Evolution is a Big Word, Part 1: Is There a Consensus?

_{Jonathan Bartlett

February 5, 2012

Intelligent Design}

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

A recent article was released which talks about the many theories of evolution. The article is a good introduction to the variety of evolutionary theories that different people think – both inside and outside of ID. I wanted to talk about several aspects of that article in separate posts here on UD.

The first aspect I wanted to talk about is this – is there really a consensus on evolution? Here’s the quote from the article I especially want to discuss:

In the debate over origins, there has been such an effort to paint science as being decidedly evolutionary that the actual interesting details of the question get lost. What does one mean by evolution? Is evolution a sequence or a mechanism? If it is a mechanism, what is the mechanism? If two people disagree on both the sequence and the mechanism, to what extent should their opinions be taken to represent the same idea? Might there be fascinating ideas which are not being heard simply because they are being pushed into the background of the overly generalized term “evolution?”

The part in bold is especially what I want to discuss. There are numerous different ideas for the sequences of which organisms came before or followed which other organisms. There are also numerous different ideas for the mechanisms by which this might have happened. If any sequence and any mechanism can be considered “evolution”, then what does the word evolution even mean? If the word “evolution” is taken to be mutually exclusive with ID (as most in the media would have you believe), then what does evolution even mean except “Materialism”? If it means anything more than “materialism”, how can it be a consensus if the mechanism and the sequence aren’t agreed upon?

Comments

johnnyb:
Philosophical materialism grasps at all three. There are many who *claim* *methodological* materialism, but then grasp at all three segments, thereby proving that they are in fact philosophical materialists, but don’t want to admit it.
In fairness there are two camps here. There are the Atheists, as a religion, and there are the philosophers. The philosophers believing that words construct truth by virtue of being uttered. And between the two the religious stripe is far more grounded in sanity.Maus_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT}

DrREC:
Same for methodological naturalism.
Euclid's elements was methodological naturalism. "Cogito ergo sum" -- I think therefore I am -- was not. Neither is "Cogitor ergo X-men" -- I think therefore I'm a mutant. If your cause/effect relationship cannot be demonstrated on a lab-table or makes suprefluous appeals to things not necessary for the demonstration then it is not Methodlogical Natrualism. Darwinim postulates a Creation Myth without the present of time machines. Do I need to beat you about the head and shoulders with the notion any more than that?Maus_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT}

"“By the way, ants can “solve” the traveling salesman problem by shooting smelly substances out of their butts.” The question is, can they do it in a way which surpasses computational possibilities (i.e. a linear increase in time for each added point). If so, then why is it hard to imagine that other parts of life include the immaterial? So a physical (material) solution to a problem is immaterial because it isn't algorithmically computational at present? Odd definitions.....DrREC_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT}

DrREC: “Non-material (supernatural) is not equatable with non-computational.” If that isn’t the case, then non-material has no meaning. What other criteria would there be to distinguish the two? I can materially synthesize a peptide that a computer cannot compute the fold of de-novo. A quantum mechanical computation is np-hard. I can still solve the structure by NMY. Is there some transcendent property, some non-material essence to the peptide because a computer can't solve it algorithmically as yet?DrREC_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT}

Claim: "pretty much every major advance in physics has occurred when physics broke its own previous methodological rules and incorporated more ideas from theology." Query: "Pick a Nobel Prize in physics in the last 25 years, and describe to me how is incorporates an idea from theology, and was demonstrated in a non-methodologically empiricist manner." Blustering non-response: Why? Is this the inquisition and I have to appeal to the magisterium? Why the last 25 years? Are we really that pushed around by intellectual fashion? Am I also wearing white shoes after labor day?DrREC_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT}

Geoxus:
Big concepts are always tricky, but I think “evolution” can be put very simply as “change in inheritable properties of organisms over time”.
We already teach sex-ed in school. It happens in a class called 'sex-ed'. If the 'big concept' is that sex theoretically happens then perhaps you should try life away from the internet for a while. Just sayin'.
So you meant phylogeny, which is the branching pattern, not “sequence”. The specific phylogeny of life on Earth is an aspect of evolutionary history, not a part of evolutionary theory.
The 'specific' phylogeny of line of Earth is dictated by an a priori decision that we ought represent trees as binary trees. Which is a decision I support for computational reasons. But there are no conclusions that can be drawn from requiring a binary tree before you start and then finding a binary tree after you finish. If you are otherwise unclear on tree-building as a match to an unknown data set then you should begin your inquiry with the difference between Shannon-Fano and Huffman coding. Or any other related branch of computer science. <blockquoteThat’s not just yet another take on history, it is a damaging one, one that fails to cope with the standards of actual historical research. There's historical research and historical narratives. The current output of history departments is claimed, by historians, to be historical narratives. Not dry facts of dates and times but fairy tales. If you Believe the historical narrative of Darwinism, or of your preferred philosophical framework for ID, then you are engaged directly in Theology rather than science.
I would note, however, that “anti-evolution” would be an outrageously bad take on evolution, not one that’s merely bad or wrong.
Indeed, if you denied sex then you would be anti-ID as well.Maus_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT}

Why? I usually like to assess articles on the basis of their content, not who their author is. Now, if you cite yourself as an *authority*, that's a different story - that is a problem. My intention was to point to the article's argument, in which case it doesn't matter if it was written by me, a Nobel Laureate, or a third grader - the point is to judge it on the argument's merits.johnnyb_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT}

Geoxus - By "Darwinism" I mean exactly what the evolutionary biology literature means by it - that the primary force of evolution is happenstance changes which are promoted in the population through natural selection. This is precisely how it is used in microbiology and genetics. It is also often referred to as the modern synthesis. A good start to the discussion would be this paper (and you might be interested in my response).johnnyb_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT}

I’m unaware of Darwin’s father’s theory of evolution. Do you have a reference? But anyway, you’re quite right. For the purposes of this site, Evolution sometimes = Darwin, which always means the hated theory behind that change. But sometimes, it is the obvious fact you all acknowledge. And other times, it is the observation your theories (front-loading) try to account for.
1st, on the pre-darwin evolution: It was his grandfather, Erasmus that I heard was an evolutionist before Darwin wrote his book. Not his dad. My apologies for being misleading. I didn't originally get it from here, but this site seems to confirm my suspicions. http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh1.shtml I'll look for more citations tomorrow-later, I have to sleep. As for the rest of this...Maybe it's the beer talking dude, but are you being difficult on purpose? The broad theory(s) of evolution are not what most people on this site are annoyed by. Just one version. This isn't rocket science. Remember how interested everyone was when Shapiro came out with his idea(s)? It was still sorta naturalist from what I remember reading (wasn't paying it too much attention, sorry) but it was new and exciting and people were taking an interest to it. At least that's what I noticed. Anyway, I think you're... I guess it's equivocating all of 'Evolution' with 'Darwinian Evolution'. And I don't know why. Football is not all of Sports, but in America it's the biggest. Likewise, Darwins theory isn't all of evolutionary theory, though it certainly is the most popular.Sonfaro_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

"Pick a Nobel Prize in physics in the last 25 years" Why? Is this the inquisition and I have to appeal to the magisterium? Why the last 25 years? Are we really that pushed around by intellectual fashion? Am I also wearing white shoes after labor day? "Propose a hypothesis and experiment" I have already. But I should also note that the requirement of an "experiment" is (b). In fact, evolutionists themselves have had to redefine what it means to do an "experiment" in order to get evolution qualified as an "experimental science". Mayr himself developed an entirely different approach to experiment (which would be wholly unrecognizable to a physicist) for use in evolutionary biology. (see Mayr's "Towards a New Philosophy of Biology"). "By the way, ants can “solve” the traveling salesman problem by shooting smelly substances out of their butts." The question is, can they do it in a way which surpasses computational possibilities (i.e. a linear increase in time for each added point). If so, then why is it hard to imagine that other parts of life include the immaterial? There are many schools of philosophy which include this. Panpsychism and other philosophies suppose that there is a spiritual underbelly to the whole of the universe. Many theists hold that life is fundamentally spiritual first. Vitalists hold that biology is primarily spiritual (by the way, vitalism is not dead -- they have found a temporary hideout in the "metabolism-first" theory of the origin of life). "Non-material (supernatural) is not equatable with non-computational." If that isn't the case, then non-material has no meaning. What other criteria would there be to distinguish the two?johnnyb_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT}

You're again confusing theory with its subject matter.Geoxus_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT}

Much of what that XIX century gentleman thought is certainly wrong. His research however, must be evaluated in the context of his times. Darwin was certainly not a crackpot and he did advance significantly our knowledge of evolution. If by "Darwinism" you meant anything else than the thought of the historical Charles Darwin, I don't know what it is. The term has become almost meaningless these days. I would note, however, that "anti-evolution" would be an outrageously bad take on evolution, not one that's merely bad or wrong.Geoxus_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

Mivart? Basically asking why a proto-eye is any good? Because even a light sensing patch is superior to none for phototaxis, sensing predator's shadow's etc. Do you hang your belief on that? Funny historical side note-Darwin and Mivart had a falling out over Mivart quotemining-taking bits of sentences out of context. He then accused Darwin's son of sexual deviancy for suggesting the legitimacy of divorce in cases of abuse. Parallels.DrREC_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT}

It doesn't look well to quote an article and fail to mention you're the author as well. I did not enjoy it. You're confused, as I explained above.Geoxus_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT}

"The idea was not aliens-as-a-tool, but aliens as the designers themselves" Right. That's what I was saying. As long as we don't presuppose the aliens be material, then there is no problem. Just as I don't presuppose that humans are entirely material. I would say that, whether or not ID'ers themselves are committed to designers being non-material, the conception itself requires it. "one that fails to cope with the standards of actual historical research" I can see that position. But in that case I would say that the Darwinian conception of evolution would be more anti-evolutionary than ID. It fails on the evidence and on the logic, and the problems have been known in Darwin's day since Mivart proposed his problem of incipient structures.johnnyb_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT}

I'm unaware of Darwin's father's theory of evolution. Do you have a reference? But anyway, you're quite right. For the purposes of this site, Evolution sometimes = Darwin, which always means the hated theory behind that change. But sometimes, it is the obvious fact you all acknowledge. And other times, it is the observation your theories (front-loading) try to account for.DrREC_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT}

Sequence of organisms is the intended meaning. For instance, many people say, “we win because we have the fossils”. However, the most evidence that fossils could give are evidence of sequence, not of mechanism. I can say “fossil X is below fossil Y”, but that doesn’t give a mechanism of evolution. However, even with the fossils, there is an argument over sequence. Is the bottom of the tree a tree or an intertwined network of roots? Did land animals happen once or multiple times? Did birds come from dinosaurs or something else?
So you meant phylogeny, which is the branching pattern, not "sequence". The specific phylogeny of life on Earth is an aspect of evolutionary history, not a part of evolutionary theory. Theory deals with (but not only) mechanisms, the phylogeny of life is what the theory aims to explain. Explanans et explanandum, it's not really that obscure.
But that’s just the issue. This is agreed to by all sides. There is no one on the face of the earth who disagrees with this concept. If this is the definition of evolution, then there is no such thing as an anti-evolution group.
If the expression is to be taken literally, yes. But it's just common sense "anti-evolution" is short for "anti-some consequences and findings of evolutionary theory".
This is true, except that there is a group of people (we’ll just label them the NCSE for a convenient label, but it extends well beyond them) who think that if one holds a certain conception of the history of Rome, that it makes them anti-history.
Well, I'd have no problem in calling "anti-history" some crackpot ideas about history, like the extraterrestrial origin of Egyptian pyramids or the denial of the Holocaust. That's not just yet another take on history, it is a damaging one, one that fails to cope with the standards of actual historical research.
Most ID’ers are dualistic, and, at least my conception of ID goes hand-in-hand with dualism. That is different than the question of whether or not aliens were an option for the designer.
The idea was not aliens-as-a-tool, but aliens as the designers themselves. The designer must be immaterial? I know people here strongly suggest that, but I don't know whether ID is formally committed to a conception of intelligence as a non-physical phenomenon.Geoxus_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT}

By the way, ants can "solve" the traveling salesman problem by shooting smelly substances out of their butts. So can a kindergardener with a piece of string. The question is the algorithmic solution. Non-material (supernatural) is not equatable with non-computational. Marco Dorigo. Ant Colonies for the Traveling Salesman Problem. IRIDIA, Université Libre de Bruxelles. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 1(1):53–66. 1997DrREC_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT}

Pick a Nobel Prize in physics in the last 25 years, and describe to me how is incorporates an idea from theology, and was demonstrated in a non-methodologically empiricist manner. Or Propose a hypothesis and experiment, that is compete, and realist. (a&c)DrREC_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT}

Darwin didn't come up with Evolution. There were evolutionists before him (I'm pretty sure his dad was one). He's the first to propose an actual scientific argument for it in writing though (as far as I know). There are lots of theories of Evolution DrREC. Alfred Russel Wallace had a varient. Apparently that Shapiro guy and Mar-something lady have newer ones too (can't remember her name. Half asleep) You know this. Or at least you should. Darwins version is the most popular and the one most are taught in schools, but it isn't the only one. That life adapts and changes into new things isn't hated. Just one theory of how it happens.Sonfaro_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT}

Here's one that's presently under investigation. Empirical studies so far have shown that humans can solve the Traveling Salesman Problem in linear time when adding additional nodes. If this is proven to be the case generally, then that means that the human mind is beyond computation. It also means that such is readily assessable (since we are quantifying the rate at which a solution can be found), even though it is non-material (i.e. non-computable). It should be noted that pretty much every major advance in physics has occurred when physics broke its own previous methodological rules and incorporated more ideas from theology. I don't doubt that this will continue in the future.johnnyb_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT}

Here is the way I would define the terms. My Definition of ID: The study of agency as a distinctive mode of causation My Definition of Evolution: The study of the way organisms change over time My Definition of frontloading: The idea that organisms contain or contained information which assisted or directed their evolutionary pathways (by *directed* I mean towards a specific end, by *assisted* I mean aiding in survival)johnnyb_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

Define completeness. Are you proposing a science that investigates the supernatural? Propose a hypothesis and experiment, that is compete, and realist. (a&c)DrREC_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT}

@DrREC, "I don’t think people think ‘Evolution’ is bad (save maybe the few YEC who post here), just Darwins variant of it." Maybe it is the beer consumed during the superbowl, but I literally can't parse that phrase. Evolution isn't bad. Just the (150 year old) version of the guy who came up with it. ???DrREC_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

Why is (c) irrelevant? Many people (myself specifically) are interested in what is true. If you allow science to include untrue ideas for the sake of purity, what is the point? I can see other reasons to include untrue ideas (i.e. teachability of the true ideas - simplifications and the sort), but I don't see why one would enforce methodological purity at the expense of truth. But, even if you did, then there would be no reason to even disagree with people who said that what you were saying isn't true. You should simply agree that it probably isn't true, but that it simply conforms to the method. On the other hand, I hope for a science that satisfies (a) and (c). I think we will find interesting methodologies along the way, but I think we are foolish if we confine ourselves to any. I think a science that performs (b) and (c) is also useful, but in that case science ceases to be the pinnacle of the human achievement and merely becomes one pursuit among many. As I said, I can't see any good reason for choosing (b) over and above (c).johnnyb_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

"I don’t see that – if you define terms differently – they mean different things, and therefore have different implications. Is that really so hard to understand?" Perfectly clear. And you and yours will use whatever definition is convenient. I'll comment further if you define: ID, evolution, frontloading.DrREC_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

@DrREC, I don't think people think 'Evolution' is bad (save maybe the few YEC who post here), just Darwins variant of it. also:
I do the same in my science, and you cry atheism. Curious.
I do? I don't think you and I have had a conversation so if I have it wasn't my intent.Sonfaro_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

I don't see that - if you define terms differently - they mean different things, and therefore have different implications. Is that really so hard to understand?johnnyb_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

"The philosophy of science tells us that we can aim for any two of the following: (a) completeness, (b) methodological purity, and (c) realism. " Cornelius Hunter tells us that. If we define science as what limited to the natural, than (c) is irrelevant, or to a philosophical naturalist, imaginary.DrREC_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

"If you mean it narrowly, then ID can be anti-evolutionary. But when you define it narrowly, you can’t say that there is a consensus." Thanks for admitting you're willing to bullshit your way into having it both ways.DrREC_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply