Michael Denton’s new book is out, Evolution: Still A Theory In Crisis.
Denton’s stance is for structuralism and against functionalism, especially as functionalism appears in it’s current form as the modern synthesis or neo-Darwinism (the cumulative selection of small adaptive changes).
Denton argues for the reality of the types, that “there are unique taxon-defining novelties not led up to gradually from some antecedent form” and that the lack of intermediates undermines the Darwinian account of evolution. He also argues that a great deal of organic order appears to be non-adaptive, including “a great number of the taxa-defining Bauplans,” and that this also undermines the Darwinian account of evolution. Evo-devo is also showing us that “Darwinian selection is not the only or even the main factor that determined the shape and main branches of the great tree of life.”
These arguments are first set forth in Chapters 3 through 5 of the book and then defended throughout the subsequent chapters.
Denton provides a list of some of the Type-Defining Homologs:
The Pentadactyl Limb
The Feather
The Insect Body Plan
The Flower
The Amniotic Membrane
It is not just the major taxa which are characterized by unique defining homologs or novelties:
Centipedes
Beetles
Ants
Butterflies
Even individual species are often defined by unique novelties (autapomorphies in cladist terminology).
To head off a lot of irrelevant objections and nonsense from people who can’t be bothered to read the book, Denton accepts common descent and doesn’t appeal to “goddidit” as a better explanation.
- If types exist, what does that mean for Darwinian evolution?
- Does the existence of non-adaptive order undermine Darwinism?
- Does anyone think neo-Darwinism is even relevant to modern evolutionary theory?
Denton: Still a scientifically clueless moron.
This is a decent post, Mung. kudos.
Not sure I understand “types” as used here. Certainly there are morphological characteristics unique to some branches. Mammals tend to have hair, give milk, birth live young, etc. But what I don’t understand is how the existence of types MEANS the inability of evolution to produce them.
By “lack of intermediates” is Denton referring to fossils? I haven’t read the book, but I hope this term is well defined. As presented here, it could mean the lack of evidence that some extant lineage has morphed into another lineage, instead of the lack of evidence for common ancestry.
Finally, I was unaware that Darwinian evolution prohibits non-adaptive order. My understanding is that, in general, species per se rarely adapt to changing environments, going extinct instead. And that evolution tracks changing environments through branching new species. Is this what Denton is referring to?
1985: Denton writes Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
Thirty years later: Denton writes Evolution: Still A Theory in Crisis
Won’t someone tell evolutionary biologists about the crisis so they can stop making progress?
Denton can’t help himself. It’s his destiny.
Evolutionary biologists are well aware of it as Denton adequately documents in his book, and evolutionary biologists continue to make progress by abandoning Darwinism.
Thank you.
I don’t understand this comment. Strict “Darwinism” hasn’t really comprised the theory of evolution for generations now. Evolutionary biologists aren’t making progress by abandoning evolution, they are busy improving the theory all the time. I wonder if all other scientific theories aren’t in the same “crisis” because they are always being extended in both breadth and depth, just like evolution.
Personally, I’d be much more concerned about any aspect of science NOT suffering this crisis, because scientists consider the explanations to be permanently complete and perfectly correct.
Is there anyone in the world who thinks orthogenesis is a new idea?
Since I can’t be bothered to read the book, can someone explain to me how Denton thinks these various type-defining characteristics arose, and how that differs from how non-type-defining characteristics arose?
Flint,
There appears to be universal or near-universal agreement that certain characteristics can reliably and objectively be used to classify and group organisms and it also seems that you accept this.
This does not mean, and Denton does not argue, that it is not possible for evolution to produce these characters. Denton’s argument is not anti-evolution.
Of course, if you think that all evolution is Darwinian cumulative accretion due to small adaptive changes then in that case, yes his argument is anti-evolution.
Concerning mammals, Denton writes the following:
Can these features be found in organisms not classified as mammals. Are there organisms classified as mammals that lack any of these features? Are there any known intermediates to these features?
This thread probably isn’t for you then.
Sure it’s not. He just titled the book Evolution: Still A Theory In Crisis. to confuse potential buyers.
Well, yes and no. I think mammals and monotremes had a common ancestor recently enough for SOME mammalian characteristics to be found (body hair, mammary glands), but long enough ago that the common ancestor still had some non-mammalian characteristics (like laying eggs and being venomous). So Denton (I presume) would find himself in the position of saying monotremes are either ENTIRELY mammals, or entirely NOT mammals.
I don’t see why these rather major differences could NOT arise simply by virtue of having had a common ancestor a very long time ago, no gene flow between these populations for tens of millions of years, and incremental changes producing what we see today.
I think the platypus IS such an intermediary
Back on ignore. Bye.
What does Darwinian evolution prohibit?
but if Denton DID explain how different types of characteristics arose, you might summarize this in a few words.
A biologist would know better than I, but it SEEMS to prohibit saltation.
Mung, if mammals are one of the basic animal kinds, er I mean, types than why don’t they appear in the fossil until around 225 MYA?
Is this another bit of Stephen Meyer-ish anti-science folly where the Designer just showed up one day billions of years after life had been evolving on the planet?
Platypus seems more of a divergent branch than an intermediate.
Feathered dinosaurs: reptiles or birds.
.
Of course I can’t be bothered to read Denton. Why should I? Life is too short. I have 2 million words of slash fic on my ereader to catch up on. That’ll be more educational and entertaining than Denton, no doubt.
The funny thing, though, is no one else can be bothered to read him, either. First page of google results for the book title are UD/ID/christian websites, no unbiased media are reviewing this. Poor ol’ dude, thirty years past his sell-by date.
As EvolutionNews says, Klinghoffer asked Denton what question he would ask a “Darwinist”, and Denton’s answer is that he wants an explanation of the “formation of insect body plans”.
But as Larry Moran points out:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis simply because Denton says so.
And which one of those assholes on that podcast is trying to pretend that indignant religious sputtering “I ain’t no monkey” is closer to truth than the scientific reality that we are all apes and truly are cousins of monkeys? Berlinsky? Denton? Feckin’ idjits. Liars and slanderers, all three of them.
According to Wikipedia Platypus is a mammal:
If mammals are defined by giving birth as opposed to egg laying then the Platypus is not a mammal.
There’s always going to be a market for these sort of anti-science trash books to sell to the True Believers. Denton just wants his slice of the pie.
I am reading the book, but don’t let that stop you.
Since you’re one of the True Believers who reads all the Creationist anti-science claptrap no one is surprised. I just wonder if you’ll for once have the cojones to defend the idiocy.
I don’t know is not an explanation. Can we at least agree on that?
It’s as much of an explanation as Denton or any other Creationist can offer.
Why don’t you explain why everything Denton says is false like you explained why everything Feser says is false? What does whether you’ve read either of them have to do with anything you say about them?
I don’t know is not an explanation, but it is the start of wisdom.
It would take some convincing to get me to read the book, but I might.
I own and have read Shariro’s book, and Koonin’s. Both were highly touted at UD.
I’m a bit confused about the transitionals, or lack thereof. Such claims usually pop up among the hopelessly ignorant.
Why don’t you explain and defend Denton’s latest steaming pile of Creationist idiocy instead of just giving a Denise O’Dreary style “buy my book!” e-commercial?
If I had to chose between who I thought was hopelessly ignorant between you and Denton, you’d win. Feel better now?
So Denton’s not ignorant of the record on transitional fossils, he’s just a deliberate liar. No wonder he’s your latest hero.
Yeah, exactly, no one who matters can be bothered to read Denton. Because everyone who matters has real life, real work, real things to do that are too important to waste on 370 pages of anti-Darwin lies and motivated misunderstanding.
Sorry you don’t feel you like your life is more important than his expensive trash.
Denton is wrong in a different way than how everything Fesser says is poisoned by his bias.
There are probably an infinite number of ways to be wrong. They happen to have hit on two of the ways.
Mung’s just following the standard Creationist playbook. If science doesn’t disprove the Gish Gallop of lies by Denton, Meyer, Behe, Ken Ham, etc. then Creationism wins by default!
If I don’t matter why don’t you act like I don’t matter?
Your ignorance based support of anything Creationist doesn’t matter to the scientific community.
Write back when you’ve got a byline on NY Review of Books, or a position on the state school board selecting textbooks, or even an editorial in your local rag convincing people to buy Denton’s books. Then your opinion might matter.
Sorry, guy, I never guessed that my throwaway comment about “no one can be bothered” would sting you so hard. Surely you’re aware that you should not bother, either, and you can just give up on reading it whenever you wish. It’s not as if there’s going to be a quiz later. It can be your little secret that you no longer have the ID loyalty to push through all those wasted pages.
Write back when you’ve got a byline on NY Review of Books, or a position on the state school board selecting textbooks, or even an editorial in your local rag convincing people to buy Denton’s books. Then your opinion might matter.
Mung: “Can these features be found in organisms not classified as mammals.”
Yes. Crocodiles have diaphragms.
next question.
Sez you:
Sez lots of people
Diaphragm
The diaphragm is a layer of muscle located at the base of the ribcage that separates the thoracic cavity from the abdominal cavity in mammals. Mammals are not the only vertebrates to possess a diaphragm, amphibians and reptiles also have diaphragms or diaphragm-like structures. It should be noted that the anatomy of the diaphragm and its position vary among the different classes of vertebrates.
source
This is unwarranted, Adapa. Denton has impeccable credentials as a biochemist.
Mung in the OP quoting Denton:
Mung goes on to point out that ” Denton accepts common descent and doesn’t appeal to “goddidit” as a better explanation.”
If Denton accepts common descent but is unconvinced by the mechanisms posited by evolutionary theory as even the main explanation for the branching tree pattern we see, then it seems unless he is proposing some alternative mechanism he is merely indulging in an argument from incredulity. At first glance, I wonder how this differs from Behe.
I see Mung has a list of morphological features that evolutionary biologists consider traits that radiate out from a common ancestor. Taking the first, the pentadactyl limb, can Mung indicate what Denton’s objection is to the idea that the tetrapod limb evolved by variation and selection? Does he propose any alternative explanation?
BTW, I tried listening to the EN & V podcast yesterday afternoon. I moved from the desk to a comfortable chair with my notepad. Unfortunately Berlinski is the first
interviewee* first to speak. I woke up later having completely missed Denton’s contribution. If the DI decide to lay Berlinski off, he could pursue a lucrative career as a sleep therapist.ETA just had another listen and Denton is present but Berlinski has most to say. Perhaps it’s the sound quality or my hearing but I find Berlinski practically unintelligible. Denton’s contribution comes across as an argument from incredulity.
Do you know how the rings of Saturn formed? Is gravity a theory in crisis?
Wow! it’s almost as if it shared traits of both, like one would expect from, you know, an intermediate!
Yes, most of the talking (and most of the nonsense) was Berlinski.
What would an intermediate BE, if not a divergent branch that branched so long ago that “full mammal” didn’t yet exist?
And there is the problem in a nutshell. You are stuck seeing an either/or, rather than a “partly one, partly another”. And accordingly when you DO encounter an intermediate, you are obliged to say it IS, or is NOT a mammal, rather than recognizing that branching produces intermediates by the very nature of branching.
I don’t know if intermediate exists as an actual term in biology, but I would define intermediate as the node or parent population at which lineages diverge.