Just my thoughts on the recent series of posts at Uncommon Descent on Darwin, Eldredge and the fossil record. Click on the link if you want to know more!
It all started with this post from Denyse O’Leary which Lizzie picked up on here at TSZ replying to O’Leary’s claim that Stephen Meyer’s presentation of Louis Agassiz’s question:
Why, he [Agassiz] asked, does the fossil record always happen to be incomplete at the nodes connecting major branches of Darwin’s tree of life, but rarely—in the parlance of modern paleontology—at the “terminal branches” representing the major already known groups of organisms?
Was there any easy answer to Agassiz’s argument? If so, beyond his stated willingness to wait for future fossil discoveries, Darwin didn’t offer one.
To which O’Leary offers:
And no one else has either.
Lizzie points out:
Oh, yes, they have, Denyse. That’s what what punk eek was. But it also falls readily out of any simulation – you see rapid diversification into a new niche at a node, and thus few exemplars, followed by an increasingly gradual approach to a static optimum, and thus lots of exemplars. But I present an even more graphic response: when you chop down a tree, and saw it up into logs for your fire, what proportion of your logs include a node?
While mung the Merciless links to Lizzie’s post, it doesn’t draw much attention but Uncommon Descent blog owner and bankruptcy lawyer, Barry Arrington decides to pick up on the theme with a post entitled “Steve Meyer: Cambrian gaps not being filled in”; Dr. Nicholas Matzke, well-known evolutionary biologist and former public information project director at the National Center for Science Education, comments, linking to his article on the Cambrian Period at Panda’s Thumb. I just can’t help myself (having had my ability to comment at Uncommon descent recently restored due, I believe, to the intercession of mung the mendacious) jumping in to fight with the tar baby, starting at comment twelve.
It might be worth mentioning here my attitude to commenting at Uncommon Descent. Having had posting privileges restored, I decided I would comment on my own terms, as and when I had time and inclination, neither seeking nor avoiding “death-by-cop” and generally only when I noticed the more blatant errors and claims by the more credible habitués.
Barry Arrington then authored a follow-on post where he posted a number of quotes purporting to support his claim that the fossil record does not support gradual evolution.
Alan Fox: “The current record is certainly not incompatible with gradual evolution over vast periods of time.”
Again, leading Darwinists disagree:
Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record. (Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myth of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46.)
In passing, it is worth noting the typo in the quoted publication. The correct title of the book is The Myths of Human Evolutiuon not “Myth”! The book was published in 1982. The iconic transitional fossil, Tiktaalik roseae, was found in 2004. Unimpressed with the quotes, I commented
Nice selection from the Bumper Book of Quote-mines, Barry.
as it was fairly obvious that the quotes were all obtained from secondary sources. Barry took umbrage at my impugning his integrity and another commenter, William J. Murray, took up Barry’s cause in posting:
You owe Mr.Arrington an apology for claiming he was quote-mining when he was obviously not, and you should admit you were wrong about what the known fossil record actually reveals wrt the prediction made by Darwin.
My response:
Maybe WJM has a point. I was under the impression that Barry didn’t think evolutionary processes were the explanation (or sufficient explanation) for the Cambrian period and the proliferation of stem groups that first put in an appearance over that period. Of course Eldredge is fully committed to the view that evolutionary processes are sufficient. If Barry agrees with Eldredge then I am sincerely sorry for thinking otherwise and welcome Barry into the fold of Darwinism.
was not considered an adequate apology. It was not published and I am now, presumably as I haven’t bothered to post any further comments, persona non grata at Uncommon Descent.
However the quote-mine saga rolls on with Nick Matzke and also another commenter, Roy, (welcome to TSZ by the way) continuing to point out the obvious. Barry has no more read Eldredge’s original work The Myths of Evolution than I have flown to the Moon. This book is not available as a download so I have only managed to read the excerpts available via Google books that indicate it to be clear, well-written and aimed at high-school-level students. An essay by Niles Eldredge entitled Confessions of a Darwinist (PDF is here) makes it very clear that Eldredge’s views are very much in line with those of Charles Darwin.
The story continues at On Quote Mining and Breaking News!!!! Wesley R. Elsberry Solves 154 Year-Old Riddle of the Fossil Record; Awaits Call from Nobel Committe. The latest post is has the Kairosfocusesque title, Nick Matzke Admits His Quote Mining Accusation Was False; Instead of Apologizing Tries to Change the Definition of “Quote Mining” to “Refusing to Agree With Me”.
So, no apology from me to Barry Arrington.
ETA correct link to Eldredge
ToE of evolution do not fit my rule of thumb. Can you give me a good stock to invest?
Thanks.
And three silent mutation fixed by drift and the four confering the new funtion. Does it count as saltation?
Blas,
No, it does not. Evolution occurs in populations whenever there is heritable variation of traits resulting in differential reproductive success.
So do you agree that modern evolutionary theory explains speciation?
On what basis do you find it uncompelling that small changes over geologic time can result in large changes?
At least we share a conclusion, even if we didn’t arrive at it by the same process. Hurrah!
From the part you cut: “I repeated ‘ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny’. And some years ago I found it was not only wrong, but probably a fraud. And darwinists have no problem with that.”
Can you support your claim that “. . . darwinists have no problem with that.”? Also, could you explain what you mean by “darwinist”?
I’d rather take my chances on Reddit’s 50/50 or 4chan’s /b.
You claimed that “Many still keep the Haeckel draws in their books.” Which textbooks have you personally read that still have those drawings, and what do they say about them?
That sounds like a testable prediction! Please provide the evidence to support this claim. When did the seeding take place, by what mechanism, by whom or what, and where did it happen? What predictions does this hypothesis make that results in it being “better” than modern evolutionary theory?
Are you skeptical of intelligent design creationism as well?
Are you skeptical of intelligent design creationism as well?
I found not scientific intelligent design and creationism. I do not know any ID explanation of how the life started and developed on earth. I found more plausible a life seeded on earth and I give to this idea just a little more chances to be true than ToE. If by creationism you understnd the literally of genesis, I´m very skeptical on that. My faith in a Creator is not based on bools or scientific theories.
Blas,
I’m having trouble following your explanation of “seeded life,” given that you made a previous statement (in another thread) about life being designed to diversify. Since you mentioned whales, how do they fit into your scenario? Did the designers make a starting population of whales in a lab for example, bring them to earth’s oceans and release them? Perhaps the seeding happen further back with an ancestral form. If so in what form was the seed? Please clarify.
May be true, but if OOL is not naturalistic but made by a rational been it is irrational to make FUCA and wait for the evolution.
Patrick:
So do you agree that modern evolutionary theory explains speciation?
I agree that genetic change over time explain speciation.
Patrick:
On what basis do you find it uncompelling that small changes over geologic time can result in large changes?
Big changes implies big causes.
Patrick
I’d rather take my chances on Reddit’s 50/50 or 4chan’s /b.
Then I will add you on my darwinists list.
Patrick
That sounds like a testable prediction!Please provide the evidence to support this claim.When did the seeding take place, by what mechanism, by whom or what, and where did it happen?What predictions does this hypothesis make that results in it being “better” than modern evolutionary theory?
Why should I elaborate a theory on uniques events in the past? It will be so useless as ToE. Nothing more than mind speculations.
You want to know my speculation?
It is possible that many of the seeded genomas were made in a way that has the programme to become a whale, given the opportunity to survive and change. If you are asking me for the intermediate forms of that whale I can be honest and say I do not know or I can say that the intermediates forms were forms in isolated small populations and do not left any trace.
Blas,
How, and in what form, did the genomes first appear? If adult populations weren’t introduced de novo, then perhaps you mean fetal implants in surrogate mothers from another species? Sorry, but I’m still not sure what your proposal is. And how can you claim that life diversifies when you suggest that each new species requires an intelligent designer to intervene?
Thank you for your willingness to answer. I had assumed that you were an IDC supporter.
The only stock tip I can share is that Yahoo! has been treating me well the past few months. No guarantee that will continue, though.
That depends on the nature of the rational being, doesn’t it? I enjoy playing with genetic algorithms and genetic programming because the results surprise me sometimes.
More agreement! This is going to get boring fast. 🙂
I’m not sure about that, but leaving it aside for now, any individual change is still small. It’s the difference from the beginning to the end that looks large. What do you find uncompelling about gradualism?
I might well belong there! Could you explain what you mean by that word, though?
I’d still like to see your evidence for the claims you made.
If you have no evidence for your claim, what possible reason do you have to assert it?
Blas, like it or not you are predicting that current genomes should hold future body plans somewhere. Do you think that is in Junk DNA? If so that would be an ID research program..
No. I think ( I do not make predictions as I do not have a scientific theory) that what we see is the survivors of what was seeded. There is no change since millions of years ago. A biology research programme should focus on search what make a dog be a dog. Biology think we know the code of life but we know only one code. There should be the code that solve the problem of the shape of my nose. The shape of my nose is like the shape of my uncle´s (brother of my father ) nose. Then in my DNA should exist the code that tell the cells of the cartilage of my nose how many times and in what direction thay should grow.
When biology solve this code we will have more evidence for my speculations or yours.
No, rationality it is not relative. The seeder can be irrational and then we are in the same position of naturalistic origin of life or it is rational and then it didn`t seed a FUCA.
I’m not sure about that, but leaving it aside for now, any individual change is still small.It’s the difference from the beginning to the end that looks large.What do you find uncompelling about gradualism?
Gradualism implies a try and error process. I do not see enough try to explain the big changes.
That is a small tip. What suggestion of Yahoo are following. Technicals? fundamentals?
“There is no change since millions of years ago.”
Not even recent enough for us:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/timeline.jpg
” A biology research programme should focus on search what make a dog be a dog.”
Dogmatism.
Who noes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene
Well, if you define “saltation” as an event that’s extremely unlikely to happen, then yes, saltation isn’t going to be observed. But I’ve never seen the word used that way in the biological literature. Rather, it always seems to be an abrupt, substantial evolutionary change in phenotype.
“Yes, but evolution needs a “naturalistic” origin of life.” – Blas
“No, it does not.” – Patrick
Please provide examples, Patrick, of ‘non-naturalistic’ evolutionary ‘origin of life’ scenarios/themes/approaches/paradigms/etc.
For ‘natural scientists’ qua ‘natural scientists,’ how can there be anything other than ‘naturalistic’ origin stories?
Gregory: Catholics believe that evolution is real and there is a god creator / designer. You are conflating evolution and abiogenesis.
Gregory,
You’re missing the point of Patrick’s remark, Gregory — quite badly, in fact.
A fully adequate naturalistic metaphysics would, it is true, require a non-supernatural explanation for the origin of life. So the problem of abiogenesis is a major obstacle to the acceptability of a naturalistic metaphysics.
But the theory of evolution per se, which is all Patrick is talking about, neither presupposes nor entails a naturalistic metaphysics in general or a naturalistic solution to abiogenesis in particular. So Patrick is right and your request relies on a conflation of evolution and naturalism. (This conflation is ubiquitous among creationists and design proponents, which is part of the conceptual muddle from which they are unwilling to be extricated.)
As a naturalistic metaphysician, I would bet that there is a naturalistic solution to the problem of abiogenesis — but the empirical theory which is most likely to provide that solution would be the theory of self-organizing systems (or a future successor of such a theory), not the theory of evolution.
Your request is a non-sequitur. I made the entirely accurate observation that known evolutionary processes do not require a naturalistic origin for the populations on which they operate. It doesn’t matter where the populations came from — if there is heritable variation of traits resulting in differential reproductive success then evolution will occur.
That’s a different question that has nothing to do with the data explained by modern evolutionary theory.
Ah, ninja’d by Kantian Naturalist, who responded more articulately than I did.
Please do not trade based on what I learned from Georgia Tech’s online Computational Investing course!
I do recommend the course, though.
KN, you are endearingly oblivious to what ‘naturalism’ actually means qua IDEOLOGY.
You call yourself a ‘naturalist.’ Right? Yes.
So then, what so-called ‘self’ do you suggest/propose (i.e. that could ‘self’-organise) that is ‘non-natural’?
I doubt you have an answer for this other than something natural or physical because you are still locked-into naturalism.
‘Theistic evolution’ (Russell, Murphy, McGrath, Alexander, Ellis, Christian, Heller, et al.) does not seem to be something you are willing to potentially entertain, even if ‘non-natural’ language and ‘reasonable’ explanations were proposed to you. That’s not a ‘pragmatic’ possibility within your accepted worldview.
“known evolutionary processes do not require a naturalistic origin”
Ok, then what’s the possible ‘non-naturalistic’ origin?
Please be specific with options.
I think whimsical and rational are not necessarily at odds, but without evidence for any seeder of any type, we’re discussing the equivalent of angels and pinheads.
Nicely put. What would you consider a change big enough to pose a problem for known evolutionary mechanisms?
p.s. I haven’t read Plantinga’s most recent book, but I’ve read several of his papers. Your rejection of EAAN is noted, but not convincing.
The Indigenous Elders would scold you for flatness of life, empty, ‘white man got not dreaming’ existence.
I’m waiting for you to elevate, KN, and welcome when that might happen…
“the theory of evolution per se, which is all Patrick is talking about, neither presupposes nor entails a naturalistic metaphysics in general or a naturalistic solution to abiogenesis in particular.” – KN
Then you’re accepting that ‘theistic evolution’ is a legitimate metaphysical position?
Well, that depends on what you mean by “possible”. Modern evolutionary theory addresses what happens when a population of imperfect replicators exists in some environment. Some people might say that a god or gods created those replicators. If one believes in such entities, it is logically possible that one or more did so.
I get the distinct impression that you’re trying to saddle me with the burden of proof for a claim I never made. Again, I simply made the observation that known evolutionary processes do not require a naturalistic origin for the populations on which they operate. I see no reason why that observation should be controversial, do you?
“I simply made the observation that known evolutionary processes do not require a naturalistic origin for the populations on which they operate. I see no reason why that observation should be controversial, do you?”
Please don’t be naive. By “known evolutionary processes,” you actually mean “known NATURALISTIC evolutionary processes,” do you not?
If not, then, let me ask again, what ‘non-naturalistic’ evolutionary processes do you have in mind?
And again: “For ‘natural scientists’ qua ‘natural scientists,’ how can there be anything other than ‘naturalistic’ origin stories?”
A direct answer to these questions is welcome. If you consider yourself a ‘naturalist,’ then it is understood that ideologically speaking, you will be unable to provide one.
Of course.
I seem to be having some trouble making what I thought was a very simple point clear. Please allow me to try again.
Blas said “Yes, but evolution needs a ‘naturalistic’ origin of life.”
I replied “No, it does not. Evolution occurs in populations whenever there is heritable variation of traits resulting in differential reproductive success.”
My repeated observation is that modern evolutionary theory says nothing about origin of life mechanisms. I still consider that an uncontroversial position.
I am going to abide by Lizzie’s rules and assume that you are posting in good faith. In this case, that means that I will assume that your insistence that I respond to questions about claims I never made stems from a misunderstanding of what I wrote. If you disagree with the actual observation I made, I would welcome an explanation of precisely why you do so.
I do not know what “naturalist” means to KN. However, to me, a naturalist is simply somebody who studies nature. There is no implication from that to belief in or acceptance of metaphysical naturalism. In particular, one can be a naturalist, while being skeptical of naturalism.
“I seem to be having some trouble making what I thought was a very simple point clear.”
The only way you can make your point positively is to give an alternative, which I have now asked you for twice, without clear, direct answer.
If you consider yourself a ‘naturalist’, it is no wonder you refrain from giving an acceptable answer.
KN just made the point with “Of course” to the statement: “‘theistic evolution’ is a legitimate metaphysical position.”
Will you or will you not make the same point?
“modern evolutionary theory says nothing about origin of life mechanisms.”
Yes, we are agreed about that.
*can* one study super-nature?
“The only way you can make your point positively is to give an alternative”.
Formal proof, please.
Since you bring up Plantinga, I’m waiting to see what possible justification you have for taking that genocide-approving bigot seriously on any issue – on his supposed area of “expertise” he is clearly not to be trusted due to his insurmountable bias. He just can’t help himself; he can’t tell the truth when it comes to anything that touches on reality, because it would come too close to contradicting what must not be challenged: his primary faith.
“a naturalist is simply somebody who studies nature.”
That’s merely as a profession. There are very, very few ‘naturalists’ as a profession. Less than 1% of the Academy. That’s not what the ‘controversy’ is mainly about.
And the major question: how then do you distinguish a ‘natural scientist’ from a ‘naturalist’? Aren’t all ‘natural scientists’ therefore necessarily ‘naturalists’?
The problem here is that there are and have been many ‘natural scientists’ who are not ideological naturalists, i.e. who believe in more than just ‘natural/nature’ and who are theists.
But those/the other ‘naturalists,’ Neil, you still haven’t fairly acknowledged and likely WILL not.
Since you are most probably a ‘naturalist’ as ideologue yourself (even if you won’t admit it), it would be no surprise that you would play down the alternative meaning.
“one can be a naturalist, while being skeptical of naturalism.” – Neil Rickert
Oh, please, start a thread on that topic. Dare ya! ; )
Excellent, I have finally achieved clarity. Thank you for your assistance with meeting that goal.
Ok good. Buckle up. Now go further.
It’s bizarre that you cannot or will not follow the actual conversation and insist on attempting to rule what others must be talking about.
You – and perhaps Blas – are the only ones who cannot understand what we’re talking about here, so I deduce that the failure to communicate is on your end, not on ours.
Evolution occurs, that’s a fact. Get over it. Evolution must occur as a mathematical fact in any system which has entities that reproduce with heritable variation.
This is completely separate from speculation about where the system came from to begin with. Created by a human as a computer simulation, seeded by an alien entity as a exoplanetary experiment, voiced into existence by god as its first step towards eventual bloody self-sacrafice ? Who cares! Irrelevant speculation. Any and all of those possible origins – and more – are completely compatible with evolution which factually, naturally, occurs once the system gets started.
Why? What’s in it for you if we “go further”?
Third grade?
Sixth grade?
[notes Gregsy’s comments that contain his customary you ‘naturalists’ is all biased an’ everything schtick]
[notes that Gregsy’s comments contain his equally customary absence of anything within bazooka range of a clear definition of what the heck Gregsy thinks this ‘supernaturalism’ thingie even is]
[notes Gregsy’s use, yet again, of his standard shift-the-burden-of-proof gambit]
[nods and walks calmly away]
Interesting ambiguity here — “naturalist” as “someone who studies nature” as distinct from “someone who accepts metaphysical naturalism”. I was using the term in the latter sense but the former sense is a perfectly legitimate one (though somewhat archaic-sounding to my ears — not sure why that it is).
On a related (though different) point: a few weeks ago, a friend of mine remarked that there are (at least) two different senses to “naturalism” as philosophers use the term:
(1) the thesis that there are only natural beings; there are no transcendent beings outside the interconnectedness of material reality in its flux of being-becoming;
(2) the thesis that science provides the best and/or only means of coming to know what is and is not the case;
One can think that literature, or romance, or politics are natural (in the first sense) — there’s nothing about literature, romance, or politics which transcends the spatio-temporal nexus of material becoming-being — without thinking that scientific methods of inquiry tell us anything terribly useful or interesting about those subjects. (Likewise for consciousness, value, beauty, obligation, logic, etc.).
Put otherwise, naturalism (as a metaphysical thesis) and scientism (as an epistemological thesis) are wholly detachable.
Good point
But buckle up, because you used the “scientism” word, which is sure to set Gregory off into yet another pounding-the-table demand that we all admit being guilty of “scientism”. Oh dear …
You simply cannot carry on any kind of rational discussion with someone who has made the personal commitment to total ignorance of anything scientific. All you will ever get are word games.
For Gregory;
POPE BENEDICT XVI ON ‘CREATION AND EVOLUTION’, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, 2008
I’d be happy to engage with Gregory about scientism, but I’ll let him speak for himself on that point.
Gregory,
If you want to revive the discussion of the EAAN, I’m game.