Tales from the quote mine: Leading Darwinists believe, with or without evidence – and why it matters

_{Denyse O'Leary

November 9, 2011

Culture, Darwinism, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Churning through the quote mine, we note that Richard Dawkins wrote,

Instead of examining the evidence for and against rival theories, I shall adopt a more armchair approach. My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories – p. 287, Blind Watchmaker

The structure of the current punditocracy prevents anyone from coming to a logical conclusion about what this means, while remaining a favourite of hair model TV. But in In the Beginning, Granville Sewell reminds us (p. 104) that it is hardly an unusual stance:

Olan Hyndman, in The Origin of Life and the Evolution of Living Things , [Hyndman 1952], calls Darwinism “the most irrational and illogical explanation of natural phenomena extant.” Yet he says “I have one strong faith, that scientific phenomena are invariable… any exception is as unthinkable as to maintain that thunderbolts are tossed at us by a man-like god named Zeus,” and he goes on to develop an alternative – and even more illogical – theory (Lamarckian, basically) of the causes of evolution. Jean Rostand [Rostand 1956], quoted in previous chapters, says “However obscure the causes of evolution appear to me to be, I do not doubt for a moment that they are entirely natural.” Hans Gaffron [Gaffron 1960], in a paper presented at the 1959 University of Chicago Centennial Congress Evolution After Darwin, presents a theory on the origin of life, but admits, “no shred of evidence, no single fact whatever, forces us to believe in it. What exists is only the scientists’ wish not to admit a discontinuity in nature and not to assume a creative act forever beyond comprehension.”

We’ve said it before: Darwinism is not a theory in science, it is a mood, in both elite and popular culture.

Elite culture know it is true without evidence, and popular culture feels it is true without evidence – which is why so much beyond-parody evolutionary psychology rolls through the pop science press unchallenged.

Comments

Chad D, First, I reject the premise that observed variation must be assumed to extrapolate indefinitely unless someone defines a barrier. It's obviously unreasonable to ask for a demonstration of evolution acting indefinitely. In fairness, there must be goalposts. No one seems to agree on them, but that should not be insurmountable. Second, what evidence we have (Lenski, etc.) indicates that there is a barrier. It may not be perfectly defined, but it is demonstrated every bit as consistently as the processes that run up against it. If we observed a person throwing a ball in the air but closed our eyes when it began to drop, we could get the inaccurate impression that the ball could ascend forever. Note that the barrier of gravity was recognized before it was understood. We don't need to understand why things vary within a limited range to recognize that they do. And the reasons why they do are hypothesized and supported. Some changes require a number of genetic or regulatory variations acting in combination, and there is no mechanism short of deliberate intent, planning, and orchestration known to achieve such results. I don't think anything is immutable. There's plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. But there's an evident barrier between variation and invention. We can't close our eyes to that.ScottAndrews2_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

GinoB continues to expose his ignorance:
And how many times have you been corrected on your misunderstanding that natural selection by itself isn’t the mechanism for evolutionary change? That NS is part of an iterative process the includes genetic changes and selection and the amassing of heritable traits?
Natural selection IS differential reproduction due to heritable random variation. IOW it IS all included. GinoB sez he does it for the lurkers- does what? Expose his ignorance? LoL!Joseph_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

The evolution of books: In his essay The Deniable Darwin, David Berlinski recounts the following:
I IMAGINE THIS story being told to me by Jorge Luis Borges one evening in a Buenos Aires cafe. His voice dry and infinitely ironic, the aging, nearly blind literary master observes that "the Ulysses," mistakenly attributed to the Irishman James Joyce, is in fact derived from "the Quixote." I raise my eyebrows. Borges pauses to sip discreetly at the bitter coffee our waiter has placed in front of him, guiding his hands to the saucer. "The details of the remarkable series of events in question may be found at the University of Leiden," he says. "They were conveyed to me by the Freemason Alejandro Ferri in Montevideo." Borges wipes his thin lips with a linen handkerchief that he has withdrawn from his breast pocket. "As you know," he continues, "the original handwritten text of the Quixote was given to an order of French Cistercians in the autumn of 1576." I hold up my hand to signify to our waiter that no further service is needed. "Curiously enough, for none of the brothers could read Spanish, the Order was charged by the Papal Nuncio, Hoyo dos Monterrey (a man of great refinement and implacable will), with the responsibility for copying the Quixote, the printing press having then gained no currency in the wilderness of what is now known as the department of Auvergne. Unable to speak or read Spanish, a language they not unreasonably detested, the brothers copied the Quixote over and over again, re-creating the text but, of course, compromising it as well, and so inadvertently discovering the true nature of authorship. Thus they created Fernando Lor's Los Hombres d'Estado in 1585 by means of a singular series of copying errors, and then in 1654 Juan Luis Samorza's remarkable epistolary novel Por Favor by the same means, and then in 1685, the errors having accumulated sufficiently to change Spanish into French, Moliere's Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, their copying continuous and indefatigable, the work handed down from generation to generation as a sacred but secret trust, so that in time the brothers of the monastery, known only to members of the Bourbon house and, rumor has it, the Englishman and psychic Conan Doyle, copied into creation Stendhal's The Red and the Black and Flaubert's Madame Bovary, and then as a result of a particularly significant series of errors, in which French changed into Russian, Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Ilyich and Anna Karenina. Late in the last decade of the 19th century there suddenly emerged, in English, Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest, and then the brothers, their numbers reduced by an infectious disease of mysterious origin, finally copied the Ulysses into creation in 1902, the manuscript lying neglected for almost thirteen years and then mysteriously making its way to Paris in 1915, just months before the British attack on the Somme, a circumstance whose significance remains to be determined." I sit there, amazed at what Borges has recounted. "Is it your understanding, then," I ask, "that every novel in the West was created in this way?" "Of course," replies Borges imperturbably. Then he adds: "Although every novel is derived directly from another novel, there is really only one novel, the Quixote."
And there you have it. To argue against that story is to argue against evolutionism. But therein lies the problem. To accept that story as even possibly valid demonstrates a lack of grasp on reality- but then again so does the acceptance of evolutionism.Joseph_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

Umm that is speculation, not evidence.Joseph_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

It has to be conceded that there we are stuck with what we've got. If the remains of a succession have been swept under the carpet of a continental plate, say, and there is only one descendant species, then that really is it as far as investigating the transition is concerned. We try to reconstruct history with the surviving evidence, and fill in the gaps based upon known processes. All we can look at, genetically, is the DNA in surviving species. We can look at that one descendant species, and its nearest modern relative using the various phylogenetic methods, and we can infer with a pretty high degree of certainty that they are related by descent. But as regards the differences between them - particularly if that other species has no close relatives either - we can only say that some of that was due to change in lineage A, and some to change in lineage B. There is no hope of untangling this 'flat' view in order to determine an actual evolutionary path. Additionally, selection/drift are statistical phenomena building up from individual lives. However much one may be able to determine about selection coefficients in modern populations, we can only do that because we have the context that allows them to be investigated. We have no way of reconstructing the past environment, down to the local interactions, population sizes, epistasis, ecology and linkage effects that would impinge upon the calculation. And we could be looking for several million separate changes, including the ones that have been lost, which affect the survivorship of the ones that survive. So no. Any more than I could reconstruct my dad's genome from my brother and I, I could not give you the genetic changes that led from, say, non-flying rodents to bats. Does that matter? It really depends if you want it to. If I were to take a book and change one word a year, after 100,000 years I would have a totally different book. At any point in that process, one could take a look and say "it's barely changed. You haven't proven anything". Or "It is no longer viable - you have corrupted the book". Or "You cannot show the succession of changes made, so I don't believe there was a transition." So ISTM that the micro/macro debate boils down to how much store one sets on the 'anchoring' of species upon a particular set of textual variants. Evolutionists simply don't - processes observable today are perfectly capable of extrapolation indefinitely. Is that a questionable position to take? There needs to be a reason to drop it - and I'm afraid mutagenic experiments aren't enough. Clearly, in my scenario, one is degrading the information in the book. It doesn't fully become the other book until 100,000 years later. But of course it is only an analogy. All intermediates in the biological transition must be viable. Were we to parachute into their time, we would be happy to call them 'species' and, if that was our preference, 'immutable'. So ISTM that you see species as compartmentalised in some way, temporally as well as laterally. Something must say change can progress thus far but no further. I'm sure you've been asked before, but what mediates this barrier?Chas D_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews2
We used to think that mice and men were distinguished by individual genes.
When did science think that? The 1950s? We used to think that space travel and organ transplants were impossible too. Funny how science continues to make discoveries and increase our understanding, while some people are content to never learn.
(Attached are several handy find-and-replace texts you may use to update your research papers to the ’21st century view.’)
You're thinking of the Intelligent Design Creationists in Dover who used find-and-replace to change 'Creationist' into 'Design Proponent' in the book Of Pandas and People. Remember 'cdesignproponentists'? It was one of many pieces of damning evidence that sunk the Creationists' ship.GinoB_{November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

ScottAndrews2
Why focus on what I’m conceding (at least for the sake of argument) rather than on the remaining question I’m seeking to isolate?
The big problem is that you’re asking a non-sensical question and making non-sensical demands. No science anywhere can produce the level of detail you keep demanding. Maybe an example will help. Science observes river canyons being formed from the combined erosive action of the flowing river water plus the effects of wind and rain on the exposed banks. Science observes the same mechanisms at work today in the Grand Canyon and concludes the same mechanisms carved the canyon. Along comes some ID proponent who claims “if you can’t give me evidence of every last cubic foot of soil removed by the flowing Colorado river, if you can’t tell me the date and magnitude of every last wind storm and rain storm that helped erode the sides, then there is no explanation for the Grand Canyon formation!” Do you see the problem?GinoB_{November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

Translation of the above: We used to think that mice and men were distinguished by individual genes. It turns out that they share more genes than previously thought, but are largely distinguished by regulatory patterns and expression of those genes. Therefore with remarkable ease we will turn attention away from gradually changing genes and turn to gradually changing expressions of genes. We are confident that the "big picture" won't change. The narrative is sufficiently vague and fluffy that we can swap out an entire cornerstone without having to account for any specific details tied to the previous "perspective." (Attached are several handy find-and-replace texts you may use to update your research papers to the '21st century view.') Rather than not providing any pathways of genetic changes and selective influences, we will now focus on not providing any pathways of varying expressions of genes and the selection of regulatory changes.ScottAndrews2_{November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

The traditional view has been that related species differ in their repertoire of individual “genes.” But a more contemporary Evo-Devo perspective is that much of morphological change in evolution occurs by modification of expression through alteration of enhancers and other transcriptional regulatory signals, as well as distinct patterns of epigenetic formatting [1063–1067]. Comparing mice and men, the “genes” stay largely the same, but their deployment differs. The bones, ligaments, muscles, skin, and other tissues are similar, but their morphogeneses and growth follow distinct patterns. In other words, humans and mice share most of their proteins, and the most obvious differences in morphology and metabolism can be attributed to distinct regulatory patterns in late embryonic and postnatal development. Shapiro, James A. (2011-06-08). Evolution: A View from the 21st Century (FT Press Science) (Kindle Locations 2221-2227). FT Press. Kindle Edition.
Petrushka_{November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

Petrushka,
Feel free to mention a specific transition that you don’t believe happened. Let’s see what the literature says about it.
Really, after I typed that whole post explaining that whether or not the transition happened isn't the point? Why focus on what I'm conceding (at least for the sake of argument) rather than on the remaining question I'm seeking to isolate? Let's say that whales are direct descendants of land-dwelling mammals. Fine. Do you see that even allowing that does not even begin to validate a darwinian explanation? The explanation doesn't even exist. Something varied, something was selected, lots and lots of times, and some stuff drifted. In that one sentence I have stated the entirety of the darwinian explanation of that transition. Find me another detail that isn't a post-hoc ad on. In a sense, ID concedes the transition. It does not dispute it. So what argue for it? Explain it instead.ScottAndrews2_{November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

Pick me Pick me! The transition between a mutable chemical heredity (whatever that was) and the mutable semiotic heredity which we find today.Upright BiPed_{November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

Feel free to mention a specific transition that you don't believe happened. Let's see what the literature says about it.Petrushka_{November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

Petrushka,
OK, but “kind” appears to best fit the kingdom level, based on evidence of descent.
It's important to distinguish between the various objections against common descent. ID has no objection. Besides, evolutionary theory omits mechanisms when mapping common descent, so there's no conflict. Some objections are to the descent itself. Perhaps a line of transitional fossils is questioned, or some ancestry (i.e. birds) is less obvious than claimed. In other cases the ancestry seems reasonable enough, but it's the mechanisms that are called into question. Perhaps orbital web spiders are descended from ground-dwelling spiders, but can evolutionary mechanisms account for it? So when we discuss objections to common descent, we're no longer talking ID. And it's reasonable to accept descent in some cases, question it in others, and question the mechanisms, even if one recognizes that both descent and evolutionary mechanisms are valid and real. Denying an instance of descent does not mean denying descent, and rejecting a conclusion of selection or drift does not mean denying those mechanisms. There's no reason to think that any are always-or-never propositions.ScottAndrews2_{November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

No one is arguing against incremental change potential which bring about great variation within the same kind of organism
OK, but "kind" appears to best fit the kingdom level, based on evidence of descent.Petrushka_{November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

Scott, you forgot to tell us if the treehopper wing-->helmet evolution was microevolution or macroevolution. You also forgot to tell us the barrier that prevents micro-e change from accumulating into macro-e.
SA2: But even if the change is significant, you have not demonstrated evolution until you explain the change in detailed evolutionary terms – incremental genetic changes and selection.
The mechanisms have been explained to you and evidence has been presented to you ad nauseum. It appears you're not physically capable of learning or understanding. BTW Scott you haven't explained anything. You've made the same lame excuses for ignoring the data without any attempt on your part to explain the data using your ID paradigm. Given your track record, I'm sure you'll keep repeating your misunderstanding of actual evolutionary theory and demanding to see NS in the fossil record. But that's OK. Your silly caricature of the actual theory gives scientifically knowledgeable folks something to laugh at. For my part, I'll keep posting the papers and evidence you say doesn't exist. Oh, and you still haven't given us your explanation for the canid genetic evidence. Any time this century.GinoB_{November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

GinoB, You're reading far more into the significance of these treehoppers than even the author of the paper did. They are not an evolutionary messiah.
all the pieces in the T1 section co-evolved together – the blood vessels, muscles, nerves, etc. Tell us Scott, was that a micro-evolutionary change or a macro-evolutionary one?
Have you ever seen a two-headed cat? They have muscles, nerves, and blood vessels too. The "helmets" are expressions of unused wings. Wings have muscles, nerves, and blood vessels. And, as usual, research explains only what is there, not how it got there. Yes, they were wings, and yes, the regulation of those genes failed, but what were the steps? What was the first step? Why was it selected? Some of this is guessed at. For most there isn't even a guess. There's no actual explanation of evolution at work. I'm not faulting the research. It's interesting. It just isn't the holy grail you think it is.
what would stop a mouse-like creature’s paw from being ‘recycled’ into a bat’s wing?
Now we're back to this 'what would stop it, what prevents it' reasoning. If you or someone else thinks this happened, it's up to you to explain what that pathway might have been, taking into account all of the physical changes required, the behavioral changes required (you can give a rat wings but it won't start flying) and how it might have occurred in selectable incremental changes. That's a little bit harder than asking what would stop it. Here is the key point you miss again and again and again: Observation is not explanation. Observing wings fused together for a decorative hat does not explain how they got that way. Evolution is about the transition. If you cannot explain the transition, you cannot explain evolution.
And how many times have you been corrected on your misunderstanding that natural selection by itself isn’t the mechanism for evolutionary change?
None. I've never expressed such a misunderstanding. There is more to evolution than natural selection. Some minimize selection in favor of drift. But these are critical, necessary factors. If you have an evolutionary narrative, transition, or tree but omit the the specific operations of such mechanism from the explanation, you have exactly, precisely nothing. Take for example your canid tree. How can this demonstrate a series of incremental genetic changes which were selected if it neither identifies the specific changes or states why they were selected? You just arrange what you see in a tree and assume all the important details. Or rodent-to-bat evolution. One regulatory difference is observed, but again, the actual mechanics of evolution, individual variation and selection, are missing. The research does nothing more than more precisely identify the differences between rodents and bats. Again, the details of how such a transition might have occurred are omitted in favor of a vague assertion that something varied and something was selected. No science. Requiring evidence substantial or significant or macroevolutionary (pick one) change described in terms of the mechanics of evolution is not moving the goalposts. But even if the change is significant, you have not demonstrated evolution until you explain the change in detailed evolutionary terms - incremental genetic changes and selection. To present an observed change, call it evolution, and present a post-hoc narrative of phenotypic changes and selection is merely begging the question. I've covered every base with you, and covered it again. This single post highlights the insufficiency of every last piece of so-called evidence that you have Googled. I shall bookmark it and henceforth cite it and/or quote from it. That way I won't have to choose between typing it all over again or not responding at all. And you won't be able to pretend that I haven't explained it to you.ScottAndrews2_{November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

Petrushka:
By accepting microevolution you are conceding the entire course of vertebrate diversification, which has been accomplished pretty much entirely by incremental modifications of regulatory networks, and which has required almost no new genes.
Evidence please. Or admit that you just made it up.Joseph_{November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT}

Eocene I totally agree with you on this point. However, it is extremely hard to argue this through due to the fact that self-organisation does happen. The question to ask is, where are the limits of self-organisation? ID posits concrete bounds on information gain. TOE extrapolates what is known to occur in highly non-equilibrium media on the verge of chaos, over to living systems. This extrapolation is problematic, to say the least (cf recent Chaitin's work on TOE mathematical modelling).Eugene S_{November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT}

1.3.2.2.1 Re the witty remark about Marco Polo and macroevolution: The only exception is that I can believe that Marco Polo went to Asia because that was highly plausible and can be demonstrated by using the replicas of ships of his days. Macroevolution is an unsupported statement. Macroevolution, if you like, says that because Marco Polo went to India, he also went on foot to the Moon.Eugene S_{November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
02:20 AM
2
02
20
AM
PDT}

As a armchair Sherlock Holmes one can see evolution by Darwin and the rest was greatly just a line of reasoning. All the time they say that micio examples of evolution, if even that true, mean macro evolution is true . Yet this is not biological evidence or science. Lines of reasoning are just that. Science must be more then this if science is evolutions ticket to truth. A flaw, missed by creationism(s), was that Darwin and company were making great conclusions without biological investigation or evidence. They really really were making a line of reasoning. Nothing wrong with that but don't claim your theory is scientific. All the micro evolution in the world and proved will never evolve into macro scientific evidence without scientific investigation going on. Got'im!Robert Byers_{November 10, 2011
November
11
Nov
10
10
2011
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT}

It's always interesting to be told that the right to make rational observations is something that one man can hold from another. It's somewhat less interesting to be told how to earn it from those who think they own to give.Upright BiPed_{November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT}

Scott Andrews: "The ‘cornerstone of biology’ cannot be a generalization. Someone’s got to count some of those steps." ==== Generalizations allow for muddling or graying the discussion. Take the often used terminology, "Natural Selection". The term is inserted where no real pin pointed environmental trigger for change is capable of being explained for any particular subject. The reader is expected to know that such blind unintelligent forces just happen to accomplish amazing biological events and the reader must accept so without questioning any Lab Coat's explanations for no other reason than they have in their possession a Phd. The insertion of "Natural Selection" allows the user of the term, to use it as a sort of escape clause that permits the Lab Coat(in their own mind) to not be under any obligation to pin point and explain any detailed proofs of a matter. Any pressing for further clarification on the part of a skeptic not convinced by the scientific myth given as a fact and you are branded anti-science. Yet all the while excusing themselves from any further detailed explanation, you are then condescendingly dismissed. ---- Petrushka: "By accepting microevolution . . " ==== Let's be honest here. The word/term microevolution is nothing more than an attempt at shoehorning the word evolution into any discussion. No one is arguing against incremental change potential which bring about great variation within the same kind of organism, be it plants, fish animals, birds, etc. But Natural Laws of species barriers or boundaries don't allow for the chaos that evolution is supposed to champion for no apparent reasons. The "macro" option is nothing more than faith statements backed up by generalized storytelling.Eocene_{November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT}

By accepting microevolution you are conceding the entire course of vertebrate diversification, which has been accomplished pretty much entirely by incremental modifications of regulatory networks, and which has required almost no new genes.Petrushka_{November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT}

ID proponents *could* approach the challenge of scientific respectability the way everybody else in science does - do the hard work and research, present the positive results, have the work independently verified. They could earn their way into universities, institutions, and publications. But they won't. Way easier to sit on the sidelines and bellyache.GinoB_{November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

DWG,
My personal reaction is that the way to vanquish an inferior opponent is in direct combat, not by decreeing that the opponent shall not be permitted to enter the field of battle!
Which side are you referring to? Perhaps you could suggest this to the universities, institutions, and publications that seek to suppress and revile the very discussion of design while maintaining that their own champion is too busy doing victory laps and posing for statues and should no longer condescend to combat opponents.ScottAndrews2_{November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

My point wasn’t that complicated.
Neither was my response. You've ignored my response in order to repeat what you had already said. So you can crawl off your high horse.Upright BiPed_{November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

ScottAndrews2
You’ve hit the nail on the head. The ‘cornerstone of biology’ cannot be a generalization. Someone’s got to count some of those steps.
How profound. So if historians can't count the exact number of steps Marco Polo took on his various journeys to Asia, that means he never left Venice.GinoB_{November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

ScottAndrews2
I don’t care if you have a billion research papers if none of them is about anything more substantial than these treehoppers you keep reminding us of.
First it was 'significant'. Then it was 'novel'. Now it's 'substantial'. Any more subjective terms you want to hide behind?
I responded in detail.
You responded, but certainly not in detail, and you certainly didn't address the issues I raised. You did seem to admit that the treehopper's various helmet shapes did indeed evolve from a completely different body part being co-opted. I believe you referred to it as "the recycling of what evolved previously", right? And all the pieces in the T1 section co-evolved together - the blood vessels, muscles, nerves, etc. Tell us Scott, was that a micro-evolutionary change or a macro-evolutionary one? Since you think an insect's wings can be 'recycled' by evolution into a defensive/mimic helmet, what would stop a mouse-like creature's paw from being 'recycled' into a bat's wing? After all, it's just one similar part being modified into another function, just like the treehopper's wings to helmet transition.
And if I haven’t said it a thousand times, a phylogenetic tree can no more depict evolutionary mechanisms such as selection then a family tree diagram can identify why your great-great-great grandfather married your great-great-great grandmother.
And how many times have you been corrected on your misunderstanding that natural selection by itself isn't the mechanism for evolutionary change? That NS is part of an iterative process the includes genetic changes and selection and the amassing of heritable traits?
Why do you continually post one link after another without attempting to reason on any of it in your own words or even indicate that you’ve read them yourselves?
I mainly do it for the lurkers, including adding my own discussions, because you still refuse to read or learn anything on the topic. Your continued mistake in thinking NS *by itself* drives evolution is evidence enough of that. BTW, I'm still waiting for you to explain the canid genetic evidence. Any time this year.GinoB_{November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

DWG,
You have forgotten the “law of confirmation bias” which holds that anything not ratifying, or even anything refuting, a foregone conclusion simply does not count as evidence.
I don't place myself above bias. I suppose I'm heavily biased. What am I to do? Stop reasoning on the matter for myself? Shall I conclude that proponents of abiogenesis and darwinism are immune to such bias? Shall I reason on the volume of research papers or on their contents? Confirmation bias is what enables one to see a phylogenetic tree, a genome comparison, or a series of fossils and see support for an incremental process of variation and selection, never stopping to question how that data could possibly demonstrate such a process. My biases and yours are pretty obvious. We don't have to deny them. We just have to work around them the best we can. The scientific method is supposed to help us with that, but it's subject to every flaw of those who practice it.ScottAndrews2_{November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

DWG, It's slow like a glacier. It wouldn't make sense for anyone to expect to see it happen before their eyes, or even be able to trace a significant change in the span of recorded history. Got that. In this particular case I am not citing the absence of evidence as evidence of absence. I'm playing fair. But that does not make the case for evolution, nor does it address the contradictory evidence.
my reading of the theory is that “macro” is either disallowed altogether, or allowed only as a generalization covering countless tiny steps.
You've hit the nail on the head. The 'cornerstone of biology' cannot be a generalization. Someone's got to count some of those steps.ScottAndrews2_{November 9, 2011
November
11
Nov
9
09
2011
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply