A Sermon by Jerry Coyne on Biogeography

_{Cornelius Hunter
July 14, 2009

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

It is remarkable that people pay evolutionist Jerry Coyne to indoctrinate their children according to his dogmatic religious beliefs. But they do, and he does. And the University of Chicago biology professor has now enshrined evolution’s theological convictions in his new book, Why Evolution is True, for all to see. Here is one example:

Continue here

Comments

JTaylor,
But these statements that Coyne, Berra and others are making are in response to Creationist ideas, which by definition are religious ideas...
I'm not sure I understand your argument here. I agree that Berra's statement is in response to a religious idea (at least a hypothetical one). Doesn't that mean it's automatically a religious statement? Anyway, recall what Berra said: God would not have done X. If that's not a religious claim, I don't know what is.herb_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

Like Mark Frank already said, one can comparatively test two hypotheses against eachother. Under an ID paradigm, there IS no reason to expect any pattern (re e.g. fossils) more than one should expect any other. The likelihood of one pattern is just as low as any other. Under evolution, however, one can independently verify the assumpions one uses to test one's hypothesis. For example, continental drift can be tested without checking a single fossil. One can, for example, check the distribution of rocks or, heck, even measure the changing distance between two stationary objects. The likelihood that the pattern of fossils is due to evolutionary processes is, therefore, higher. There is no theology here, just bayesianism. (Have some of the evolutionists Cornelius quotes used "religious assumptions"? Some of them could be read that way (e.g. Dodson), but not all (e.g. Mayr, Futuyma). Instead of claiming that the creator should have done something a certain way, it seems to me like they are saying that the creator could have done it a certain way, just as it could have done it some other way. The difference is significant)Hoki_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

Jerry Coyne's thoughts on punctuated equilibrium: "In the past 25 years, Eldredge and Gould have proposed so many different versions of their theory that it is difficult to describe it with any accuracy. Initially, punctuated equilibrium theory described an ubiquitous pattern of morphological stasis in fossil lineages, interrupted by rare but rapid bursts of change that accompanied the splitting of lineages (speciation). These rapid changes were also said to be random with respect to long-term evolutionary trends, which were caused by the differential persistence of species having different traits (1). Our concern as evolutionary geneticists (2) has been with Eldredge and Gould's repeated revisions of the mechanisms proposed for stasis and rapid evolution. Punctuated equilibrium originally attracted great attention because it invoked distinctly non-Darwinian mechanisms for stasis and change (3). These mechanisms were said to decouple macroevolution from microevolution, leading to Gould's pronouncement that "if Mayr's characterization of the synthetic theory [of evolution] is accurate, then that theory, as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy" (4, p. 120). Yet many evolutionists saw no obvious contradiction between punctuated pattern and Darwinian process: Stasis can result from stabilizing selection (for example, long periods of environmental stability); rapid evolution can result from selection-driven responses to sudden environmental change or invasion of new habitats; and the association of morphological change with speciation can result from the fact that both are promoted by adaptation to new environments (5). Eldredge and Gould originally ascribed stasis to developmental constraints: Organisms could not respond to selection because their developmental programs were inherently resistant to change (1, (3, (4, (6). This non-Darwinian explanation, which was severely criticized (5), was supplanted by the notion (7). that species show morphological stasis because their constituent populations adapt to diverse local habitats, resulting in no net change in the "average" phenotype of the species. This idea is inconsistent with their view that developmental constraints often prevent adaptive change. Gould and Eldredge now suggest that stasis may be caused by species tracking their habitats as the environment changes [an idea proposed earlier by Maynard Smith (8)], which is a form of stabilizing selection. They also appeal to Sewall Wright's shifting balance theory of evolution, suggesting that a species composed of partially isolated populations cannot evolve as a unit. This suggestion appears to be a misinterpretation of Wright's theory, which he consistently presented as a mechanism for adaptive transformation of an entire species (9). Partial isolation of populations resulting from spatial separation does not preclude favorable or neutral mutations from spreading through an entire species (10). The suggestion by Eldredge and Gould that "[g]enetic theory should have explicitly predicted stasis in numerically rich species" contradicts theoretical arguments showing that natural selection is most effective in large populations (11) and does not account for abundant evidence from artificial selection experiments confirming this prediction (12). Eldredge and Gould have proposed an equally diverse array of explanations for rapid "punctuated" evolution. It was initially ascribed to the breakdown of developmental constraints in small, speciating populations (a non-Darwinian process) (1) and later to the occurrence of single mutations with large effects (including homeotic mutations) or to chromosome rearrangements affecting gene expression (3, (4, (6). Gould, for example, asserted (4), p. 127) I envisage a potential saltational origin for the essential features of key adaptations. Why may we not imagine that gill arch bones of an ancestral agnathan moved forward in one step to surround the mouth and form proto-jaws? But Gould and Eldredge later said (13), p. 226; see also(10), p. 66) that "Opponents now accept that punctuated equilibrium was never meant as a saltational theory... ." Yet even this statement was later qualified. Commenting on the experiments of Elena et al. in E. coli (14), which showed punctuated change in cell size resulting from sporadic mutations of large effect, Gould noted that these results are "deeply similar to [punctuated equilibrium]. There is an underlying commonality in the style of change" (14),. Eldredge and Gould now appear to see no connection between punctuated equilibrium and the results of Elena et al. Eldredge and Gould's disclaimer about the role of species selection in punctuated equilibrium theory (our attribution of this idea to Elena et al. was a typographical error) is not consistent with their numerous published statements that species selection is a major engine of macroevolution (4); p. 119; see also (3, 6). If a scientific theory is to be of any value as a tool for exploring the real world, it must have some stability as a set of propositions open to empirical test. Punctuated equilibrium has undergone so many transformations that it is hard to distinguish its core of truth from the "statement that morphological evolution sometimes occurs episodically.""jerry_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

Khan, Yes I do. Do you? You confused Lamarck with natural selection and you are questioning what I know. Darwin endorsed Lamarck or have you forgot. Lamarck is about how genetic material is inherited. Natural selection is about which offspring survive. Different concepts. Capice? As far as Gould's ideas, i will leave it to up to wiser heads than you to be the decider on this issue. But if you want to inform us all, go ahead and provide an essay on gradualism so we can all understand what you think it is. If you want to include punctuated equilibrium too, be my guest but see the next post as to what Jerry Coyne thinks.jerry_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

Herb: "Cornelius is not simply talking about presuppositions here, he’s referring to specific statements Coyne and others make concerning the actions and intent of God. If you read the Berra quote again, you will see he is saying that if Earth and its fauna are God’s Creation, He would have no reason to put “similar” species near each other. That’s clearly a religious claim." But these statements that Coyne, Berra and others are making are in response to Creationist ideas, which by definition are religious ideas. I don't think they themselves are making religious claims but are trying to point out some of the implications of the Creationist position. I don't know the religious positions of Coyne and Berra but it's quite possible that neither of them even have a belief in God at all, but are merely postulating that if God was the creator there are at best some puzzling anomalies in the way the creation was carried out.JTaylor_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

jerry, for that matter, do you understand gradualism? here's a simple question to gauge whether you do or not: does Gould's idea of punctuated equlibria concern micro- or macro-evolution (by your definitions)?Khan_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

jerry, do you understand the difference between speciation and natural selection?Khan_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

Nakashima and khan, The blind leading the blind. Here a prime example of the anti ID person willing to say anything if it contradicts what a pro ID person says. Von Buch is being given credit for first noticing allopatric speciation and we have the RFD's reflexively complaining.jerry_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

"What then are your own views on biogeography and, say for example, the Australian fauna?" Well what are the alternatives since gradualism doesn't do it? We have a mystery.jerry_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

jerry,
A species goes into a new environment and changes due to the environment. It is adapting to the environment. Hello. Does that ring a bell somewhere.
that sounds more like Lamarck than natural selection.. I do see the idea of adaptation there, but not via natural selection.Khan_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

Pav, If you go to http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/BRI_BUN/BUCH_CHRISTIAN_LEOPOLD_VON_BARO.html You will see reference to a treatise on the Canary Islands. This is the publication. It is quoted by various people and shows up in Google books a couple times. Put the first 8-10 words of the quote in google and you will get hits on some places it is quoted.jerry_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

JTaylor,
Calling these assumptions “religious” is really like saying that anybody’s presuppositions are religious in nature. We could easily do the same with IC. I could say that beacuse a person applies CSE and explanatory filters to a artifact such as the flagellum and the concludes that it is IC, the reason they do this is because of a prior religious assumption that they accept the concepts of IC, CSI etc. What’s the difference?
Cornelius is not simply talking about presuppositions here, he's referring to specific statements Coyne and others make concerning the actions and intent of God. If you read the Berra quote again, you will see he is saying that if Earth and its fauna are God's Creation, He would have no reason to put "similar" species near each other. That's clearly a religious claim.
Besides, I thought most of the people liked religious things ;-)
Heh---I made the same objection myself to Cornelius' argument at first! Now that I see what he is saying, and how he is using the term "religious", I no longer have a problem with it.herb_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

"I don’t read natural selection in that quote of von Buch." You have to be blind not to see the same idea. A species goes into a new environment and changes due to the environment. It is adapting to the environment. Hello. Does that ring a bell somewhere. It is exactly the same idea just not Darwin's words which were based on artificial selection. Von Buch had greater vision because he foresaw gene flow which is when he said they don't meet any of the old gang so they cannot revert. I mean this is 40 years pre Mendel and 90 years pre Morgan. Fantastic Insight. And Charlie knew about von Buch and what he said. All Charlie did was add some Razzle Dazzle and have a choir singing his tune. Charlie ran a massive PR campaign for his ideas which turned out basically wrong and the good parts were borrowed.jerry_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

When reading OOS, you can't help but be struck with Darwin's constant invocation of "special creation". This is both a straw man argument, and, basically, no more an argument than saying: "Special Creation can't explain biodiversity." Well, so what! But does this observation then render all of what Darwin proposes correct? Absolutely not. But Darwin surely thinks that it does. So here, in the OOS, we have an argument that spells out all kinds of "difficulties" the theory must overcome, but which is to be accepted simply because some straw man version of what some religionists consider to have occurred seems even MORE 'difficult' to accept. It really is a wonder that Darwinism ever got off the ground. jerry: That's a great quote. Where does it come from? Mr. Nakashima: Indeed, the quote jerry includes does not invoke natural selection. But doesn't this then mean that speciation can take place without the intervention of NS? von Buch's observation possibly gives the correct view of "creation": that it was both 'specific'---the various 'genera' were created---and 'aspecific', in that the direction in which 'speciation' takes place is predicated not on any preset format, but by the interaction of the organisms with their particular environments (likely interacting with a preset format).PaV_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

Dr. Hunter's point is clear and easily understood: Claims of what a Creator/Designer would or would not do are metaphysical/religious in character. To base a conclusion on such a premise renders that conclusion a religious one.wombatty_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Herb: "This is important, because without this type of religious premise, Darwinism would be dead in the water. If we found two populations of birds, say, one on a volcanic island and one on a nearby mainland, which appeared to be closely related based on morphology or genetic evidence, we could not deduce that they are related by common ancestry without Coyne’s religious assumption." Calling these assumptions "religious" is really like saying that anybody's presuppositions are religious in nature. We could easily do the same with IC. I could say that beacuse a person applies CSE and explanatory filters to a artifact such as the flagellum and the concludes that it is IC, the reason they do this is because of a prior religious assumption that they accept the concepts of IC, CSI etc. What's the difference? Yes, perhaps evolutionists may bring certain presuppositions to the the table, but so do the ID supporters - and in fact who doesn't? Everybody's religious then, so what? Besides, I thought most of the people liked religious things ;-)JTaylor_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Mr Jerry, I don't read natural selection in that quote of von Buch. I do see radiation and geographic isolation, but not selection.Nakashima_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Dr. Hunter, You clearly have issues with the standard evolutionary perspectives on biogeography. What then are your own views on biogeography and, say for example, the Australian fauna? I didn't find any alternative explanations offered in your piece. Or do you not have any?JTaylor_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

idnet.com.au,
If this is correct then it is not very likely that the fossils were laid down in a world wide flood. What am I missing? I don’t see this as having anything to do with theology.
The religious premise that Coyne holds is that a Designer would not have arranged the fossils in the particular patterns we observe today (such as they are). For example, here's the Tim Berra quote that Cornelius cites: “if special creation were really how things came to be, there would be no reason for species on volcanic islands to resemble the inhabitants of the nearest land mass.” Berra is clearly making a religious claim here---he's telling us what God would or would not have done. This is important, because without this type of religious premise, Darwinism would be dead in the water. If we found two populations of birds, say, one on a volcanic island and one on a nearby mainland, which appeared to be closely related based on morphology or genetic evidence, we could not deduce that they are related by common ancestry without Coyne's religious assumption.herb_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

The Darwinist, like the YEC's, who I assume Coyne means, are adamant in their interpretation of evolutionary data. There is no give as we see here on this site all the time. The anti ID people here are caricatures. It is impossible to have a rational conversation with them because they must defend their dogma to the hilt and as such make those who disagree with them look bad. Sort of like some religious zealots.jerry_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

Here is a minor aside because it has to do with biogeography. The following quote was made 34 years before the OOS and while Darwin was a teenager. "The individuals of a genus strike out over the continents, move to far-distant places, form varieties (on account of the difference of the localities, of the food and the soil), which owing to their segregation (geographical isolation) cannot interbreed with other varieties and thus be returned to the original main type. Finally, these varieties become constant and turn into separate species. Later they may again reach the range of other varieties which have changed in a like manner, and the two will now no longer cross and thus they behave as two very different species." Why isn't this man credited with a major role in the evolution debate. He is essentially expressing the natural selection argument in 1825 for the formation of new species due to geographical isolation and new environments. His name is Leopold von Buch.jerry_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Claiming that a particular kind of intelligence (with particular motives, ability, aesthetics, etc.) is contra-indicated by the evidence, is the same as saying that a particular kind of common descent evolution (the gradualistic tree)is contra-indicated by the evidence. So?William J. Murray_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank says: "With carefully chosen religious assumptions you can make the likelihood of any observed outcome as high as you wish." Also, with carefully chosen evolutionary stories, you can make the likelihood of any observed outcome as high as you wish.William J. Murray_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

Creationism is hard-pressed to explain these patterns: to do so, it would have to propose that there were an endless number of successive extinctions and creations all over the world, and that each set of newly created species were made to resemble older ones that lived in the same place.
Well, he has a point. It is as great a mistake to demand that the Bible be accepted as dogmatically true with regard to observations of nature as it is for undirected evolution to be accepted as such. The moral teachings of scripture are a completely different subject, of course, as are reports of observed historical events. And yes you can be a YECer and still a quite reasonable person and good scientist just so long as you don't distort (or make up) data to fit your view or require such data that contradicts your view to be hidden.tribune7_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

Ah, I see that your are recycling some 2006 material, Cornelius:
Twenty five years ago evolutionist Douglas Futuyma wrote that "The molelike and wolflike animals of Australia are marsupials, clearly related to each other, because only marsupial ancestors had reached Australia." [3] Once again, forcing the evidence into the evolution paradigm failed as a few years later placental fossil species were discovered in Australia.
Now for the "new" post:
In his book Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution Douglas Futuyma wrote that “The molelike and wolflike animals of Australia are marsupials, clearly related to each other, because only marsupial ancestors had reached Australia.” Once again, forcing the evidence into the evolution paradigm failed as a few years later placental fossil species were discovered in Australia.
Very eco-friendly. Well, except for the wasted electricity and all that. But anyway... Basically, you're picking on Futuyama for not being able to see into the future when he wrote the 1st edition of that book back in the early Eighties. He can't be rightly accused of forcing the evidence when there wasn't any evidence for him to force and wouldn't be for years to come, as you so helpfully pointed out. But actually, you've got that wrong too: a fossil bat was found in 1982, probably round about the time Futuyama was writing (given that it was released in 1983), but, well, it was a bat and one related to European species so it's pretty obvious that it flew to Australia. Also, not really a candidate for overthrowing the Marsupial Overlords of the Ancient Outback, so nothing to force there even assuming Futuyama knew about it before his book went to press. But, yeah, all the other placental fossils were years in the future. So, anyone want to guess what happened after those future fossils were found? Scientists started rethinking the old picture. What ever is the matter with those people? Chronology aside, so far, the Australian placental fossils only represent a few species (two bats and a small rodent and also a diminutive little creature for which only a single tooth is certain), and for the most part are known from just a few bits and pieces at very specific sites (the 1982 bat is the exception), so it's hardly like everything known about Australian natural history was suddenly invalidated. It's a fantastic stretch to think that invalidation would extend to evolutionary theory itself.dbthomas_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

Steve Fuller (4), "He’s criticising the way creationism is being cast in Coyne’s argument, namely, in a very extreme form, on the basis of which you can already tell that it is not very likely going to be true." But it ISN'T true. It claims the Earth is 6000 years old. That isGaz_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

I think you people are missing Hunter's point. He's criticising the way creationism is being cast in Coyne's argument, namely, in a very extreme form, on the basis of which you can already tell that it is not very likely going to be true. Coyne is so convinced that Darwinian evolution is true that he can't envisage a minimum point of testable difference with alternative theories but rather imagines that opponents must hold a wildly different and preposterous view. And of course, Coyne probably excludes his creationist straw man with his evidence -- but not much else that might be considered legitimate opposition to Darwinism, even given his own examples. In this respect, Coyne is like the theologian who automatically imagines that people who don't share his faith are either evil or stupid -- i.e. profoundly different in intellectual makeup from himself. Such a theologian is rightly called 'dogmatic' because he can't envisage a legitimate ground for disagreement that does justice to the opponent's views.Steve Fuller_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

It is a fact that armadillo fossils are found only in the Americas, and that kangaroo fossils are only found in Australia. These are not unsupported religious assumptions - these are observable facts. Evolution is based on such observable facts, and is not a religion. The religious view is that armadillos somehow swam from Mount Ararat to the Americas in 2347 BC, and that kangaroos somehow swam from Mount Ararat to Australia in 2347 BC. These unsupportable assumptions are based on religion, with no objective observations to back them up. One of these views is based on science, and the other is based on religion. How can evolution be confused with religion?PaulBurnett_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

What's religious about this? There are no religious assumptions on Coyne's part, at least not in the passage you quoted (and I am assuming that if you had a better example, you would have quoted that instead).Anthony09_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT}

Cornelius, I must admit that the location of apparent fossil ancestors in the location of today's creatures especially in the Australian context seems to me to be compelling evidence that there is a genetic relationship between the fossils and today's animals. If this is correct then it is not very likely that the fossils were laid down in a world wide flood. What am I missing? I don't see this as having anything to do with theology.idnet.com.au_{July 14, 2009
July
07
Jul
14
14
2009
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next