Flock of Dodos
by MikeGene
I finally watched the movie, Flock of Dodos. I thought it was actually quite good and filmmaker Randy Olson did a nice job of putting a human face on the sociological aspects of this whole debate. Olson, like all filmmakers, provides his own angle to the story, but it is clear to me that he makes a sincere effort to understand what is driving the cultural debate and wants to share this with his viewers.
So what is the main message that comes out of this film?
Olson acknowledges the value of intuition, yet argues that ID is largely stuck at the intuition stage. And I think there is a good deal of substance to this point. Olson also zeroes in on one aspect of the cultural aspect of the debate that has been neglected by others. After showing plenty of tape from scientists who are critical of ID and ID people, he drives home his basic message by asking, "Who would you want to play poker with?" The answer is obvious.
Overall, I think Olson over-estimates the PR savvy of the ID movement and slightly misses the target with the ID critics. Currently, many critics are wrestling with their "communication problem." Is it that scientists are too smart to effectively communicate or are people too dumb to follow along? Is the solution to come up with better ways to "frame" the issue or simply better education? Yet, IMO, the core problem stems from the manner in which the community of ID critics come across more often than naught as angry, uptight, mean-spirited, and arrogant people. Those attributes help only when you are trying to communicate with others who are angry, uptight, mean-spirited, and arrogant, helping to facilitate tribalism. But when it comes to the average person who does not share these emotions about this topic, those attributes are barriers to communication.
And in the end, I'm not sure that can be changed. Since most critics perceive all ID proponents as either being dishonest, stupid, or deluded, there is no mystery why the critics come across as being angry, uptight, mean-spirited, and arrogant. Such emotions are front-loaded by these stereotypes, as evidenced by the simple fact that these attitudes persist, and have even seemed to intensify, in the post-wedge world.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
A brilliant psychological analysis, MikeGene!
If you weren't such a whizbang biologist, I'd say you would have made a fantastic psychologist.
I'm looking forward to your book!
Comment by Lutepisc — May 30, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
May 30th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
So why do you suppose that the folks at the Discovery Institute are framing FOD as a hoax (of Dodos)?
Comment by Randy — May 30, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
May 30th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Hi MikeGene,
I don't think there really is a "communication problem". The defeat at the polls of creationists in rural, conservative areas such a Dover, Pa., Kansas and South Carolina indicates that the voting public "gets it". A substantial bloc are unreachable by scientific arguments due to their religious beliefs, and no degree of sophistication in communication is going to change those beliefs. Its a cultural, not communication, problem, and its not amenable to short-term solutions like "communicating better".
Comment by Aagcobb — May 30, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
May 30th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Are you claiming the author of this blog entry is unreachable by scientific arguments? If so what are these scientific arguments as opposed to the non-scientific ones JJ argued in the Dover decision?
Comment by Bradford — May 30, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
May 30th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
They come across that way because those are their real feelings.
Comment by Bradford — May 30, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
May 30th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Hi Bradford,
I'm talking about the ordinary people who make up the audience amenable to IDism, who are overwhelmingly YECs. For MikeGene ID isn't a scientific issue, so I don't know that there are scientific arguments that would change his mind. He already accepts common descent, and I don't know anyway of marshalling evidence to show that his intuition that some kind of intelligence was at work a couple of billion years ago is incorrect.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 30, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
May 30th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Just as long as you are aware that there is a flip side to this. There are some who would oppose ID no matter what. If a parallel genetic code were discovered that communicated a message: "Design is in the genes," there are those that would attribute this to an unknown biochemical process.
Comment by Bradford — May 30, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
May 31st, 2007 at 1:03 am
Aagcobb wrote:
Well, that's because, as we say in Glasgow, there isn't any f–king evidence ya choob (that some kind of intelligence was at work a couple of billion years ago is incorrect).
It's got, in other words, f–k all to do with your inability to marshall 'it'.
The 'it' simply does not exist.
[Edited by your friendly neighborhood hobbit]
Comment by stunney — May 31, 2007 @ 1:03 am
May 31st, 2007 at 2:33 am
The content of the message isn't very strong either. They are trying to get people to believe that random chance and natural selection are able to produce the amazing amount of specified complexity we see in life. If it wasn't for the fact that there is no other theory for life that is purely materialistic, nobody would believe in Darwinism.
Comment by Jehu — May 31, 2007 @ 2:33 am
May 31st, 2007 at 2:47 am
Aagcobb,
Really? According to a study by Eugene Scott of the NCSE, published Aug. 11, 2006, in Science, the number of Americans who accept evolution has declined.
Maybe Eugene Scott is full of it?
Comment by Jehu — May 31, 2007 @ 2:47 am
May 31st, 2007 at 9:46 am
I present this as exhibit 1 demonstrating that Aagcobb is an member of the audience of ordinary people who are not amendable to IDism and who have blind spot for certain kinds of bigotry - namely, their own.
Comment by WedgeHead — May 31, 2007 @ 9:46 am
May 31st, 2007 at 10:57 am
Speaking of angry and mean-spirited, did anyone take notice of the language stunney used in his post? I didn't know vulgarities like that were tolerated at TT.
Jehu,
That was before last november's elections; Ms. Scott may have underestimated the extent to which the public "gets it."
Wedgehead,
If you look at this recent poll* you have the strange incongruity that 48% of respondents believe that humans were created about 10,000 years ago, but only 39% think that evolutionary theory is not well supported by the evidence and not widely accepted in the scientific community. That could reflect that people are more objective about evolution when its not about people, or maybe just that they recognize that ToE is well supported and widely accepted even though they disagree with it. Looking at the first poll, non-YECs sympathetic to ID could only come from the 30% who think God played a role in the process, but many of those could be theists who aren't sympathetic to ID. If say, half of those are sympathetic to IDism, 15% of respondents, that would make YECs about 3/4 of IDs total base. If you have other data showing that IDists are not predominantly YECs, I am not in fact dogmatic on that issue.
Added in edit:
*Looking farther down the poll questions, other polls attempted to separate IDism out from creationism, and more clearly show how creationists significantly out-number people who attribute the evolution of man to a powerful force/intelligent being.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 31, 2007 @ 10:57 am
May 31st, 2007 at 11:33 am
Aagacobb,
So last November's election is a better indicator of the acceptance of evolution than the peer reviewed scientific study published in Science.?
Comment by Jehu — May 31, 2007 @ 11:33 am
May 31st, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Hi Jehu,
Perhaps acceptance of evolutionary theory is higher among people who vote than the population at large. All I know is that creationists have been taking a beating at the polls. People often say one thing and vote another in the privacy of the voting booth.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 31, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
May 31st, 2007 at 1:35 pm
stunney, I know Aagcobb is one of the most frustrating individuals around to debate with due to his inability or (lack of desire) to see some things that appear obvious to others, but what's up with the tirade? Perhaps taking a bit of a breather before writing whatever vulgarities come to mind would be in order . . .
Comment by Eric Anderson — May 31, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
May 31st, 2007 at 1:43 pm
I wouldn't equate election results necessarily to the level of acceptance or rejection of evolution. I myself would have voted against the bonehead creationists in Dover (or at least abstained). For that matter Dembski sued their lawyers for $20,000 (not exactly a vote at the polls, but you get my drift hopefully).
The issues in Kansas and elsewhere are equally nuanced. Your analysis may be flawed.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 31, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
May 31st, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Hi Sal,
You may be right, Sal. I think id creationism is part of a package of ideological policy-making that is starting to recede as people recoil from the consequences, in particular the disastrous war in Iraq. IDism as political policy had its own (albeit much less significant) disaster in Dover, and the center is reasserting itself in this as in the larger national political arena. If the GOP nominates Guliani for president, we will know it has abandoned the politics of catering to the base to reach out to the center again.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 31, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
May 31st, 2007 at 2:38 pm
A package deal, Aagcobb? So Bush was plotting with his generals one minute and planning the school board strategies for a small PA town the next? You are aware that Dembski began writing about ID well in advance of the 2000 election and that Darwin's Black Box was published in 1996? Ahh, but I should have known its all part of the vast right wing conspriracy conjured up by the "reality based community."
Comment by Bradford — May 31, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
May 31st, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Hi Bradford,
We didn't conjur it up, Bradford. But we are starting to wander a bit off topic. based on the polls I linked to earlier, about 10% or less of the population appear to be IDists compared to roughly half the population (depending on the poll and the question asked) who are creationists. The creationists hold their position by faith, and while they welcome "scientific" evidence which confirms their faith, no communication strategy employed by ID critics is going to move them significantly. This is why I don't think there really is much of a "communication" problem, because for the vast majority of IDists/Creationists, its a theological issue. ID critics are communicating well enough to defeat the creationists at the polls, so that is probably about the best we can hope for.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 31, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
May 31st, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Aagcobb:
I would agree with this statement. However, the vast majority of those who accept evolution do so simply because they have been told that it is true by their priests — the scientific community and scientific education community. The average evolution-accepting citizen has no more understanding of the questions than the average YECer, probably less.
Aagcobb, you are awfully close to being a hated ID sympathizer. I think you should hurry up and do pennance!
Comment by bFast — May 31, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
May 31st, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Bradford:
Aagcobb:
How do you extrapolate a "vast right wing conspriracy [sic]" from the Wedge document, especially including the Bush administration in it? That's some severe paranoia.
Comment by thechristiancynic — May 31, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
May 31st, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Hi cynic,
I wouldn't call it paranoia; IDism is just a part of the ideological package of the religious right.* Thats like saying its paranoid to consider support for the principle of separation of church and state is part of the ideological package of liberal democrats.
*Please note that I'm not saying that all IDists support the entire ideological package of the religious right.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 31, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
May 31st, 2007 at 4:37 pm
"A brilliant psychological analysis, MikeGene!
If you weren't such a whizbang biologist, I'd say you would have made a fantastic psychologist." - Lutepisc
Is it true that Mike Gene has finally admitted that he is a biologist!!!
For a biologist he sure likes to talk a lot about the sociology of ID.
The 'post-wedge-world' is still questionable, since 1) Mike Gene can't himself 'post' prefix it cuz he had nothing to do with Wedging it up in the first place (leave that to Johnson's theistic-ID or the DI's mixed bag-ID, instead of MG's agnostic-ID), 2) the Wedge was about more than simply 'No ID in schools,' and 3) there is a self-proclaimed Wedgie who posted on this very thread, in the name of Salvador!
Just a drivebye hi and smile!
G.A.
Comment by g arago — May 31, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
May 31st, 2007 at 4:50 pm
A Wedgie at this site?:shock: Adjusting the shorts should take care of it.:mrgreen:
Comment by Bradford — May 31, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
May 31st, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Don't kid yourself Aagcobb. It is every bit as theologically driven for your side. A noted figure on your side of the fence once noted the necessity to keep a divine foot out of the door. The need to invoke vague notions like prebiotic selection is intended to guide conclusions away from where materialists do not want them going.
Comment by Bradford — May 31, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
May 31st, 2007 at 6:16 pm
An early commenter named "Randy" asked an interesting question. Having watched FOD a few times now, I understand that many people (including me) will enjoy its humor and its apparent plea for honest communication. But in the final analysis the film does not practice its own lesson: Flock of Dodos promotes a subtle but unambiguous stereotype that ID-proponents are publicity-obsessed liars.
To give one example directly from the film, in FOD Randy Olson says ID is "emerging from public relations firms [and] understands the need to tell simple clean stories not constrained by the truth." Although Randy Olson tries to avoid directly using the word "liar" (probably for legal reasons), he all but uses the word through the imagery (like the scene justaposing Icons of Evolution next to a tabloid), and other discussions of ID proponents.
But the above quote from the film is very representative of the film's pervasive anti-ID stereotype. FOD says ID is merely (1) "emerging from public relations firms" and (2) "understands the need to tell simple clean stories not constrained by the truth."
I like Telic Thoughts because it seems to me that facts matter to people here a lot more than the preferred stereotypes of ID-critics. Let's break Randy Olson's stereotype down:
(1) When Olson says ID is "emerging from public relations firms," this claim comes from the part in his film where he claims that Discovery Institute has a huge $5 million budget which is largely spent on public relations, but not science. This claim is false on many levels. See - here for a rebuttal to FOD's misrepresentations of Discovery Institute's budget.
(2) When Olson says ID is "not constrained by the truth" (i.e. all but saying IDists are liars), this comes from the part of his film where he claims Jonathan Wells falsely claimed that modern biology textbooks have used Haeckel's fraudulent embryo drawings to promote evolution. Despite the confident-sounding puffing on this issue from Olson and his friends (like P.Z. Myers), FOD's claims about Haeckel are effectively rebutted by mainstream publications by acknowledging that Haeckel's drawings are reproduced in modern textbooks, and sometimes even noting that they are in there being used to promote evolution, including:
"¢ Stephen Jay Gould, "Abscheulich! (Atrocious!): Haeckel's Distortions did not help Darwin," Natural History Magazine (March, 2000).
"¢ Michael K. Richardson et al., "There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development," Anatomy and Embryology, Vol. 196:91"“106 (1997).
"¢ James Glanz, "Biology Text Illustrations More Fiction than Fact," New York Times (April 8, 2001).
(Ah for the good-old days these papers represent, when Darwinists admitted that modern textbooks have had problems with their usage of Haeckel's drawings, and they were trying to fix things and move on with dignity. Now Randy Olson and his friends have tried a different tack by denying that modern textbooks have had any problems in their usage of Haeckel and accusing ID-proponents of being "not constrained by the truth" (i.e. lying) for claiming the textbooks have had problems.)
"Randy" asked why Discovery Institute has responded to the flim. Interestingly, I can't find any responses from Discovery posted prior to about February, 2007, and the film came out in April / May of 2006. But bear in mind that Randy Olson started this current debate by making false claims in FOD attacking Jonathan Wells and Discovery Institute. So I don't think anyone can blame Discovery Institute for defending Jonathan Wells and refuting with great detail and many examples from modern textbooks Olson's false information. Some of Discovery Institute's refutations of Olson's claims regarding Haeckel's drawings and Jonathan Wells can be read here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I know there's a lot there, but I encourage readers who watched FOD to check out some of these rebuttals and compare them to what FOD claims.
In the end, I think Mike Gene quite accurately captures the "the core problem" faced by some Darwinists that FOD targets to encourage them to better cover-up their elitist dogmatism when opposing ID. But unfortunately I think Mike Gene misses the underlying stereotype in the film: On the surface Flock of Dodos provides an entertaining show and purports to have a good message for all. But one of its main underlying messages is essentially this:
Olson leads his fellow Darwinists by example by trying to portray ID-proponents exactly in that light and getting that message across without sounding elitist and dogmatic. But the anti-ID stereotype message is still there nonetheless, and that's why we should not fall for Randy Olson's false information and his stereotype of ID-proponents.
I hope Telic Thoughts readers will examine the facts for themselves and, I hope, reject such stereotypes against ID proponents.
Comment by Casey — May 31, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
May 31st, 2007 at 10:29 pm
I don't think there is any mystery about this. The "hoax" aspect is that FoD contains documentable falsehoods paraded as truth — even despite the fact that this was pointed out to Randy Olson and he knows that the film is not correct.
See Hoax of Dodos
I wouldn't want anyone on any side of the issues to be misrepresented in such a blatant manner. Nothing good comes from promoting falsehoods.
In my mind, it is doubly egregious that Olson misrepresents the facts in order to (mis)portray Jonathan Wells as misrepresenting the facts about textbooks and Haekel's embryos when it was Wells who was correct. And this in spite of Olson's knowing better.
Comment by eric — May 31, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
May 31st, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Eric Anderson wrote:
Hi Eric. There was no 'tirade'.
Let me explain. I'm a working class laddie fae Glasgow. That's just the way we talk.
The Other Side essentially thinks that ID is ludicrous garbage. Or, as we say in Glasgow, 'a load o' f—king crap' (etc.)
The Other Side smugly implies at every opportunity that those who disagree with them are, in essence, ludicrous nutjob purveyors of crap.
I, however, think that Young Earth Creationism, for example, has a firmer grip on reason and reality than eliminative materialists do, and than moral anti-realists (i.e. most atheistic materialists) do. (And I say that as someone who thinks YEC-ists are totally off the wall.)
At the same time, the atheistic materialists cover themselves in the mantle of Rational and Moral Superiority.
And I just think that's complete, utter, unadulterated f—king bullshit. And I enjoy indicating to the likes of Aagcobb (whose posts I've read only occasionally) that when they make rationally unjustifiable statements then they had better expect they're going to be subjected to the same "you guys are nutjobs" treatment that they contnually dish out to ID-ers.
It's just that in working class Glasgow, we say what we mean—-for example, we might say "f—king GARBAGE ya choob!"
Let's face it: that's what Aagcobb spouted in the post you're referring to—–"pure, f—king, unadulterated garbage".
If saying it offends white Protestant middle class American sensibilities, then by all means be offended.
Just count your lucky stars that I don't use the 'c—t' word, which is used routinely in Glaswegian demotic, as in such colorful phrases as, "ya daft stupit f–king c–t ye!"
Comment by stunney — May 31, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
May 31st, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Hi Stunney,
Yeah, you do need to tone down the language. It's not that I have sensitive little ears. It's that if you can do it, many others will want to do it. In time, the place will become a mucking fess.
And since we at TT are trying to brainwash little children so they can use their science fair projects to turn ID into science, it won't help The Cause to install a theocracy to have our budding ID Scientists banned from TT by their mommies.
Comment by MikeGene — May 31, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 4:37 pm
I've gotten bits and pieces of Dodos through google and youtube. I probably would enjoy watching it.
I will look to see if http://www.HoaxOfDodos.com was accrurate in finding fault with Randy Olsen's work.
Finally, regarding Mike's comment on how critics are perceived:
Mike is more charitable to think they are perceived that way because they hold certain stereotypes in their mind. I'm probably biased, but I'll offer my opinion anyway. I don't think it has that much to do with stereotypes. They just plain hate Christians and anyone they perceive to be allied with them.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 1, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Don't miss the recording of Olson on this topic, available here:
Textbooks Don't Lie: Haeckel's Faked Drawings Have Been Used to Promote Evolution
Since the facts of what the textbooks actually say are documentable, the extent of Olson's denial is amazing. He even wants to make the Haekel issue a "battlefield".
But he does have one defender on his side. The net authority P.Z. Meyers has weighed in and assures the world that Olson's movie is completely accurate. What a relief that must be!
Another recent post is available here though this may overlap the content of the http://www.HoaxOfDodos.com site.
Comment by eric — June 1, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:50 am
For a little fun. Here are actual photographs of three different mammalian embryos at comparable stages in their development. Can you tell us which species they are?
http://uk.geocities.com/simon_...
Comment by Zachriel — June 2, 2007 @ 8:50 am
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:05 pm
What is even more interesting is the fact that, although some species appear most similar at an intermediate stage of development, nevertheless they can actually be more disimilar at an earlier stage as well as at later stages.
This is the hourglass pattern of similarity in development.
For more on this, and some images, see A Reply to Carl Zimmer on Embryology and Developmental Biology
Comment by eric — June 2, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:24 pm
To Zachriel, I have a question that comes back to the point of the thread.
In Flock of Dodos, Olson essentially accuses Jonathan Wells of fraudulently creating a straw man argument that textbooks are still using this similarity of some embryos at a certain stage as support for evolution, including using Haekel's drawings or slighly modified versions thereof. Olson claims that biologists know better and that it has been many decades since this was done (despite the documentable examples that are listed at http://www.hoaxofdodos.com ). Olson claims that the only current uses are in the historical sense of looking at the history of biology, not as evidence of the evolutionary ancestry for species.
Are you agreeing with Olson that biologists know better than to try to do this?
Or are you implying that Olson is mistaken and that this similarity at this particular stage for some (not all) embryos is actually showing us evidence of their common ancestry — evidence that presumably would be appropriate in a contemporary biology textbook?
Comment by eric — June 2, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
June 2nd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
They are both interesting and important for understanding evolutionary development. Vertebrates diverge in their earliest stages as they have adapted to their various forms of reproduction. Yet, the pharyngula are so similar that they can be very difficult to tell apart. Quite amazing evidence of common ancestry.
The striking similarity of embryos *is* evidence of evolution. The only question is whether textbooks still use Haeckel's defective drawings uncritically. If they do, the problem should be addressed.
Haeckel believed that embryos represented the *adult* forms of more primitive (less derived) organisms. He overstated his case and overemphasized similarities in his embryo diagrams. Significant divergence occurs during embryonic development.
The fact remains that vertebrate pharyngulas are very similar in structure (including hind limb buds in cetacean embryos), and provide independent verification of the nested hierarchy of descent. Modern research into evolutionary development strongly supports evolutionary descent.
Comment by Zachriel — June 2, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
June 2nd, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Haeckel thought that if you examined a developing human embryo, you would see it change from a single-celled organism to a colony, to being much like an adult fish, amphibian, reptile, mammal, primate than finally human. E.g., human embryonic gill-slits actually became gills that then disappeared.
What actually happens is that the embryonic structures that we observe as gill-slits become mineral-regulating gills in fish, but in humans become mineral-regulating glands. The structures are observed to diverge in the embryo before they become gills. Each of these structural adaptations support the nested hierarchy of descent.
Haeckel's idea was quickly discarded by the scientific community. His faulty drawings stayed around quite a bit longer"”embryos do strongly resemble one another.
Comment by Zachriel — June 2, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
June 2nd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
A very interesting example of how the nested hierarchy of descent is supported: A century ago scientists had determined that two embryonic bones in reptiles formed part of the reptilian jaw, while the same two embryonic bones formed part of the mammalian inner ear. The plausibility of such an evolutionary transition might seem, well, implausible. But since then a variety of fossil intermediaries have been found.
More recently, Ancient mammal gives clues to ear evolution
Comment by Zachriel — June 2, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
June 2nd, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Zachriel wrote:
I exposed the fallacious character of the reasoning that asserts or implies that evidence for common descent is evidence against intelligent design here.
Are you addicted to fallacious forms of thought?
Comment by stunney — June 2, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
June 2nd, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Since "they are both interesting and important for understanding evolutionary development", why is it that a biology textbook would only expose students to the intermediate stage where they are most similar, depicting that as being "the early embryonic stages" while completely omitting any reference to the fact that earlier stages exist where the differences are greater?
ID doesn't exclude common ancestry. For example, Dr. Behe affirms it. (BTW, watch for his new book The Edge of Evolution.)
Jonathan Well's book (which Olson claimed was fraudulent, and set out to debunk using only the Haekel chapter) was taking textbooks to task over problems in the way in which they were using recycled icons and distortions to support and promote evolution.
No, that is not the only question. I have no objection to presenting the full hourglass, including accurate photographs. Nor would Wells. Presenting half the hourglass as though it represented the whole is another matter. Omitting the potentially troublesome early differences is a propaganda technique called card stacking.
As you said, both the early differences and the later similarities are interesting and important. To hide the former and present the latter as though it were "the early embryonic stages" is distortion and propaganda, not education.
I would agree, as would Wells, and the late Stephen Jay Gould.
Regarding the Flock of Dodos topic of this thread, Olson owes Wells an apology for a false accusation. It is Flock of Dodos that is misrepresenting the facts about textbooks, but Olson seems to have no interest in correcting that. In my mind, such unbending disregard for the truth undermines any respect for or confidence in his message.
Comment by eric — June 2, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
June 2nd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
eric wrote:
I commented further on this idea here, particularly in these passages:
[Emphases added]
Comment by stunney — June 2, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
June 2nd, 2007 at 7:30 pm
il stunnissimo:
Chaos theory shows that many aspects of the universe are not predictable at all. Like the weather in 2 weeks from now. Like the N-body problem (N>2). The reason is non-linearity. The slightest variation in initial conditions blows up exponentially given enough time. Granted, for an infinite omniscient mind a fully deterministic chaotic system would still be predictable. By the way, the quantum level is supposed to be governed by fully deterministic laws (Schroedinger's equation). The quantum randomess is an emerging property.
Comment by Raevmo — June 2, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
June 2nd, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Raevissimo, what you said is consistent with what I said. Which was:
Most naturalists have held that the universe above the quantum level is in principle completely or very predictable.
If the physical world was not very predictable, there would be no such thing as science.
Comment by stunney — June 2, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:06 pm
The "developmental hourglass" is a fairly new concept that dates from the 1990's. However, it certainly should be introduced into textbooks at the appropriate level.
All evidence for the Theory of Evolution hinges on Common Descent (including the crucial exceptions). If someone rejects Common Descent, then they are not reasoning from the evidence. If ID expects to even begin to have any credibility, they have to do more than not "exclude common ancestry". They have to digest the evidence and why it is considered so important in biology.
When I discuss evolution on these forums, all too often IDers will slide past common descent as if it is of little importance. Yet, it is the most fundamental fact in biology. The vast majority have no concept of the nested hierarchy, why this is not merely a similarity, and why it so strongly argues for common descent (and against common design).
They're not troublesome. They're relatively new and textbooks tend to be conservative and oversimplify for pedagogical reasons.
It's not hidden. If you take a class in embryology you will certainly learn about it, though you may not learn about it in a basic biology course. Nor does it help ID whatsoever.
Comment by Zachriel — June 2, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:36 pm
I'm not even sure you accept the scientific evidence for the Earth's movement. But tell us. Do you accept common descent? Do you understand the nested hierarchy pattern?
Comment by Zachriel — June 2, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:36 pm
ID is not the refutation of common descent. It addresses the scientific question of the limits of what unguided natural processes can do vs. what requires the contribution of intelligent agency.
If you have been long on Telic Thoughts and don't yet understand that a person (e.g. Dr. Behe or our own Mike Gene) can embrace common descent as well as ID, you need to learn about ideas such as front loading.
I hope you will come to understand that common descent does not inherently conflict with ID. That said, the question of common descent is its own question, and a hot topic. (For example, there is quite a bit of evidence suggesting that the idea of an ancestral tree of life needs to be uprooted, i.e. is an outdated concept that needs replacing by a more complicated picture.)
Presumably a level appropriate to learn about one half of the hourglass is one that is also appropriate to learn about the other half as well.
Would it be proper to expose basic biology students to the false idea that the greatest similarity is at the earliest stage? Again, what would make it appropriate to tell basic biology students about just half of the hourglass, as if it were the whole?
So perhaps it is "simpler" to identify the greatest similarity with "the early embryonic stages" as though there were no earlier dissimilarity (even though this is not true)? And this misrepresentation should be considered good for pedagogical reasons? Don't confuse the students (or perhaps just the basic biology students) with the dissimilarities at the earliest stages?
You say "They're not troublesome." And yet, what if this is the explanation for the similarity?
See The Textbooks Don't Lie: Haeckel's Faked Drawings Have Been Used to Promote Evolution: Miller & Levine (1994) (Part I)
By this reasononing, we should expect that the earlier the stage, the greater the similarity. Early variation is hazardous and beneficial outcomes unlikely. Indeed, not only that, but as Wells has noted:
from Flock of Dodos, or Pack of Lies?
If changes affecting early development are the most hazardous and most unlikely to be successful, it would be reasonable to expect that "The earliest stages of the embryos life, therefore, are essentially "locked in," whereas cells and tissues that are produced later can change more freely without harming the organism." Reasonable, but apparently wrong.
It is plain that greater differences at the earliest stages contradicts the predictions we would make from such a view.
I have no doubt that evolutionists have been diligent at producing improved explanations that circumvent this difficulty and explain why its only unlikely to make changes at an intermediate stage, but not at the beginning or the end. In fact, I no longer much doubt that an evolutionary story can be constructed to explain whatever we happen to find, after it is found.
Comment by eric — June 2, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 9:47 am
Ok. But the most important evidence in biology for evolution is found in Common Descent. Any discussion has to start there.
I am aware of that. Without speaking to any commenter's personal views, it is not enough to merely "allow" for common descent. It is a fundamental fact of biology.
There is little reason to discuss the mechanisms of evolution if the question of common descent (of the vast majority of taxa) is not accepted. It means that whoever is arguing their point is rejecting one of the most important and profound facts of biology. Any discussion has to start there.
(And often misrepresented on ID forums as meaning that Common Descent is falsified, or no longer applicable.)
The same reason why we teach F = G*m1*m2 / d^2, even though it is not accurate theory. Of course, if there is a better way to teach embryonics in an introductory biology text, or gravitational theory in an introductory physics text, then it should be explored.
So you complain about an oversimplification in an introductory textbook, and counter with an oversimplification.
Comment by Zachriel — June 3, 2007 @ 9:47 am
June 3rd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Why bother? What's the point? Perhaps since they are so similar they are not really different species at all.
Or if we are forced to accept that they are distinct species with some shared evolutionary lineage, we might surmise the following:
A evolved into B which evolved into C.
A evolved into C which evolved into B.
A evolved into B and C.
B evolved into C which evolved into A.
B evolved into A which evolved into C.
B evolved into A and C.
C evolved into A which evolved into B.
C evolved into B which evolved into A.
C evolved into A and B.
So let's say, for the sake of argument, that all three are exactly identical. What does that tell us, if anything at all? Again, what's the point of asking us to go look at these photos? What are we to come away with from such an exercise other than, yeah, those look alike. They could be the same species for all I know.
Comment by Mung — June 3, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Just for fun.
Not only different species, but different orders.
No, they descended from a common ancestor.
Comment by Zachriel — June 3, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Clearly and self-evidently false. There are many topics for which common descent has no bearing. In general, inference to intelligent agency turns on issues that are independant of the topic of common descent.
To reason from "Common descent is true" to "Therefore, unguided natural processes can do X" is a nonsequiter. It is faulty reasoning.
Yes, in hindsight it may have been a rash oversimplification for me to suggest that evolutionists will always be able to concoct a story that fits the facts, after the facts have become known. There may be times when no plausible story can be imagined, in which case the last resort is to call the discrepancy between theory and reality a Gap in Knowledge (i.e. not knowing how to reconcile them), as in "We don't yet have a complete theory of ___. You are just pointing to a Gap in Knowledge".
Nevertheless, faith in unguided processes has its demands and may not be denied within science as some define it. Under that definition, acknowledging that unguided processes may not explain all in nature is not permitted, as Gonzalez's tenure decision illustrates.
But if you want to persuade me I'm mistaken and that there really could be a point where that faith will cry "Uncle!", please do so.
BTW, an oversimplification is one that has gone too far. Are you agreeing that it goes too far for an introductory textbook to show only half the hourglass as if it were the whole?
Clearly not analogous. The existence of greater differences at the earliest stages directly conflicts with what we would predict given the evolutionary reasoning I quoted from a textbook. This creates a conflict of interest regarding revealing troublesome evidence that does not square with the explanations offered in the textbook. That data does not fit.
The core issue is not just about making the facts simple enough to understand — as if anyone really doubts that a student could understand the facts about the hourglass pattern. Do you or anyone else really believe the hourglass facts (i.e. for some species there is strong similarity at an intermediate stage, with greater differences at both earlier and later stages) are too hard to describe or comprehend? Or that students who can understand half the hourglass could not understand a full hourglass?
What may not be understood yet is how to
spin this in favor ofbest reconcile this with evolutionary theory.That would not be a legitimate reason for hiding troublesome facts.
The troublesome fact for Olson and Flock of Dodos is that Wells is vindicated by the facts and Flock of Dodos is incorrect and also in the wrong for accusing Wells of being a fraud. Yet Olson has been unwilling to own up to the inconvenient truth.
Comment by eric — June 3, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Carnivora (cat)
Cetacea (dolphin)
Primate (human)
It shows just how closely the embryos resemble one another. Note the hind limb buds on the dolphin.
Comment by Zachriel — June 3, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
June 3rd, 2007 at 9:25 pm
The Theory of Evolution largely concerns the mechanisms of divergence from common ancestors. Rather convenient being able to wave away your opponent's argument.
Let's start with "Common Descent is true."
There are many plausible falsifications of the Theory of Evolution. Many concern a subject you simply prefer to wave away"”common descent.
Newton's Law of Gravitation leads to grossly inaccurate predictions for many phenomena, as well.
I have already agreed that textbooks should be updated. The developmental hourglass is a fairly new concept.
Comment by Zachriel — June 3, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
June 4th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Why do you suppose it is important to "argue" independent claims where they do not overlap?
I get the impression you think of ID as the refutation of evolution. If so, you are operating under an incorrect understanding.
Please, get a copy of Behe's new book The Edge of Evolution and see if that helps separate issues. Behe is not arguing that evolution has not happened, or that the mechanisms don't exist, or that they have no effect. The point is that they (like virtually all mechanisms studied in science) have limits on what they can do and where they apply. It is a proper function of science to understand those limits.
General Principle: The ID inference is based on identifying the limits of unguided processes. We cannot infer intelligent agency for an effect apart from having reason to believe that the effect is beyond what we should expect from unguided processes.
It is not an unimportant subject. Its simply not relevant to all questions.
Since it is of interest to you, regarding falsifiable predictions concerning common descent, you might start with the failed prediction that all creatures would share a common genetic code. They don't. Should I expect that will in any way deter belief in common descent? I'm not holding my breath.
Given the way you already readily appeal to "just a gap in knowledge" even when there is no plausible story that extrapolates consistently from the espoused principles of evolution, I don't see how you can make a convincing case that you would not keep resorting to that same appeal for every failed expectation you couldn't provide a plausible story for.
As I said, "if you want to persuade me I'm mistaken and that there really could be a point where that faith will cry "Uncle!", please do so."
The Newtonian physics example would only be analgous if the textbooks still reasoned that his laws should be true in those very cases where they are inaccurate. (Any textbook worth having does not do this.) An example would be a textbook that still argued that the measured speed of light should change according to the relative speed of the observer.
Miller was explaining why, consistent with the evolutionary "mechanisms of divergence from common ancestors" you mention, we should expect there to be greatest similarity at the earliest stages. But that turns out to be false. So the issue is not only the absence of troublesome facts. It is that a prediction was being made about what we should expect based on divergence from common ancestors — one that turns out to be falsified by these troublesome facts. Besides missing facts, we have falsified theory.
(So, BTW, besides the universal genetic code failed prediction, here is another.)
Mind, I'm not saying scientific theories ought not to be adjusted where they need to be. My point on this is that I see no reason to believe that evolution is in any practical sense falsifiable. Belief in naturalism requires evolution to be true. There is no permission to say "Uncle!".
We are in agreement on this.
Would you also agree that Flock of Dodos erred in calling Jonathan Wells a fraud for drawing attention to this need to update the textbooks? Or that Olson owes Wells an apology for the false smear?
Comment by eric — June 4, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Because they're not independent, but interdependent.
I make no presumptions. I'll let your own statements guide me to your views.
The Theory of Evolution concerns the hereditary descent of life on Earth. You can't simply ignore this history, the bulk of the evidence, to argue about the mechanisms of this history of evolutionary change.
I would be happy to discuss those limitations once we understand what we are trying to explain, the hereditary descent of life on Earth.
That's wonderful. Let's start with determining the "effect", the outlines of hereditary descent. It appears the evidence strongly supports Common Descent of most taxa over eons of time. We can find this evidence in everything from genomes to embryonics to morphology to paleontology.
It's important to any argument concerning the hereditary descent of life on Earth. Any reasonable study has to start with the evidence of Common Descent.
Common Descent applies to the majority of taxa, but may not properly apply at the root of the tree where horizontal evolution may hold sway. (This is still an open question.)
Nevertheless, the genetic code may not be the best example to exemplify your view. The genetic code appears to support the nested hierarchy. In fact, it was *predicted* soon after the unraveling of the genetic code.
"… if different codes do exist they should be associated with major taxonomic groups such as phyla or kingdoms that have their roots far in the past." "” Hinegardner and Engelberg, 1963
So you apparently *do* reject Common Descent as it applies to most taxa. By doing so, you can ignore the most important and profound evidence for the Theory of Evolution. See how easy it is to wave away contrary arguments.
Of course you don't. You simply ignore the evidence. It's far easier to refute a strawman.
Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2007 @ 8:08 am
June 5th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
That is significant and relevant for the question of inferring intelligent agency in what way exactly?
BTW, about that strong evidence from embryonics — would that include predicting that embryos are most similar at the earliest stages due to shared ancestry, as Miller was doing?
To take a specific example, Dr. Behe argues about mechanisms. When he does so (e.g. that Darwinsitic mechanisms are very limited and insufficient), he does not "ignore this history". The history, complete with those outlines, simply does not rescue the Darwinistic mechanisms from their own limitations.
Incorrect inference. I'm not even maintaining that it is impossible that genetic code variations could eventually be explained in the context of unguided natural processes. That isn't the point.
I'm looking for something else, something concerning you. You seem to be missing the actual point, though you quoted a portion of it. Please take another look at the full sentence and the one that follows it.
Are you responding to what I said? If so, what is "the evidence" that evolution is falsifiable, which I'm supposedly ignoring?
You appear to be confusing too very different questions. If I had said "I see no evidence for common descent" or some such statement, it might be reasonable to respond as you did. But that isn't what I said. I raised the issue of falsification.
Falsification is about the potential to be falsified, to be ruled out. Its not a measure of positive evidence. It is a question about the extent to which any actual difficulty can be papered over by one means or another, including "It is just a gap" whereever and whenever facts run counter to theory.
There is huge empirical evidence in support of Newtonian physics and so it lasted for hundreds of years, but it was also falsifiable. Physicists don't respond that the new evidence regarding what happens as we approach light speed is "just a gap".
When would faith in unguided processes ever stop saying "it's just a gap"
Or to take something very much smaller (and in line with this thread), can we yet agree that Flock of Dodos got it wrong regarding the smear on Jonathan Wells and the need to update the textbooks?
Comment by eric — June 5, 2007 @ 11:23 pm
June 6th, 2007 at 8:23 am
I won't make your argument for you, but if you argue that the mechanisms in the Theory of Evolution are insufficient to account for biological diversity, then you are confronted with the argument of that Theory. Common descent is a biological fact, and an essential component of understanding the mechanisms of evolutionary change over the history of life.
If you wish to frame an argument over those mechanisms, then you have to start with the most important fact, that rabbits evolved from a common ancestor with canaries. Virtually all research in genomics, embryonics, paleontology, and biology is done within the paradigm of Common Descent. If you reject this fact, or refuse to look at it, then you cannot have a reasonable discussion of evolutionary mechanisms, such as Natural Selection.
As shown previously, vertebrate pharyngulas can be very difficult to distinguish. More specifically, embryos support the nested hierarchy of descent, as does morphology, genomics and paleontology.
For instance, would the genome of a marsupial wolf more closely resemble that of a placental wolf, or of a kangaroo. I know what the Theory of Common Descent would predict. And it would predict how the genomes of these organisms would vary so as to fit the nested hierarchy of descent with other related Vertebrates.
Yet, you yourself can't or won't defend Behe's argument if you think he is wrong about the most fundamental fact in biology, Common Descent.
Even if you want to only argue origins on the edges of scientific understanding, it seems odd you would ignore all the history since. And as at least some of the evidence is purportedly found (by professional geneticists and biochemists doing actual research and publishing in peer journals) in the phylogenetic tree, then Common Descent again rears its head. You need to grasp this evidence.
If someone asks how Natural Selection could explain biological diversity, the first thing I would start with, and also critical to Darwin's argument and every biologist's since, is Common Descent. Wave it away, and you are waving away the primary argument concerning mechanisms. You are then free to erect your invincible Man of Straw.
"Evolution" is directly observed as the change in allele frequencies in populations over time. Many of the mechanisms of these changes are also directly observed, such as mutation, genetic drift and Natural Selection.
The Theory of Evolution is a falsifiable framework of interrelated statements. The most important fundamental assertion is Common Descent (of most taxa). A significant violation of the nested hierarchy could represent a challenge to Common Descent. There are notable exceptions, exceptions like endogenous retroviruses that support the rule.
The Theory of Evolution has been falsified and modified many times, and will be many more times in the future. E.g. Common Descent may not apply at the root of the phylogenetic tree, unification with Mendelian Genetics.
Sure they did. And they (unfortunately) filled it with
metaphysical puttyether. Einstein recognized they were grasping at straws and that they were arrogantly self-satisfied that they had resolved all the important issues in physics. But it wasn't enough to recognize their arrogance. Einstein had to have the scientific evidence, meaning a new theory that explained the old data *and* predicted novel observations.Comment by Zachriel — June 6, 2007 @ 8:23 am
June 6th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Excerpt from Lessons Learned from Haeckel and His Drawings: We Shouldn't Always Believe What the "Leading Experts" Tell Us about Evolution
Comment by eric — June 6, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
June 6th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Nonetheless, Wells did lie to me. Before I ever heard of ID, I found his book in the bookstore, and reading through the intro he stated that he started out believing in evolution like anyone else and after going to college he started to question it. I bought the book for that reason, and that reason alone. I thought I had a nonreligiously biased opinion on the question of evolution, about which I had severe doubts. But it seems to turn out that he's really a Moonie or some such and went to college with the express mission of refuting evolution.
Comment by onething — June 6, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
June 8th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
I cannot tell you what Wells was truely was thinking when he went to college (I was not there and I am not him), but then neither were many others who seem to want very much to try to smear him.
Frankly I consider that beside the point. What matters is the content of what he has said. Does it hold up under scrutiny or not?
So far it has held up extremely well. Even some of the more objective defenders of Darwinism will concede that Wells is right about his facts (though they may not care for the implications).
Just consider — if the Wells antagonists could fault the content of the book itself, would they need to bother about trying to smear him with ad hominem attacks, or with false accusations such as Olson has done?
I find it a consistent indication that when foes find themselves obligated to resort to personal attacks and false accusations, they are actually showing the weakness of their position and the strength of what they oppose.
One additional point I would observe is that true believers in materialism and promissory evolution are not writing from a position free of religious bias. When facts conflict with what evolution requires, the faith-based nature of that belief system becomes evident. Watch for genuine difficulties to be papered over by "just a gap in our knowledge" statements.
Comment by eric — June 8, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
June 8th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Sorry, but that won't work. You are the one who has been beating the drum that Common Descent makes an essential difference to inferring intelligent agency. If you think so, take some actual examples of ID inferences and see if you can show exactly how CD is relevant to the question of the inference to intelligent agency. I'd be interested to see you try that, but I won't make your argument for you.
There is a faulty question begging argument brewing here. I hope you are intending better than this when you show the relevance of CD to ID.
Even if we assume the fact of Common Descent, that fact would become a fact of history to be explained. The fact itself does not tell us that the mechanism was natural selection acting on unguided variations. It would be question begging to take the fact of CD as confirmation of the sufficiency of Darwinistic mechanisms.
Even evolutionists do not agree universally that those mechanisms account for the major distinctions in the history of life, despite accepting ancestral relationship. That fact alone shows that the fact of CD does not itself decide the mechanism, nor does it decide on ID questions.
BTW, I notice that you now qualify Common Descent, e.g.
So Common Descent applies, except where it does not apply? And if it doesn't apply in parts, then what should we infer from that? If there is no indication that unguided mechanisms can bridge a gap in Common Descent, what should we infer from that? That something more than unguided mechanisms are required? Or hold on and have faith in unguided processes?
I don't know what you mean by "most taxa", but I find the Cambrian explosion of phyla to be a particular contrary fact for the theory of evolution.
As evolution told us to expect with development of embryos, we would expect diversity and differences to increase over time. In the tree of life, we should first see the smaller taxonomic differences, with greater differences appearing gradually over time as variation accumulates.
History tells the reverse story. Early on we see the fundamental body plan differences appearing suddenly, with variation fanning out from the initial instances. After the explosion of new phyla, the number of extant phyla over history actually declines rather than slowing building up.
If it is true, as the evidence so far indicates, that the phyla appeared suddenly rather than being built up gradually through gradual diversification via descent with modification, what should we infer from that (assuming we are operating on inference from evidence, not upon faith)?
As already noted, the intermediate stage of greatest similarity is not the earliest stage, as Miller indicated we should expect from evolutionary theory. Ergo, from evolutionary theory we have a prediction that reality has rejected. You don't seem interested in saying much about that.
You've changed the verb tense and apparently missed the point. I was asking about falsification, i.e. the ability to be falsified. I said "Physicists don't…" (present tense) alluding to the current state of affairs post-Einstein, but you responded "Sure they did. …" (past tense) referring to the past. My point is that it was possible for those ideas about aether to be overturned and discarded when the facts didn't fit.
My question is about whether evolutionary theory has the quality of true falsifiability. For example, consider an unguided process evolutionary view of the origin of the genetic code. When you can always appeal to "gaps in knowledge" and wave away conflicts between theory and reality, why should I believe that would ever be allowed to lead a negative conclusion regarding promissory evolution? On those terms, it is invulnerable to true falsification.
Regardless of how many times it doesn't fit the facts, either a story could be constructed to fit the facts, or else a promissory appeal can be made to filling "just a gap" with future discoveries that will remove the inconsistencies.
When I read this, it brought to mind the smoker's statement. "Can I quit smoking? Sure I can. I've done it lots of times."
Comment by eric — June 8, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
June 8th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Wells grossly overstates his case by conflating Haeckel's theory on recapitulation with modern theories of evolutionary development. Concerning the textbooks that Wells attacks in Icons of Evolution, he accuses the writers of hiding the truth about Haeckel, and yet the authors directly reject Haeckel's theory. In fact, pharyngulas of various organisms have very similar structures, a result of their common ancestry.
Comment by Zachriel — June 8, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
June 8th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
There are no scientifically valid Intelligent Design inferences.
Now you got it.
Not necessarily"”that's right. We would have to look at the actual evidence.
So once you show some understanding as to why the vast majority of biologists, geologists, paleontologists and genetics see common descent as one of the most important facts in their various fields of study, then we can discuss some of those mechanisms that resulted in these vast changes over eons of time.
Right again! There are many mechanisms, some more important than others. And a lot of hypothesis testing to determine which are the most important.
Correct again! There are a number of violations of Common Descent, such as endogenous retroviruses. Get used to it. Exceptions are everywhere in science. They're the stuff that often motivates further research or innovations.
"Most taxa" means just about everything except maybe the root Domains.
Notice how you have to push your argument to what you consider the nether reaches of empirical science. But you are somewhat dated. The Cambrian Explosion is not the great unknown it once was.
However, if it would be easier on you, we can start with common descent of just vertebrates or dinosaurs. Grasp that and then we can work our way back in time.
Don't confuse the analogy with the thing itself. We observe a nested hierarchy of descent. And modern analysis indicates a scale invariant structure.
The large surviving branches are older, of course. Whenever a new niche opens up, perhaps through an organic innovation or change in the environment, life will rapidly diversify. This is similar to how islands are colonized, such as birds or turtles taking the place of grazing animals. This is not some violation of evolutionary theory.
The evidence indicates a nested hierarchy of descent with a scale invariant fine-structure. If we look at the history, we have mammals, primates, hominids, humans, a single lineage, in that order. (Notice that the containing class of mammals appears before the order primate. Guess where in history the origin of the phylum chordata has to be. Duh!)
Maybe Miller oversimplified. You might have to read something other than an introductory text.
What new evidence?
Of course it does. New hypotheses are constantly being generated and tested. Try to read a peer journal like Genetics or something.
It is all about testable hypotheses. There is no other kind of science.
Comment by Zachriel — June 8, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
June 9th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
I'm not sure why you attach "the nether reaches of empirical science" to the origin of the distinct body plans in the Cambrian explosion. We may know more about the Cambrian explosion (e.g. increased evidence that it is real, not merely appearance), but that increases rather than reduces the problem of the origin of the phyla.
We also observe that you are dodging the problem. A Dawinian process would predict that diversity should precede disparity. Disparity (i.e. morphological distance) ought to fan out over time, if it comes from accumulated differences coming from a common starting point. The fossil record shows great disparity in the origin of body plans (i.e. the distinct phyla), followed by diversity.
More dodging. The question is about the problem of the origin of the phyla, i.e. the origin of the fundamentally distinct body plans. These distinct body plans appear early rather than late, and we don't see the number of phyla increasing over time as we should expect if the ongoing descent with modification is the source of new phyla. Your answer tells nothing about the origin of these distinct body plans or resolving the discrepancy between theory and fact.
Still more dodging. To start with, you completely avoided the question. I asked what we should infer scientifically, if it is the case that what I've described is the reality. It's a question that examines your process of inference, e.g. whether you even permit consideration of inferences to intelligent agency, regardless of the discrepancies between unguided process theory and reality.
By avoiding the question, this would appear to shed light on your claim "There are no scientifically valid Intelligent Design inferences." Of course there wouldn't be, if none are permitted to be considered, regardless of evidence or discrepancies between evolutionary theory and reality.
Your description may be fine, but it is not helping your position. It is true that the higher/more general taxa precede the variations within them.
The problem is that when we trace back to the source, we find distinct and fundamentally different body plans appearing and diversifying independently. This is not what we would expect or predict if the phyla (plural) are caused by unguided descent from a common ancestor.
At this link, see the section on The Limits of Variation, Kazuo Kawano, "How Far Can the Neodarwinism Be Extended? A Consideration from the History of Higher Taxa in Coleoptera," Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum 91 (1998): 31-56
Thus, the "nested hierarchy of descent" is recognized and supported by the data, but leads to a problem. Because the higher taxa come earlier and diversity varies within the higher taxa, that creates rather than eases the problem of the origin of the original distinct frameworks / basic types / body plans.
Comment by eric — June 9, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
June 9th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
We observe that when new niches open up, there is tendency to rapidly diversify, but then many of these branches are pruned. Adaptive radiation and extinction are not something contrary to the Theory of Evolution.
If you want a tree analogy, a limb on a young tree may have several twigs, but only a couple may become branches. The other twigs die off, while the new branches sprout their own twigs. We would see an early radiation replaced by a couple of surviving branches with their own radiations. These are again replaced by a few survivors and more radiations. We rarely see a twig on the trunk of an established tree growing to become a mighty limb.
More specifically, we expect a nested hierarchy with aspects of scale invariance.
Just to reiterate. It's still a nested hierarchy. And we don't expect all the early branches to survive. A process of winnowing is not unexpected.
There are two aspects of phyla; morphological and cladistic.
Once complex body structures became available (possibly due to increased atmospheric oxygen), a variety of different body plans evolved to take advantage of the niche. These were winnowed out such that only a few branches survived.
From a cladistic vantage point, of course the origin of limbs precede the origin of their associated branches and twigs. Duh!
Oh, and it's still a nested hierarchy.
Are you claiming that every phyla appeared during the Cambrian Explosion with no predecessors?
As the Theory of Common Descent doesn't propose such a scenario, nor is it implicit in how evolution works, you're attacking a strawman of your own devising. We constantly see adaptive radiation in evolutionary history. It happens whenever a new niche opens up, either due to an organic innovation or a new environment. I pointed this out already.
The Theory of Common Descent states that these novel organisms descended from predecessor organisms. But there has been trouble resolving the branching issues as fossils of soft-bodied organisms from half-a-billion years ago are hard to come by. But it turns out there is now substantial evidence of evolution of various body plans before the Cambrian Explosion.
I said and you quoted, The evidence indicates a nested hierarchy of descent with a scale invariant fine-structure.
What should we infer? We should infer common descent. I'm not sure how much more plain I can be.
Sure there could be, and they can be considered. And if anyone proposes a testable hypothesis, then we can look at it. But keep in mind that you apparently continue to argue about the reality of Common Descent, but make reference to what you think about common descent in order to infer design.
You have to start with Common Descent. Or are you claiming that the organisms in the Cambrian Explosion did not have common ancestors and were created ex nihilo?
Let me add the requisite Duh!
Your misunderstanding of the Theory of Common Descent doesn't constitute a convincing argument.
But we're not even up to "unguided". A nested hierarchy is the inevitable result of descent on uncrossed lines, even if the variation is random, and even if there is no selection, intelligent or otherwise.
The origin of life may not be monophyletic. I've already mentioned that many times, in many different ways. The question is, do you agree that birds and toads have a common ancestor?
Comment by Zachriel — June 9, 2007 @ 3:31 pm