In a recent post here at TSZ, participant Alan Fox made some comments and asked some questions which might make for interesting discussion, but first I need to challenge some of his assumptions.
First, his claim that I find evolutionary theory unbelievable.
Second, his claim that I find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life theory unbelievable.
Third, his his claim that I mock attempts at scientific hypotheses.
Fourth, I thought being skeptical is a good thing.
Alan Fox: I realise Sal, Mung, Colewd and phoodoo find evolutionary theory and a “naturalistic” explanation for the origin of life unbelievable. Let me add that I am far less optimistic than some regarding ever establishing an explanation for the origin of life on Earth (find evidence or echos of evidence of life elsewhere and everything changes). Until then, I’m content to concede we really don’t have anything approaching a complete explanation.
I am curious as to what those that mock attempts at scientific hypotheses think happened. There appears to be no hypothesis attributable to the “Intelligent Design” movement that could be stretched to any sort of explanation for the origin and subsequent diversity of life on Earth. Have our Evolution Skeptics any positive ideas of their own they’d like to share?
Sal? Mung? Colewd? phoodoo? Anyone? Is there a thread topic there?
So let’s see if we can’t first set the record straight.
I do not find evolutionary theory unbelievable.
I do not find naturalistic explanations for the origin of life unbelievable. I find them to be non-existent.
I do not mock attempts at scientific hypotheses. I mock non-scientific hypotheses and just-so storytelling.
What is an Evolution Skeptic and why would Alan think I am an Evolution Skeptic?
Aren’t you all skeptical of evolution? Am I at the wrong site for skepticism? The Skeptical (except when it comes to evolution) Zone?
In closing, if you want to foster discussion, maybe leave out all the irrelevant posturing. I don’t know if I could find a better example of poisoning the well than what we’ve just seen from Alan Fox.
I personally wasn’t aware that there WAS an evolutionary explanation, or really any other non-speculative explanation, for the origin of life. Evolution is concerned with changes from generation to generation within populations.
I don’t think there is any bright line between scientific hypotheses and just-so storytelling. In a very real sense, every hypothesis is a story, a narrative, a speculation about how things work. What matters is if the hypothesis can be meaningfully tested, whether it produces fruitful predictions, whether subsequent research adds solid support or perhaps relegates it to the land of the unimportant.
However, eventually a body of tested hypotheses accumulates into a fairly broad and well supported understanding of some aspect of reality. Overall, evolutionary ideas have long since achieved this state. Of course, there will always be disputes around the edges, and continuous modification of ideas.
My understanding is, an “evolution skeptic” is someone who falls into one of two very different groups. There is the group that feels the theory remains significantly incomplete, and too much of biological history and process remains to be explained. This group urges caution against over-concluding using data too ambiguous to support it.
Then there is the group that believes that evolution simply does not happen as commonly understood – that there can be some sort of adaptive “Brownian motion” in the vicinity of some optimal organism, but that beyond some level of abstraction (perhaps the genus, or certainly the family) evolution as currently presented lacks the power to cause changes at those levels.
Even the most devout evolutionary biologist is a skeptic, if NOT being a skeptic means being convinced science has found all the answers, or that all answers found to date are correct and complete.
As for “naturalistic explanations for abiogenesis,” I would say that we have managed to reject a good number of plausible contenders. The suggestion that volcanic ponds or meteorite impact zones could have had the right combination of metals, water, energy, and organic compounds for abiogenesis is certainly interesting to me, but I’d not go so far as to call it an explanation.
I couldn’t say whether I’m skeptical of evolution or not. I think that the Modern Synthesis has always had its problems and that the Extended Synthesis is far more promising. I’m particularly interested in the role of niche construction in human evolution.
Then again, one of the first books on evolutionary theory I read at the college-level was Oyama’s The Ontogeny of Information. You could say I was inoculated against excessive dogmatism about the Modern Synthesis at a young age.
Besides which, I’m not a skeptic — I’m a pragmatist! (I just got into TSZ on a technicality!)
Hehe!
Yeah, I’m giving Alan credit for knowing that and see his first sentence as really two separate claims, one about OoL and the second about the subsequent evolution of that life.
Where have you looked? Please show your work.
What are your criteria for distinguishing among “scientific hypotheses, non-scientific hypotheses and just-so storytelling”?
Why is mocking your preferred mode of discourse?
All the usual places.
For example: Emergence of Life on Earth: A Historical and Scientific Overview
More recently: What is Life?: How Chemistry Becomes Biology
Now how about you pull out your favorite book on the origin of life and point me to a convincing explanation for the origin of life.
How did those references fall short?
Be specific about how they fail to provide explanations.
It isn’t. It just happens to be the case that I have found myself at a site named “The Skeptical Zone” where much of the “skepticism” expressed just begs to be mocked. Where if a theist said it, it would be mocked, but if a non-theists says it, it’s taken as Gospel Truth.
But you’ll find, if you care to look, many conversations I have had without them resorting to mocking anything or anyone. Do you have any objective empirical evidence that mocking is my preferred mode of discourse?
You must support or retract that claim! (Mocking Patrick)
Pedant, I can always put you back on Ignore. I do believe that you and I have found a way to converse in the past, so I have hope for the future. But your current approach is not the way to encourage dialogue.
What are your criteria for judging a position to be “begging to be mocked”?
Here we have a person who frequently mocks claiming that there are instances where said person has not mocked. It’s like an inveterate liar who cites occasions where she has been truthful.
Blow hard.
Typically, Mung can’t justify his mockery or bias.
I like the extended, modern, post-Kardashain, neo-Darwinian, natural self-engineering breast augmentation, neutral-negative synthetic synthesis epigentic centered theory of semi-Lamarkian over-extended evolution of drifting teleological coke zero based, Dr. Justin Bieber III-isian school of computer based life hypothesis.
Its still the same theory, just additional explaining.
Being a true skeptic does not prevent one from speculating about things that, although we can’t prove them, are almost certainly true based on Google scholar search queries.
I agree. Being a true skeptic ALSO doesn’t mean that one auto-reject (with embellished mockery and demeaning attacks) anything and everything about evolution which is almost certainly true based on Google scholar search queries. True skeptics actually DO accept things which are probably true, at least provisionally. True skeptics who are skeptical of some of those things, tend to be skeptical on the basis of evidence inconsistent with them, rather than exclusively on the basis of auto-rejection-with-mockery. THAT basis can only persuade the reader that the “skepticism” is founded on very insecure preconceptions unleavened by insight or understanding.
Mung,
Have you looked at your own output? You may find some better examples there.
Mung,
Now you’ve had that mechanism of “knowing” explained to you, is it still miraculous?
Or, in other words, did you mean a single word in this OP?
Mung,
It is, but first you have to understand what you are being skeptical about.
Nothing quite like a little phoodoo dropped in the Christmas punchbowl.
Therein lies the problem. Most self-styled evolution skeptics seem unaware that they aren’t even in the same metaphorical room as the individuals who do the actual work. Nor do they understand that the majority of people who do the work are either unaware of their existence, or have just a general sense that amongst the broad scientifically uninformed population, there are some who are aggressive in their ignorance. Actually interfacing with the ignorant, though, isn’t a large part of most technical endeavors, and only a handful of individuals find it a mildly amusing divertissement.
It’s just another variant of “teach the controversy”, when there is no controversy.
Moved a post to guano.
Try this:
Mung is an “evolution skeptic” because …
Try not to write “…because he is skeptical of evolution.”
Stormfield,
Do you think that anyone in the field of evolutionary biology has reasonable explanation of how new complex functional DNA sequences are formed?
There was recently a conference at the Royal Society where several papers were presented to discuss this.
If the answer to this is no, is there really a legitimate theory of evolution?
You are probably aware that there are conferences and papers about the underlying mechanics of gravity. Einstein’s approach and quantum mechanics are mutually inconsistent. So maybe we should conclude that there is no “legitimate” theory of gravity. However, there are approximations that work extremely well within their scope.
For that matter, it being an axiom of science that NO theory can EVER be regarded as entirely correct and entirely complete, you might argue that science has no “legitimate” theory of anything at all. Singling out evolutionary theory (in fact, one of the most solid and best-attested theories in all of science) as not “legitimate” doesn’t say anything about the theory, but says a lot about your theology.
No one knows what gravity is. No one knows what energy is. No one knows what mass is. No one knows what evolution is.
Mung,
We do, however, have a model of the cause of spacetime curvature.
I’m inherently skeptical of any supposed scientific theory which provides no metric which would falsify a positive claim.
I love this evolution PR line. I think they hired a marketing company to come up with it.
Bacteria, which have the ability to metabolize citrate anaerobically, lost part of their regulation, which allowed them to also metabolize it aerobically. THAT is the great evidence for Darwinian evolution. THE BEST attested in all of science!!
Tell me, are you genuinely satisfied that you have eviscerated a field tens of thousands of people have devoted their lives to, with a few false claims? If you are, you might try LEARNING something. If you are not, you might try honesty. Just a suggestion.
Butthurt!! YEA!
Long live the spirit of Richardhughes!
I’m actually skeptical of the claim that there is more evidence for evolution than there is for the existence of gravity. I’m also skeptical of the claim that there is more evidence for evolution than there is evidence that the earth is not flat, or that it orbits the sun.
Mung,
I am skeptical that’s evolutionists know what evolution is.
Evolution is changing gene frequencies in a population. Of course, they changed the meaning of gene from one where you knew what a gene is, and now no one knows what a gene is anymore.
Evolution can’t simply mean changing gene frequencies in a population. Because even IDists believe gene frequencies can change.
Even if the answer is no, there is something there. And something is better then nothing. And nothing is all you have on offer.
So self-awareness isn’t your forte. Who knew.
Kudos. It’s not easy to actually make the comment that goes over your own head.
Maybe.
Indeed there was.
Yes.
Let’s play “One of These is not Like the Others”.
But thanks for reinforcing the observation that you willfully misunderstand language just to create mantras that are comforting to yourself. “Willfully”, by the way, is the charitable interpretation. Assuming one values single-mindedness over intelligence.
I think there’s actually a sense in which phoodoo’s remark is more insightful than he realizes.
It’s certainly true that evolution can be defined, at the most basic level, as changes in allele frequencies over time. And design theorists have no trouble accepting that.
So what is the debate really about, to the extent that there is one?
The standard ID version here is to appeal to some version of the creationist version of the microevolution/macroevolution distinction.
(Here I’m distinguishing between how creationists understand this distinction and how actual evolutionary theorists understand it. Creationists think it corresponds to observed processes vs postulated processes, whereas evolutionary theorists use it to mean allele frequency change within a species over time vs. speciation events.)
For a while now, I’ve harbored the conviction that design theorists seriously misunderstand where the naturalistic challenge to their view is going to come from. It’s not going to come from population genetics, and it’s not really going to come from anything in the Modern Synthesis. It’s going to come from complexity theory, developmental systems theory. and their application in evolutionary developmental biology.
I say that because it’s there that we see how complex systems can spontaneously self-assemble under specific conditions, how those systems can respond adaptively to perturbations to which they are sensitive, and how small changes in regulatory genes can have significant down-stream effects.
The Modern Synthesis is not the problem for ID. Complexity theory is.
Conversely, naturalists and empiricists who want to challenge ID should do so using complexity theory, not by rehashing hoary old chestnuts about population genetics.
Yes. When Alan labels me an “Evolution Skeptic” he can’t possibly mean I think allele frequencies don’t change, or that I’m skeptical about the ways in which they can change, can he?
He can answer when he returns, but it seems to me he’ll need to explain how he is using the term.
Kantian Naturalist,
Interesting points. 🙂 I think you may now be seeing that the OOL problem and the evolution problem have significant overlap.
I would never presume to know what you think, mung. I’m prepared to accept what you tell me and respect your right to choose to tell me or not.
Skeptic, skeptical, skepticism? I don’t think I’m employing those terms differently from the commonly understood definitions. “Doubtful” is a good synonym. So being skeptical of biological evolution or aspects of it is being doubtful. The next step, if doubtful of a claim, is to examine any evidence presented yourself. Not considering evidence is not being skeptical; it is being in denial. I’ll catch up on the thread before commenting further.
Mung, from the OP:
That’s where I suggest you cross the line from being skeptical to being in denial. You can consider and dismiss evidence as wrong, incorrectly interpreted, etc but to say it is non-existent is simple denial.
Hypotheses are stories. If that story does not contradict evidence then it is a hypothesis. If there is good supporting evidence, it is a theory. I’ll agree that no story regarding the origin of life on Earth has the strength of a theory, all remain hypotheses currently.
I was using the term as an antonym to “ID skeptic”. You can correct me if I’m wrong in thinking that you are skeptical about biological evolutionary theory.
I’m doubtful genetic drift when it comes to contributing to adaptation. I’m undoubtedly ignorant on population genetics but the undeniable (heh) fact that the genetic code is almost totally universal confirms for me the overarching nested hierarchy.
You’ll have to support this characterization with an example or two as it doesn’t make much sense to me.
Of course there are two distinct issues and two sets of explanations.
The origin of life on Earth remains a mystery although there are many interesting hypotheses and much work being done to find supporting evidence. As I’ve often remarked, OoL ideas would get a huge boost if some hint of extra-terrestrial life turns up (or even discovery of some utterly unrelated life-form on Earth). Until* then OoL hypotheses will remain hypotheses.
Modern biological evolutionary theory is on much firmer ground.
*ETA missing “until”.
How life originated dictates how it evolved. It is only if the blind watchmaker produced life that we would infer blind watchmaker evolution produced its diversity.
OTOH if the OoL was intelligently designed then we would infer it was designed to evolve.
As for this alleged “Modern biological evolutionary theory”, please link to it so we can decide if it is on firmer ground. If it proposes evolution by natural selection and drift then it is making untestable claims wrt universal common descent.
Moved a comment to guano. Please attack arguments, not fellow commenters.
I didn’t say anything about evidence, my claim had to do with missing explanations.
Life exists. It follows, imho, that there was an origin of life, and thus evidence for the origin of life.
What we lack is not evidence, but explanations. Hell, we can’t even say yet what life is. Until we can do that what hope do we have of an explanation for its origin.
A good story turns from a hypothesis into a theory when it is well-supported by evidence thus becoming an explanation.
I’d agree that is the most convincing (to me) explanation. It assumes that the Universe had a beginning. If you allow for a near miss rather than a big bang, life could have always existed somewhere and our universal common ancestor got here as spores.
I think what we really don’t understand is how to make even the most simple life-form. Maybe someone like Craig Venter or Jack Szostak will achieve that one day soon…
Undirected evolution does not produce nested hierarchies. Transitional forms, by their very nature, ruin nested hierarchies.
Evolution. You obviously have something in mind other than changes in gene frequencies when you call me an evolution skeptic. I’ve also stated that I accept common descent.
So what is it about my position on “evolution” (whatever you mean by that term) that leads you to classify me as an evolution skeptic? Just wondering.
Alan Fox,
This depends on the definition of modern evolutionary theory.
I agree with Frankie that the theory is the claim of universal common descent through reproduction then your claim may be completely wrong. OOL may be on much firmer ground then evolution depending on the definition.
OOL needs to explain one origin event.
Evolution needs to explain millions.