time and space - in evolutionary some people find the dimension of time intangible. The living creatures you can see and touch and the fossils you can see are far less intangible than 'quarks' or 'space-time'.
'Extrapolation' is a neccessary part of reasoning - you would be unable to make your argument without using it yourself. To deny it to evolutionary biology is to make a special case for the subject - something in my experience people only do for religious reasons because they are incapable of accepting the conclusions - no matter where the evidence leads....
Rusty,
*sigh* That's why I didn't want to get into this, really. First, I don't agree that belief in God and acceptance of evolutionary theory are "along a similar vein." I very much agree with Ed regarding belief in God and intelligence, and I have a similar love-hate relationship with Dawkins. But *belief* in God and *acceptance* of the overwhelming evidence of evolutionary theory provided by years of investigation in a whole host of different areas in the biological sciences are 2 very different things. The first requires no evidence at all, though certainly people do put forth various attributes of nature as being evidence of some kind of deity. The latter can either require a lot of independent study, or you can trust the opinion of others who've devoted their lives to its study--which is another reason I do expect people of intelligence to also accept evolutionary theory. The more you study any area of science, the more you realize that, while the experts certainly aren't infalliable and our information and understanding of the natural world increases with each experiment done, the experts generally know what they're talking about. This isn't saying that they should be worshipped or are immune from criticism, but when you have the overwhelming support that something like the theory of evolution does in the community of biological professionals, there simply must be something to it, some reason they so strongly support it.
You also must realize that these "extrapolations" you're discussing are much more than just hand-waving guesses. Rather, they're a result of the convergence of many lines of evidence. You mention fossils, but there's so much more to it: molecular genetics and comparative anatomy, just for two. Is it the same as stating the boiling point of water? No--and as I discussed in the post, life is messy. But patterns emerge, and we can make--and test--predictions based on evolutionary theory, just as we can make and test predictions in all the other sciences. After all, even you know the boiling point of water isn't absolute, since you included "at sea level--" it'll change dependent upon pressure and water impurities. Laws and certainties are nice, but life is often messier.
Finally, I've been very careful to state that it's my *opinion*, my *feeling* that this correlation should exist. I'm not saying, nor do I think I have ever said, that it *does* exist. I'm an epidemiologist--I understand causation and correlation very well. That's exactly what I acknowledged in my last comment--that plenty of people that I either know to be or assume to be intelligent disagree. It happens, I've not said otherwise. I think you're reading way too much into my comments here, and trying to make my words support a concept I don't.
Anyhoo, I'm glad you're reading Darwin and more, but of course, that's just scratching the surface. There are posts galore on this blog and many others that
The grandest claims of evolutionary theory are not testable in a manner like, for instance, the elementary laws of physics. Data is gathered, analysis is made, and conclusions are drawn.
Which "grand claims" are you thinking of Rusty? I know of none that are not backed up by very solid science. I'm not saying every question is answered, but then again, there's no other science where every question is answered either, including physics. That physics can reduce some principles to simple laws is a testament to the simplicity of the systems studied.
For such a conclusion one must look at the fossil data and attempt to correlate morphological changes in such a way that they fit within the constraints (geographical, chronological, genetic, etc.) of the model. At that point one can then take the “real-time” observable data and extrapolate it to account for the diversity and change seen in the fossil record.
Yes...that's what we do.
The point of looking at nasty beasties is to suggest that if they were designed to be that way by some entity, then that appears to be inconsistent with a supreme omnipotent benevolent being. This is not the evidence used to conclude evolutionary pathways.
To be persuaded by such conclusions is a quantitatively different act than to, for instance, accept the notion that at sea level water boils at 212F.
Accepting this notion is little different from accepting the notion that fossils are the remains of dead organisms. Both are just facts in a larger landscape.
If our reality was entirely composed of the tangible, then perhaps naturalistic science would be sufficient to explain it all.
Science only proposes to make naturalistic explanations to model empirical evidence. There is no claim that other types of explanations don't exist. Only that that is the only kind science can address.
Dang word limits. The last part should read, "Anyhoo, I'm glad you're reading Darwin and more, but of course, that's just scratching the surface. There are posts galore on this blog and many others that discuss real research being done every day that supports evolutionary theory--if your biology background is decent, I hope you check them out."
Cheers,
Tara
Dean,
I understand that physics is not simple… in using that description I am referring to the ability to quantify predictions and / or results as compared with biology. I also realize that the further one goes into theoretical physics, the further one goes into subjective extrapolations. No part of my argument posits that we deny the use of extrapolations as part of the reasoning process. My point is that intelligent people can come to different conclusions based on the evidence presented, especially when the extrapolations involved entail an increasing amount of subjectivity.
Tara,
Sorry, but you brought up the “intelligent” thing in your post.
I think what irks me, sometimes, is that it appears that many people who hold to evolutionary theory think they are being “objective” and, conversely, that those who do not accept evolutionary theory are being “subjective.” It shows up in comments regarding friends who, although they are very intelligent, somehow still do not accept evolution theory – well they must be biased because of other influences then, right? First off, I do not believe any one of us is completely objective – our noetic structures shape our view of the world and how we approach the various aspects of reality, and our noetic structures vary. Second, I do not think this is an entirely “bad” thing except for when one fails to acknowledge that it occurs.
As you might expect, I do think that Ed’s post relates to this discussion. In my discussions with evolutionary theory proponents it is not surprising to find that “belief” in something (e.g., God) is relegated to the area of subjectivity requiring no evidence at all, while “acceptance” of evolutionary theory is attributed to a purely rational process (e.g., that of education). The dichotomy is, evidently, firmly set: faith vs. reason. But human beings really aren’t that simple, are they? I cannot speak for other religions, but Christianity does not maintain that belief in God be done with no evidence whatsoever. You yourself would probably attest to the veracity of the scientific method, yet how do we know that the scientific method, in fact, provides us with reliable results (without ultimately being self-referential)? Do you know that other minds exist? As a Mom, can science even begin to provide you with information regarding the love you have for your child (not the causal effects of your love, but the actual love of your child)? Do you believe that that love exists, based on no evidence at all?
I don’t necessarily discount what the experts say (i.e., the argument from the majority) by default. Certainly you must agree that what the majority think can be influenced, at times, by context and bias. That the majority of the experts look at objective data and come to similar conclusions does not establish that such conclusions are the best and / or only conclusions. Bias is certainly no respecter of persons and if the majority of experts held certain assum
Oops, word limit (you know, Tara, blogspot has a comments feature).
=====
...Bias is certainly no respecter of persons and if the majority of experts held certain assumptions regarding the data then it would not be surprising to find them coming to similar conclusions. Bias of this sort does not have to be intentional (e.g., a conspiracy) to be effective.
My use of the boiling point of water example was to compare an easily verifiable objective phenomenon with a much more subjective one. I realize the two were disparate, and that was my intent. But my concern is not with the research involved, whether it be analysis of the fossils, molecular data, or comparative anatomy. What I am concerned with is how the conclusions are based on extrapolations of the data, extrapolations that, I think, are biased. I don’t discount that the experts are intelligent. But I don’t think that their intelligence alone mandates correct interpretations and extrapolated conclusions.
Thanks for clarifying that it’s your “opinion” that the correlation “should” exist (which is all I initially asked for). I am certainly not trying to put words into your mouth, and I apologize if I gave you that impression.
Dave S.,
By “grand claims” I was referring to, for example, the wolf-like mammal to whale scenario.
The point of looking at nasty beasties is to suggest that if they were designed to be that way by some entity, then that appears to be inconsistent with a supreme omnipotent benevolent being. This is not the evidence used to conclude evolutionary pathways.
I think I have a general understanding of what is done to analyze the fossil record. It’s not the analysis I have a beef with… it’s the extrapolations. Your conclusion, btw, regarding nasty beasties and a supreme omnipotent benevolent being is misinformed. But… that’s a discussion for another day. ;^)
I accept the notion that fossils are the remains of dead organisms… it’s the notion of descent with modification I don’t accept.
Science only proposes to make naturalistic explanations to model empirical evidence. There is no claim that other types of explanations don't exist. Only that that is the only kind science can address.
Agreed. But my point is that our reality is comprised of overlapping disciplines. I do not believe that science, theology, philosophy, etc., can exist in isolated silos.
Rusty,
Sorry, but you brought up the “intelligent” thing in your post.
Yes, and it seems to me fairly obvious from the beginning that it's my opinion--"this was pretty depressing to me." I don't see how anyone can take that as some kind of scientific pronouncement. ?
Y'know, a reason why you may see that evolution supporters do see their views on science as being objective while those of their oponents are more subjective is because evolution supporters can be of any religious inclination, while deniers are almost uniformly religious of some nature. In the case of some of them, they've made it quite clear that their religious views supersede their scientific views--for example, with the AiG statement of faith I mentioned above. Or Kurt Wise's own statement about how, when choosing between science and the Bible, he chose the latter.
Additionally, I'm not saying bias doesn't exist. Seems like you're arguing against a lot of strawmen from the word go. I've discussed on here several times breakthroughs which were initially met with skepticism by the scientific community--the idea that bacteria cause ulcers, or were the precursors of mitochondria, for example. But that initial skepticism (and "bias" toward the status quo, if you want to call it that) was overcome by *evidence.* That's what's lacking in the so-called alternatives to evolutionary theory. Scientists thrive on discussion, on challenge, on new paradims, so it's pretty laughable to continually be informed how biased and closed-minded we are.
For the rest, I really don't want to get into a deep discussion about Christian theology or the nature of love on here. If you want to continue that via email, you can send it to me at aetiology@gmail.com.
As for blogger comments--yeah, but they didn't have trackback. Haloscan does.
Hi Tara,
Okay, I guess I wasn't clear in what I just wrote... I did understand that it was your opinion from the get-go, but I had initially asked for your reasoning behind the opinion. Regardless of whether or not it was a scientific pronouncement, I wanted to know how you worked out such a conclusion.
We'll just have to leave it that we disagree on the objective/subjective issue. I don't see what bearing the inclinations of evolution supporters vs. those of the naysayers has to do with whether or not the belief is true. For instance, someone may argue that a person born and raised in another culture believes the religion of that culture simply because of his upbringing. That may well be true, but if I'm interested in whether or not his religion is true, it doesn't matter "why" he may have come to believe it. I first need to find out whether or not the belief itself is true.
I don't know what strawmen you're talking about and I don't recall stating you said that bias doesn't exist. There can, however, be multiple varieties of bias and/or open-minded attitudes. This is certainly common in virtually all disciplines. In Christian thought, for example, there can be discussion allowed within the orthodoxy while ideas outside the bounds are considered heretical.
All I've been attempting to do is to get an idea of why you've made certain claims. While your colleagues may well agree with the notion that intelligent people should accept evolutionary theory, I don't, and I'm interested in the intellectual justification for such a notion.
Thanks,
[1 of 2]
Hi Tara/Professor Smith,
In his cosmological "prose poem" entitled Eureka, published in 1848, Edgar Allan Poe wrote:
> In guessing with Plato, we spend our time to better purpose,
> now and then, than in hearkening to a demonstration by Alcmaeon.
Which is to say, there's plenty of data available from which a Plato, a Poe, a Shelley, even the occasional Joe & Josephine Blow, can perceive outlines of the forest without having to wait for a peer reviewed & approved high definition Google satellite map.
Thank you for the intro to Percy Bysshe Shelley. It seems that he wisely did not feel the itch to offer up his own explanations as to the mystery of biological evolution. Rather, in 1814 he (and many others) knew enough to know that the conventional literal biblical explanation of creation by theistic design was a dead bang loser. It didn't take Charles Darwin to logically debunk that fallacy. What Darwin did accomplish was something akin to the "Powell Doctrine," demolishing theistic ID by virtue of an utterly overwhelming army of data. In this blitzkrieg, Darwin received significant assistance from coordinated tactical maneuvers with the 19th century Luftwaffe -- geologists proving the then recent discovery of European ice ages.
As for the a mechanism to replace God as the designer, Sir Charles proved to the equal of Barishnikov or Aistaire. NS is no explanation, but Darwin the Dancer sure as heck made it seem so. Just as a slope is a parameter by which water proceeds from highlands to the sea, NS is a parameter by which the fit & alluring procreate disproportionally. Elevatig this obvious truism to "scientific theory" debases the coin of the scientific propositions, imho.
Of course, there are tricky and obscure ways in which NS operates, and identifying these mechanisms and processes does pose a scientific challenge. But let's not confuse that with the bald generalization of NS as a parameter whereby traits are passed down to descendants of procreationally successful ancestors as surely as water deposited in higher altitudes seeps down to lower elevations.
And yes, there may be poor souls who can't quite grasp that NS is an overarching functional principle... but PUHLEEEZE let's not use their example as bogus strawmen to distract from issues more worthy of attention.
[2 of 3]
By Poe's time, Ole Roemer had finally, postumously been vindicated in his assertion that light (or the time lapse between emission and absorption of a luminous interaction) is finite and measurable (from our homuncular perspective, anyhow). Young and Fresnel had described very precisely some of the wave properties of light in the early 1800s. Other astronomical measurements of great precision were being made. From these discoveries, Poe (and others) deduced that the center of the galaxy contained a massive object weighing somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 million suns. Like Shelley, Poe wasn't compelled to dig up explanations. In fact, he was mystified by the apparent conclusion, since this object neither emitted light, nor was it illuminated by the surrounding stars. It was close to 70 years later that Schwarzschild deduced the existence of black holes from Einstein's equations, an incredibly brilliant insight that then went through the ol' Cassini meat grinder for another 50 years until the academy postumously granted Schwarzschild (who died in WWI) much deserved and long overdue recognition.
And yet.... there was Poe, in 1848, publishing a theory that closely describes the galactic blackhole now thought to exist at the center of the Milky Way.... along with his hypotheses of an expanding universe and the universe existing without any center point -- every location being equally central.
To repeat Poe's prophetic words:
“In guessing with Plato, we spend our time to better purpose, now and then, than in hearkening to a demonstration by Alcmaeon.”
The above: a long-winded preface to some comments on the following:
.
.
Hi Rusty.
By “grand claims” I was referring to, for example, the wolf-like mammal to whale scenario.
I wouldn't call this a "grand" claim as it just refers to the evolution of one order (Cetecea) of one class (Mammalia).
But anyway, you seem a bit behind the times here. Whales were at one time indeed thought by paleontologists to perhaps have derived from hoofed wolf-like carnivores called mesonychians, based on similarities between the unusual triangular teeth in both. Molecular biologists disagreed, claiming that their studies showed whales were most closely related to the even-toed ungulates (artiodactyls), the hippo being the closest living relative.
Fossil finds in Pakistan and elswhere have confirmed the latter hypothesis. J.G.M. (Hans) Thewissen is the leading expert in this area and has a fine web-page laying it out.
In every case the the claims have been based on evidence available.
I think I have a general understanding of what is done to analyze the fossil record. It’s not the analysis I have a beef with… it’s the extrapolations.
O.K. How would you scientifically explain this fossil and the molecular data?
Your conclusion, btw, regarding nasty beasties and a supreme omnipotent benevolent being is misinformed. But… that’s a discussion for another day.
I wasn't concluding anything, merely stating the so-called problem of evil in this context.
I accept the notion that fossils are the remains of dead organisms… it’s the notion of descent with modification I don’t accept.
You're free to do so if you wish, but it'd be nice to know how we can explain the data otherwise. Can you tell us?
Agreed. But my point is that our reality is comprised of overlapping disciplines. I do not believe that science, theology, philosophy, etc., can exist in isolated silos.
There is some overlap, but that doesn't mean we can't tell one from another.
I should also note that anyone can propose a supernatural hypothesis. The problem comes when you have to test it. IOW, science doesn't reject supernatural hypotheses because they are supernatural, it rejects them because they canot be tested. Some specific claims may be testable (e.g. a 6KA Earth), but not the hypothesis itself since such hypothoses can never be constrained.
[3 of 3]
Tara writes:
[C]ertainly, any biologist should know there are mutational and recombinatorial ‘hot spots’ in genomes, that, as far as I know, aren't completely understood. That's not quite the same as arguing against RM, though--mutations are still random (as far as we can tell), they just occur more often in certain places for a variety of reasons. Think of a car crash. Still an accidental thing, yet they occur more often at some intersections for a number of reasons--higher traffic, poorly designed traffic patterns, broken traffic signals, etc. No reason why mutational ‘hot spots’ can't be similar"
That seems to be representative of most reasoning in favor of RM.
Abiding faith.
Weak gruel, methinks, to sustain RM.
Crazy-as-a-bat (and deserving a Nobel Prize) Lynn Margulis sees symbiosis here, there, everywhere -- and not necessarily random mutation as chiefly operative in evolution.
Not a bandwagon I'd jump on; nor a scientific authority to be dismissed out of hand either.
Perhaps we simply don't know what role RM plays.
Shelley never broached the subject.
Darwin wisely and brilliantly finessed the issue.
Canalization, mutagenesis, prionics, symbiosis, disequilibrium triggers... the fatuously obvious catch basin of NS... all factor in.
Oh, I suspect enough datapoints are available to make out the outlines of the forest.
But my name ain't Edgar Allan or Percy Bysshe, let alone Schwarzschild.
Time will tell.
Till then, if abiding faith in RM helps people get through the day, then I suppose it's a highly intelligently designed concept.
.
.
Crazy-as-a-bat (and deserving a Nobel Prize) Lynn Margulis sees symbiosis here, there, everywhere -- and not necessarily random mutation as chiefly operative in evolution.
Is there some idea in science not opposed by at least one maverick?
Anyway, let's ask Dr. Margulis what she thinks of intelligent design.
According to the editorial she wrote in this month's American Scientist.
Why is so much pseudoscience—whether "creationism" or "intelligent design"—passed off as science?
Pseudoscience? Oh dear. But then again, she is crazy, right?
I've never seen Margulis dismiss RM, either--and I'd hardly call her "crazy as a bat." I agree with her that symbiosis plays a role in evolution--and indeed, it may be found in the future that RM plays a smaller role than we currently think. But that's all really neither here nor there--point being, RM still occurs, and nothing you've mentioned serves to show otherwise.
It's like a physician who finds a new bacterial cause of pneumonia. It may be that the new bacterium causes a high number of cases; indeed, it may be recognized in the future as *the* major cause of bacterial pneumonia. But that doesn't change the fact that the older bacteria--Strep pneumo, H. flu, Klebsiella, etc. etc. still cause pneumonia.
Dear David and Tara,
Dr. Margulis says not a word about RM in her American Scientist editorial.
Her reference to ID appears to follow the meme of conflating it with biblical creationism.
You may not have noticed, but I made no mention of school curricula in any of my posts. Actually, I praised Tara for bringing to our attention the pre-Darwinian trouncing of biblical creationist ID by Shelley.
Curious, isn't it, that biblical creationist ID was susceptible to such effective attack even before the theory of evolution was officially brought forth.
Everybody lives within the comfort zone of their prejudices. If it is yours (Tara, David) that anyone who questions the central dogma of RM NECESSARILY advocates the teaching in K through 12 or even college through Phd of some sort of "watchmaker" or "God the Creator" theory, then perhaps you're so stuck on imaginary opponents that ideas that don't fall within those categories simply don't register with you.
Actually, what was I thinking? That I'd find open, questioning minds. Of course the creationists are closed to new ideas. As for scientists or the scientifically oriented... well, guess I'm crazier than a bat.
David, speaking of crazy bats... you may or may not recall, but that was a typical opinion of scientist Margulis AMONG SCIENTISTS when she first propunded her revolutionary ideas.
Irony sir.
Please: abide comfortably in your faith, and pity we poor non-bible belters, non-RM fundies, who have so little faith.
Isn't such skepticism a hallmark of the scientific mind? Ah... never mind.
[end]
Leopold,
While Margulis' ideas were indeed met with skepticism (as I mentioned earlier) in the scientific community, I challenge you to back up your assertion that the "typical scientist opinion" at that time was that she was "crazy as a bat."
And just to clarify, I've not said anything about what you want to teach K-12. Thing is, scientists *are* skeptical. As such, I'm quite skeptical of your claim that RM doesn't happen. What's lacking is *evidence* to back it up--that's what convinces scientists, and that's why ID was dead before it even got off the ground. Bring back some evidence regarding your ideas about random mutation, and I'll be happy to discuss. Until then, I'll continue to view them as a scientist should--skeptically.
Dave S.,
I wouldn't call this a "grand" claim as it just refers to the evolution of one order (Cetecea) of one class (Mammalia).
Well, call it what you will. My intent was to refer to the phenomenon.
But anyway, you seem a bit behind the times here.
In one of my earlier posts I added a parenthetical reference to "hippo-like."
I'm aware that it is a recent change (as evidenced by the emphasis on the wolf-like creature in the PBS series Evolution). But your description illustrates my point about extrapolated conclusions tending towards the subjective. When a new fossil find can alter the previously touted lineage one has to wonder how solid the proposed lineage was to begin with.
O.K. How would you scientifically explain this fossil and the molecular data?
My scientific explanation would carry little weight, since I'm not a scientist. However, I believe the data supports the concept of design templates.
I wasn't concluding anything, merely stating the so-called problem of evil in this context.
Okay then... your statement was not well informed (i.e., there are alternative explanations to the "problem of evil" you refer to).
You're free to do so if you wish, but it'd be nice to know how we can explain the data otherwise. Can you tell us?
A good and, imo, bad question. Good in that any scientific model should, by definition, be testable. Bad in that if one were able to poke enough holes into evolution, would you still hold on to the idea simply because there was nothing better?
The problem comes when you have to test it. IOW, science doesn't reject supernatural hypotheses because they are supernatural, it rejects them because they canot be tested.
Ah yes, but even the Judge in Dover admitted that ID might be true. So, for the sake of argument, consider that if ID was true (or, if the supernatural occurs), what does it say about a discipline that would reject the truth simply because certain areas of the truth fall outside the discipline's boundaries?
Thanks,
Re: Margulis and whether she is crazy as a bat
That discussion reminds me of the joke about a patient at a "funny farm." You know the one with the punchline, "Well, I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid!"
Margulis may, in fact, be crazy as a bat. But does that fact, in and of itself, mandate that her research is flawed?
I saw an article about the wasp Cotesia congregata in a Scientific American years ago and it always bugged me (sorry) that I didn't keep the article or copy down the name of the wasp.
Thanks
The coolest thing I remember is that the wasp does not "carry" the virus, it constructs it. The virus genes have become part of the wasps own genome.
If you contrast this kind of information with the methods that teaching biology described above of presenting memorization and anatomy it sounds like a lot of schools have gotten around the "danger" of teaching evolution by making biology so dull that no student would ever pursue it.
When creationists say they need to be wise as serpents they really aren't kidding. Unfortunately, their ethical standards seem to have fossilized at a time that predates the vertebrate lineage.
Dr. Margulis says not a word about RM in her American Scientist editorial.
But she does say something about ID, and it's not complimentary. Her views that NS is not a major player in speciation, while interesting, are by no means well supported. nd her views are still strictly evolutionary. It's a debate about the methodology of speciation.
Her reference to ID appears to follow the meme of conflating it with biblical creationism.
No, it doesn't. I've heard that meme, but only from ID supporters.
And the Dover ruling shows us a well trod trail from Biblical Creationism to Creation Science to Intelligent Design in the Pandas book, a sort of evolution if you will. The names change but the concepts remain the same. We even have the delightful transitional form "cdesign proponentsists".
It stands to reason. ID can only be understood as a religious notion as it's main proponans tell us in their own words, and can only be a science if you re-define science.
Curious, isn't it, that biblical creationist ID was susceptible to such effective attack even before the theory of evolution was officially brought forth.
Some people can still recognize an erroneous argument when they see one based simply on its lack of merit.
... so stuck on imaginary opponents that ideas that don't fall within those categories simply don't register with you.
But they do register. Her endosymbiosis theory was attacked and is now well accepted, right? I accept it as reasonable. Her claim that symbiosis is the main mechanism involved in speciation is much less well supported. As for ID, those ideas do register...I just reject them as science.
Having an open mind does not mean one must accept every notion as equally valid. As soon as the ID folks start to actually do some science to support their ideas and get some results, then I might reconsider.
David, speaking of crazy bats... you may or may not recall, but that was a typical opinion of scientist Margulis AMONG SCIENTISTS when she first propunded her revolutionary ideas.
Of course! That's called doing science. The more radical the idea, the more in need of actual evidential support it needs to be and the more scrutiny its goiung to get. But did Margulies have lawyers seek out school boards to present her untested ideas before 9th graders? No, she went to work and proved her case.
Isn't such skepticism a hallmark of the scientific mind? Ah... never mind.
Sketicism means accepting something when its based on good evidence. When the ID community get around to actually making a single discovery in positive support of their theory I'd be happy to evaluate that.
In one of my earlier posts I added a parenthetical reference to "hippo-like.
I was replying to what you wrote.
When a new fossil find can alter the previously touted lineage one has to wonder how solid the proposed lineage was to begin with.
Not very in this case. Not all claims have the same amount of evidentiary support. Some are well supported, like common descent, others are considerably more speculative, like the RNA World hypothesis.
But there was some evidence in this case, the teeth I mentioned. Once other evidence came along (gene studies, Pakistani fossils) that was more consistant with a different hypothesis, the earlier was discarded. That's what science does, it must follow the evidence and change hypotheses if new evidence demands.
Okay then... your statement was not well informed (i.e., there are alternative explanations to the "problem of evil" you refer to).
*Sigh*. Like I already said, I wasn't explaining anything. I was merely stating what the problem is. To be misinformed I'd have to be misstating the problem itself. I've checked a couple philosophy websites, and state it much like I did. But if you still think I'm way off base, then please, you state what the problem of evil is.
My scientific explanation would carry little weight, since I'm not a scientist. However, I believe the data supports the concept of design templates.
And how do we empirically test these templates so as to distinguish them from common descent? Of course, a designer could always design using common descent as his methodology. We certainly can't rule that out.
Bad in that if one were able to poke enough holes into evolution, would you still hold on to the idea simply because there was nothing better?
What "holes" are you talking about? What is a "hole" anyway. Does it mean some unanswered question or maybe someplace we don't have data yet?
But I agree, if evolution were wrong, I would not accept it. I would then conclude that we don't know how life develped on Earth.
You don't think that by poking holes in evolution you support design, do you?
Ah yes, but even the Judge in Dover admitted that ID might be true.
Well of course it might be true. Like any untested idea, it might be true or it might be false.
So, for the sake of argument, consider that if ID was true (or, if the supernatural occurs), what does it say about a discipline that would reject the truth simply because certain areas of the truth fall outside the discipline's boundaries?
If such a "truth" is such that it is untestable, then all we say is that we cannot use the tool of science to study it.
But if it is testable, say time-travelling people do show up and show us how they did it and pointed us to the evidence, then science can study intelligent design.
But you get nowhere in design by attacking evolution, which is pretty much all they do now. But th
Hi Dave S.,
I realize that science must follow the evidence and change hypotheses if new evidence demands. My point was that extrapolations are made based on assumptions that are, imo, unwarranted. The probability & functional issues of transitioning from land-based (wolf, hippo, or ?) mammal to saltwater-based whale, in a mere 8 m.y., are not questioned. Instead, the search is made for morphological and/or genetic similarities, hopefully within the proper chronological sequence, to further bolster the known (so-called) fact.
In an earlier comment you wrote about "nasty beasties" and "a supreme omnipotent benevolent being." In the context of a discussion on evolution, I understood you to mean that deliberate design of carnivorous activity is inconsistent with the qualities of the Judeo-Christian God. If that is what you meant, then I think that such a statement is not well informed, for it doesn't appear to fully understand the qualities of the J-C God and worldview. If you are referring to a general "problem of evil," whether it be "natural" or "moral," that's another matter.
But I agree, if evolution were wrong, I would not accept it. I would then conclude that we don't know how life develped on Earth.
You're the first evolutionary theory proponent I've heard admit that.
You don't think that by poking holes in evolution you support design, do you?
No, of course not.
If such a "truth" is such that it is untestable, then all we say is that we cannot use the tool of science to study it
Agreed... with the caveat that we should be aware that there are truths that are untestable (by science).
Thanks,
Hi Rusty:
How can you possibly calculate a "probability" without knowing the relevant pathways? I see these sorts of things all the time in discussions of abioenesis, and I fail to see how such numbers can possibly have any relation to reality.
The fact is that as far as the molecular biology is concerned, whales are most closely related to the artiodactyls. This conclusion is supported by the fossil record, where we now have animals ranging from Pakicetus (a land animal that looks nothing like a whale but nevertheless has the distinctive whale-like ear structure) through Ambulocetus and Rhodocetus and the rest to modern cetatceans. Regarding the transition from land to water, I don't see what the difficulty is. Take seals. Are they land or water animals? Or penguins? These are equally at home in both environments. As are other more distantly related animals like frogs.
I'm not saying the sequence is complete. I'm saying these are just the sorts of discoveries we would predict if common descent were correct.
I see the basis of our miss-understanding re: problem of evil. No, I was not merely speaking of predation per se. I was talking about examples where the relationship between animals seems particularly cruel (at least to me), such as wasps laying eggs on catepillars and the young eating the catepillar alive.
I would also say the same thing if the atomic theory of matter were wrong. However, saying evolution were wrong in that case in no way implies or supports intelligent design (or any type of creationism) is right.
I agree that there are "truths" out there untestable by science. Science does have its limits, but its precisely these limits that give it its power! I liken it to the chain on a bicycle...yes if the chain were removed the peddles would turn much easier, but that doesn't mean you're getting anywhere.
Intelligent design removes the chain from the bicycle of science.
Ah yes, but even the Judge in Dover admitted that ID might be true.
Well of course it might be true. Like any untested idea, it might be true or it might be false.
Oh, and another thing...the judge said it might be true, but it wasn't science. Just to be clear on that.
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science."
It not only fails, it fails very badly.
Hi Dave S.,
Certainly it is much more difficult to narrow down a probability calculation in such scenarios (I referenced the contrast of "simple" vs "complex" sciences earlier on). Yet there are parameters given for whale evolution (e.g., 8 m.y. duration, beginning / ending structures, etc.) that should, at least, give one an idea of the probability factors involved. Suppose, for instance, someone proposed that the scenario took place over a span of 50k years (vs 8 m.y.)? Wouldn't you consider such a scenario highly improbable?
Re: the problem of evil. I would argue that, within the context of Judeo-Christian theology, there is nothing in the natural realm that is inconsistent with the notion that God is the creator and sustainer of all things (including those wicked little wasps). Such an argument, btw, would require us to also delve into theology and philosophy.
...saying evolution were wrong in that case in no way implies or supports intelligent design...
I agree.
...the judge said it might be true, but it wasn't science...
Yes, I know. In reading PT and other like blogs, it appears there were two issues at Dover that most irritated the anti-ID crowd: 1) ID is religion and, 2) ID is not science. I've posed the question on another site asking, if ID was presented as science, would it matter if it was also religion? Think about the implications before you answer.
My point on noting that it "might be true" is that if science, by definition, can exclude a potentially true answer, of what value is it?
Thanks,
Hi Rusty,
It's not merely difficult, but pretty near impossible as far as I can tell. Do you know of any actual examples of such calculations because I'd love to see them? We already have the evidence and it's just the kind of evidence we would predict if whales did indeen evolve from artiodactyls.
If you wish to do the calculation over 8 million or 50,000 years, then by all means go for it. I imagine the probability would be lower the shorter the time-frame (although I can't imagine how to calculate the actual number), which would be generally true for any evolutionary feature of any organism. The probability that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor 50,000 years ago or less is essentially 0, not because I have done any kind of independent probability calculation based on mutation rates or whatever, but because the evidence suggests this happened 5-7 million years ago.
You may be right about the resolution to the problem of evil. That's a theological question that can be debated.
What actually irritated the "anti-ID crowd" in this case was not that ID is religious in nature (that's simply a fact) and it's not even that it isn't science (lots of other things like astrology aren't science either). It's that it's a purely religious notion that was intended to be taught as a valid scientific argument in a public school classroom. That they present a purely religious notion as a science is precisely the problem. Now people like Behe and Demski are free to talk about it and make all the claims they please. No-one is going to stop them. But if someone tries to insert it as just another valid science in a public school, it's going to get challenged. The blatant lying by supposedly religious school board members is also disturbing.
However, design itself can be examined scientifically. After all, that's what archeology and forensics is all about. But this is not how ID proponants go about arguing their case. They use a different technique altogether.
Now if it were a science, then they'd have a positive theory from which testable predictions flow and from which tests have been done and reported in peer-reviewed literature and at conferences: and the theory would be thus supported. They can try to do it that way...but instead they have chosen not to. They have deliberately chosen not to use the scientific method, and are now trying to back into the schools using lawyers, lobbying politicians, and duping willing but ignorant (even today they admit they do not even know what ID is) school boards. How many other sciences can you name that get to be taught in high school thanks to that method?
As to you last point, it has value in that it has been shown to work! Let me put it this way...if you are sick, are you going to avoid going to the doctor's office because all their treatments are based on the same materialistic might-miss-the-"truth" scientific method? As Russell I believe once said, and I'm paraphra
*%%^(&^*&^$%#!$#$@ Character limits.
As Russell I believe once said, and I'm paraphrasing, 'For most, the conviction in their philosophical belief that the brick wall does not exist in inversely proportional to the speed at which they are approaching it'.
If he didn't say that, he should have.
One more thing....as far as religion in schools is concerned...in general, you can teach about such views, but you cannot advocate them. It's not the public school's place to be teaching our children which religion to believe.
Hi Dave S.,
The point is not whether one can make the calculations (they can), but how wide the error bars would be on the calculations (due to imposed values based on premises and/or assumptions). Would you seriously consider the proposition that the changes necessary could occur in the span of 50k years? At what point would such a proposition become preposterous?
I do not discount that there is evidence, it's the interpretation of the evidence I differ with. A wolf-like animal was accepted until a hippo-like animal was shown to be more similar (I'm generalizing here)... but the notion that some-animal evolved into a whale is never questioned. This, despite no plausible means with which to demonstrate that such complex transitions could occur in the time required. Intermediate forms in the fossil record do not demonstrate this any more than the current existence of seals or penguins. When the methodology is unpacked, it reveals that what is considered most important is that one find examples of similarity... hopefully within the expected chronology (if not, then we venture into the world of cladistics).
One needs to understand that "intermediate in form" is not the same as "transitional in nature." I see the hippo to whale scenario as a logically coherent explanation of the data, but I don't consider it the most plausible explanation.
Thanks for clarifying how you view ID/Dover. I understand you to be answering my question as such: If ID was presented as science (i.e., testable) the fact that it was linked to religion would be irrelevant (scientifically speaking). Is that correct?
However, if a religiously based scientific theory is possible, what implications would that have on the establishment clause?
BTW, I don't question the natural laws nor the benefits of the scientific method. In questioning science's restricted view of truth (i.e., only the natural) I'm simply pointing out that it could potentially ignore the truth it claims to seek.
Thanks,
Greetings Rusty,
The point is not whether one can make the calculations (they can), but how wide the error bars would be on the calculations (due to imposed values based on premises and/or assumptions). Would you seriously consider the proposition that the changes necessary could occur in the span of 50k years? At what point would such a proposition become preposterous?
Well you're the one making claims about these calculations, so to judge them, I'd have to actually see one. Since no-one is arguing that the change occurred in 50,000 years, I fail to see the point in making that calculation in the first place. Given the scale of the changes and the relative slowness of reproduction for mammals in general, I would agree that such a change probably couldn't occur in that time.
P. Gingerich (Rates of evolution: Effects of time and temporal scaling. Science (1983), Vol. 222, pgs. 159-161), measured rates of evolution in the fossil record at from 0.6 - 32 darwins. Modern rates of evolution should be at least equal to or better than this. Those were measured in nature at an average of 370 darwins and in the lab at 60,000. Others have confirmed that there is more than ample time for evolution to make the structural array found in the record. I don't know about whales specifically.
A wolf-like animal was accepted until a hippo-like animal was shown to be more similar (I'm generalizing here)... but the notion that some-animal evolved into a whale is never questioned. This, despite no plausible means with which to demonstrate that such complex transitions could occur in the time required.
Actually there was a divergence in opinion, with paleontologists suggesting the fossil evidence on hand (admitedly not a lot) was more persuasive, and the molecular biologists claiming the genetics told the correct tale. We need to be careful with terminolgy here...the difference between the mesonychians and the hippopotamids was not as great as the difference between modern hippos and wolves. The latest fossil data confirms the hippo hypothesis is closer to the correct one.
Indeed you are free to question the notion that something evolved into whales, but upon what scientific basis? Whales don't seem to be in any way distinct from other organisms so why should they be excluded? And the test of evolution was made by the prediction of fossil intermediary forms. That these forms were found both confirms the theory and describes some specific members of that lineage.
How do you know it's implausible in the time referenced? I see no calculations.
One needs to understand that "intermediate in form" is not the same as "transitional in nature." I see the hippo to whale scenario as a logically coherent explanation of the data, but I don't consider it the most plausible explanation.
I do. But I'm willing to revise that assessment based on new data which is better interpreted otherwise.
If ID was presente
Re: ID as presented as science.
There is a difference between something being presented as a science and it actually being a science. Its advocates try to represent it as science, but other statements they make and more importantly the structure of their arguments themselves prove otherwise. It can only be understood and is clearly understood that way by most people, as a religious notion.
But if ID had a positive scientific model and were testable, and if it were actually tested and the passed the tests like any science, then it would pass muster as a science. That it could be linked is beside the point. In fact, anything could be linked to religion, depending on the religion. Being linked to religion is not the same as being based on religion. For example, Old Earth Creationism accepts an old age for the Earth, but that doesn't mean any scientific endeavor that reports an old age for the Earth is based on Old Earth Creationism. Science may have religious implications for some, but that doesn't mean its therefore based on religion.
If ID were science, then it would be a science. Of course if my grandmother was a horse, then she'd be a horse.
In questioning science's restricted view of truth (i.e., only the natural) I'm simply pointing out that it could potentially ignore the truth it claims to seek.
And all I'm saying is that science does not make any claims about "truth", especially those truths outside its purvue. In the scientific sence "truth" means, 'provisionally accepted as the best answer'.
Hi Dave S.,
My point on the probability issue was that major morphological changes should not be expected to occur over short periods of time. One caveat, though, is that quantifying such changes is difficult or, as you apparently think, impossible. Other issues would be the fluid aspect of defining "major" morphological changes and "short" periods of time. Yet even the analyses you refer to (i.e., re: Gingerich) engage in such calculations. BTW, I ran across this site which appears to question the use of darwins in favor of haldanes.
However, notice that when comparisons are made between observed evolutionary rates with artifacts of the fossil record, the assumption is always made that artifacts in the fossil record evolved. Hence, you find statements such as Rates of evolution on the time scale of the process are so high that lineages rapidly find and fill most niches within their physiological limits.
Yet the physiological limits of large bodied animals includes the propensity to go extinct (due to specialized food req'ts., small populations, few progeny, etc.). Are you aware of any studies that investigate just how it is that large bodied animals don't go extinct before they evolve into another species?
And the test of evolution was made by the prediction of fossil intermediary forms.
I understand how the hippo-like animal could replace the wolf-like animal in the proposed lineage. Yet how does a fully functional intermediate form equate to a transitional form? Essentially, it's because it "looks" like it should.
Perhaps I should use another term besides ID... how about Testable Creation Model? If a TCM were developed it would not only be linked to religion, but would (potentially) be based on a specific religion.
Thanks,
The article I referred to as I recall did not reference probability. He looked at the overall rate of evolution as it could be compared in the fossil record (the amount of change verses the time over which the change happened), and compared this to the rate of evolution we observed today. If todays rates are slower than what is needed to account for the hisorical record, then we would indeed have a serious question on our hands. But they were not.
As you say, calculating probabilities for any specific lineages is difficult at the very least, and I'm not sure what the number would mean even if we could calculate it. Say we could, and the probability of the artiodactyl to whale transition was 0.5. O.K. ... what would that mean?
When you add chemical A to chemical B in a flask and explain the reaction, you also make the assumption that these substances are made of atoms. This is a reasonable thing to do as there is a wealth of evidence already that matter is made of atoms. Just as there is a wealth of evidence already that life evolved through descent with modification. Indeed, it was evolution that allows us to predict the presence of transitional forms in the first place. However, we still allow anyone with a testable competing process to show us their stuff. Hasn't happened yet.
It's my understanding that individual faunal species tend to last about 7 million years on average before going extinct. That is not to say they must be replaced by another species, as both the parent and daughter species may co-exist for a time. Today for example there is only 1 hominid species, but that wasn't the case for much of our history.
I'm not sure what you see as the difference between intermediate and transitional forms? To me, both are the same. I do not posit an exact lineage or line of descent between ancestor, transitional and modern forms for instance. The transitional (or intermediate or interposed) form is one which is in-between the two out-lying forms. Or one which contains features characteristic of both.
I don't see the problem as long as the science is based on hypotheses testible via empirical evidence and not the religious model itself. I could always say Evolution was my religion...but that doesn't suddenly make the science of evolution a religion. One can even imagine a genuine testable creation model...say aliens came down and provided evidence that they built us from scratch.
Too many hypotheticals. I prefer to stick to the actual facts as we know them. The actual fact is that this ID "theory" is nothing more than a thinly disguised religious notion trying to pass itself off as science. If it wasn't, then of course it wouldn't be! Advocating religious notions is wrong in public schools, whether calling it science or calling it philosophy as is now being done by a teacher in California.
Oh, and checked out your website Rusty. Some very nice photos there.
Dave S.,
Okay, I'm probably misusing the term probability. I think you get the idea I'm stating, though, with regards to the likelihood of an event occurring being constrained by higher complexity and short time span. If it could be demonstrated that the rates now measured could produce the data we find in the fossil record, then it would be more convincing.
An animal that is "transitional in nature" would be an animal that exemplifies the necessary morphological structure between two functionally different points. An animal that is "intermediate in form" is an animal which presents a fully functional structure which is interpreted to fall between two functionally different points. Where is the fossil evidence which demonstrates the small, successive changes over time? (and I realize that I'm asking for quite a bit, there)
I would argue that the conflation of science / theology / philosophy makes a values neutral teaching (in the public schools) impossible. Any cursory look at American History will reveal that the Establishment Clause was not intended to mandate that the government avoid religion. On a side note, you might want to check out this post and this one on the topic of Darwinian religion.
I think we've beat this one into the ground (plus Tara's site has moved), so I'll see you over at some future post at her new location.
Thanks for the compliments on my photography!
Hey Rusty,
This will be my final post here on this topic, since as you mention, the blog has moved and we've beaten it as far as it can go at this time.
I agree that if you could measure the rates of evolution for some specific morphological lineage and the rate needed to make that change is in excess of observed rates, then that would be a problem in need of solution. I see no evidence however that this is the case, and in fact the evidence we have indicates the opposite.
As you know, fossils are by their very nature rare. Marine creatures are over-represented relative to say mountain dwelling forest creatures simply because they lived in a higher depositional environment. Fossils even then are still rare for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, we do have some nice transitional series. The classic one being the transitions from the reptilian jaw to the mammalian, with its distinct ears. Another detailed lineage concerns the horse. I do not pretend these are complete, and I recognize others are far less detailed (for instance the bat), but the transitional forms we do have are all just what we'd expect to see from a process that involved descent with modification.
The key to teaching science vis religion is the idea of the empirical test. These tests come with the implicaion that the theory may succeed or it may fail. I have yet to see a religion come with a proviso that it might be rendered false by physical evidence.
Of course I agree the government is not expected to avoid religion altogether (except by the most extreme separationists); but it is expected to avoid excessive entanglements with religion, and it is especially enjoined from advocating any religion.
Its a huge difference between discussing what people believe, in a public school, and advocating those beliefs. That's the issue here.
Cheers for now.
I stumbled upon you and your cyber-world trying to find out info about Paraguay and Yellow Fever, a place I served as a P.Corps volunteer a few years back. It was fantastic to discover such industrious works dedicated to providing insight to the workings of evolution. I share your lackluster high school bio experience at a high school in IA, moreover my science teacher was a blatant creationist and (for me) made biology a dead science. 20 years later as a high school science teacher myself, I make evolution central to all I teach, despite an apparent ideological disconnect in my students. Keep up the great work!
Commenting by HaloScan
