Human evolution: The spin machine in top gear

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 19, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

For a fascinating misreading of what the recently announced Messel Pit fossil really shows, go here:

Scientists have found a 47-million-year-old human ancestor. Discovered in Messel Pit, Germany, the fossil, described as Darwinius masillae, is 20 times older than most fossils that explain human evolution.

That fossil doesn’t “explain” human evolution; it complicates the picture.

The theory that was gaining ground was that humans were descended from tarsier-like creatures, but this fossil, touted as a primate ancestor, is a lemur-like creature.

Often, I hear from people attempting to patch the cracks in the unguided Darwinian evolution theory, as follows: “We have more information than ever!”

Yes, but what if it is – as in this case – the evidence is contradictory?

Evidence for Theory A subtracts from evidence for Theory B. So if A is right, B must be subtracted from the total. If B is right, A must be subtracted from the total.

Surely, that is pretty obvious. But watching the spin machine in high gear is a fascinating exercise anyway.

No wonder fewer and fewer believe Darwinism.

Comments

David Kellogg at #28 Yes, agreed that the straightjacket version of "empirical" as "only if capable of being reproduced" is not a correct version of the word. Whether your statement about Behe is true or not, I'll pass. That's another thread-worth.SpitfireIXA_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial at 26 -- Agreement reached, it's a beautiful world. Do you agree that any organized effort to gather information empirically, based on the definition that we have agreed to, is "science."SpitfireIXA_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

SpitfireIXA, I'm not making up the definition of "empirical." IDers could make empirical observations if they wanted to, they just usually don't. For example, Michael Behe's books contain no independent observations, just second-order commentary on the observations (and experiments) of others. They are to science what opinion columns are to journalism.David Kellogg_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial,
Moreover, predictions and tests of predictions regarding future empirical findings are possible within the historical sciences...
Agree entirely. As well, confidence in the reliability of that information can be high as well, given quality work, wouldn't you agree?SpitfireIXA_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

SpitfireIXA:
Either “empirical” means reproducible, or it doesn’t. Pick one.
It doesn't. It denotes information gained my means of observation, experience, or experiment. Some empirical results are reproducible. Some are not.Diffaxial_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, You say empirical findings are broader than reproducible experimentation. Yet how many times do we hear how observations by IDists -- or historians or archaeologists -- aren't real science because they aren't "empirical" in the more restricted sense? That's a double standard. Darwinists cannot change their definition of "empirical" depending on their current argument. Either "empirical" means reproducible, or it doesn't. Pick one.SpitfireIXA_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
SpitfireIXA, empirical findings include observations, not just laboratory experiments.
Absolutely. Moreover, predictions and tests of predictions regarding future empirical findings are possible within the historical sciences (such as paleoanthropology), specifically predictions regarding future fossil finds that are entailed by particular models of evolutionary events and relationships.Diffaxial_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

JTaylor, there is little purpose for Discovery Institute -- with limited funds -- to pour money into paleontology. There's far more bang for the buck in microbiology, which is empirical. Paleontology doesn't need either Darwinists or IDists. It's the other way around. Darwinists (and IDists) can only stand behind the paleontologists and make the story as the fossils are dug up by actual scientists. However, it does matter how the sides predicted the fossil record, which has been decidedly pro-ID.SpitfireIXA_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

SpitfireIXA, empirical findings include observations, not just laboratory experiments.David Kellogg_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

JTaylor:
Nevertheless I haven’t seen anything yet that would be considered falsifying info for evolution.
I would agree with this. My point was, respectfully, your blinders to the amusing use of this lemur fossil as sure-fire proof of human evolution -- and all of the "religious implications" that theists must come to grips with, supposedly. Paleontology cannot prove or disprove evolution (or ID) empirically. Any evolutionary story can be created for any fossil found -- or lack of fossils. It can only suggest, and make the process of story-telling easier or harder. Diffaxial said:
...this find displays the essential engine of science in operation - in particular the role of empirical investigation and empirical evidence.
This fossil is historical evidence, not empirical. It cannot be reproduced in the lab. In other words, it is in the same boat as evolution, which fails empirically.SpitfireIXA_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

I find Denyse's position here very difficult to fathom, as she is on record in The Spiritual Brain endorsing some essential facts of human evolution. On page 12 she (and Dr. Beauregard) stated, "Lest there be any misunderstanding, it is not the purpose of this book to argue that evolution did not occur. There is a fossil record, after all." On the following page we are asked, "What about our nearest animal relatives, the chimpanzees and other large primates?" And most pointedly, "Does the answer to human nature lie in our animal nature? In our kinship with chimpanzees? With mammals in general?" Her answer is "no," but that is another discussion. The significance of this find is that the evidence with bearing upon the specifics of these kinship relationships is now more complete, reducing uncertainty regarding a period of evolution for which there heretofore had been only a very incomplete record (practically the definition of "information"). To whatever extent prior hypotheses and the predictions therefrom regarding these events need to be revised or abandoned, this find displays the essential engine of science in operation - in particular the role of empirical investigation and empirical evidence. I don't quite grok how that reduces confidence in evolutionary theory, or the contemporary scientific picture of human origins.Diffaxial_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

Denyse writes "This war was made explicit in primary sources." That's a journalistic rather than scientific understanding of what constitutes a "primary source." That misunderstanding hints at the basic weakness of the original post: it does not cite the research itself. In in the post, Denyse seems to suggest that because people will argue about the significance of this finding, we can't know anything about human evolution. But that's just silly. The paper is freely available here. Why not look at the paper and evaluate it instead of exaggerating uncertainty?David Kellogg_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

SpitfireIXA said "So the spin is there. Are you happy with it?" I didn't read the Sky News article - but followed the link that Denyse provided above to ScienceDaily (and also read it on other sources) which seemed reasonably even-handed. So my comment was based on this article not the Sky one. But I agree the Sky News report is hyperbolic, and only time can tell what the true implications of the find might be. Nevertheless I haven't seen anything yet that would be considered falsifying info for evolution.JTaylor_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

Drat, well... not "clearly you don't".SpitfireIXA_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

Correction to the above. "Clearly you do" not "clearly you do."SpitfireIXA_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

JTaylor: Besides, who in the paleoanthropology world has been saying that anybody has known for sure the specifics about all this? Isn’t it well established that knowledge is lacking here and that perhaps this find might help to illuminate? I fail to see the “spin” here but then with O’Leary everything of course is a “controversy” of some kind. Now quoting Sky News, and questions for you JTaylor: Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution. Jtaylor, do agree that this is THE missing link in human evolution? The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years - but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York. JTaylor, do you believe this is the direct connection we've all waited for for 200 years? The discovery of the 95%-complete 'lemur monkey' - dubbed Ida - is described by experts as the "eighth wonder of the world". JTaylor, do you think this find is the eighth wonder of the world? They say its impact on the world of palaeontology will be "somewhat like an asteroid falling down to Earth". Jtaylor.. you know the rest. Do you honestly not believe that the Sky News article is a grotesque display of spin puffery? Clearly you don't, as you have been more circumspect in your responses above. So the spin is there. Are you happy with it?SpitfireIXA_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

Tribune7 @ #2 LOL! That's classic...literally. And very appropriate to the attempted sensationalization. Hopefully anyone investigating it reads the year: "Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES. December 22, 1912, Sunday"JGuy_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

O'Leary said "How does ID interpret this finding: Only as an instance of the immense current, tax-funded confusion on this question." What do you think should be done differently then, especially considering ID is not currently participating in paleoanthropological research? What kind of research should be done? Or should scientists not even bother?JTaylor_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

JTaylor, they are not changing their minds. They are warring over the bones of a dead idea - that it all happened by natural selection acting on random mutation. This war was made explicit in primary sources: "Lemur advocates will be delighted, but tarsier advocates will be underwhelmed" by the new evidence, says Tim White, a paleontologist at the University of California, Berkeley. "The debate will persist." The details of the evidence can be plugged in later because they have already approved the story line and will plug in only the details that suit it. How does ID interpret this finding: Only as an instance of the immense current, tax-funded confusion on this question. There simply is not enough evidence to convince a thoughtful jury at this point, which is why the advice I gave you above at 5 is good: Do not try it in a courtroom.O'Leary_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

Denyse said: The “basic theory of evolution” tells us that either Joe is John’s father - or that Harry is. And the two sides have been at it for decades." I expect they will be at it for a few more decades too...but whether these kinds of findings will fundamentally change the basic tenets of evolution remains to be seen (and remember the theory of evolution does not rely on whether we are descended from species A or species B). So far I haven't heard anybody say that it will - if Ms O'Leary thinks it might, it would be interesting to hear how. I do find it somewhat odd that Ms O'Leary frequently complains that the "other side" are overly dogmatic and rigid - yet when, as in this case, there is new evidence that might change long-held ideas, she seems very dismissive that scientists are changing their minds (again, isn't this just science working as it is supposed to?). Maybe we'll never know enough detail to be able to completely pinpoint the lineage of our species. It's rather similar to my personal history, and to continue with your analogy before - I know I'm from English/Irish/French stock - without the appropriate research I couldn't necessarily tell you who my great-great-great-great-grandfather was. But I can with some degree of confidence point to a region or a particular group, and a time period. Isn't that is what is happening with this finding - a fine-tuning of our understanding of the specific primate lineage? One more time - how does ID interpret this finding? (other than an opportunity to criticize). For example, could ID use this data to make any predictions or is it really ambivalent to such a finding?JTaylor_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

why doesnt the discovery institute fund any ID related paleoanthropological, or and ID related research?eintown_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

jerry@8, the first part already is: from Futuyma's "Evolution" p. 80: "There is disageement about how many distinct hominin species and genera should be recognized.. even if the overall pattern of evolution is clear, the specific phylogenetic relationships among hominin taxa may not be." From Strickberger's "Evolution", p. 493: "According to molecular evidence primates diverged in the late Cretaceous although the details of primate origins remain fairly obscure." From Freeman and Herron's "Evolutionary Analysis", p. 764: "The fossil record for early humans and their kin is frustratingly sparse." the obvious implications being that more research is needed in this area? or something else (please be specific)?Khan_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

"Are there in fact any ID-oriented paleoanthropologists?" If there were any who identified themselves as such, the nearly certain prediction would be that they would not get any research grants. "Isn’t it well established that knowledge is lacking here and that perhaps this find might help to illuminate?" Let's get this published in textbooks with the obvious implications.jerry_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

JTaylor, thanks. You beautifully illustrate the precise problem that made me begin to question the Darwin industry a decade or so ago. The "basic theory of evolution" tells us that either Joe is John's father - or that Harry is. And the two sides have been at it for decades. By faith alone, the Darwinian evolutionist knows that - what, exactly? - happened. I could not determine from this body of evidence that humans are descended from either group. Advice: Never try this in a courtroom.O'Leary_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

So we have Argument A and Argument B. One says we are descended from tarsier-like creatures the other from lemur-like creatures. But neither Arugment A or B contradict the basic theory of evolution which states that human beings are descended from an earlier ancestor, probably a primate. Besides, who in the paleoanthropology world has been saying that anybody has known for sure the specifics about all this? (yes there have been hypotheses but that's all, right?) Isn't it well established that knowledge is lacking here and that perhaps this find might help to illuminate? I fail to see the "spin" here but then with O'Leary everything of course is a "controversy" of some kind.JTaylor_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

Lenoxus: A proverb says, "It is a wise child that knows his father." All I know is this: Between two competing arguments, in which only one side can be right, information that supports Argument A must subtract from information that supports Argument B. I didn't make that up. It is just logic. So, where a number of theories compete, the growth of findings does not necessarily lead to a growth in understanding. It may eventually do so, if the findings can be reconciled. To put it on a personal plane: Either Joe is John's father or Harry is. Both men can't be John's father under any normal circumstance. So any good case for the one must necessarily subtract from the case for the other. In a reasonable universe, I do not see how it can be otherwise. Therefore, a find like this is not necessarily a net gain in information. We must first see how many research findings it falsifies.O'Leary_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

"The theory that was gaining ground was that humans were descended from tarsier-like creatures, but this fossil, touted as a primate ancestor, is a lemur-like creature." I think by theory O'Leary probably mean hypothesis. And if it turns out that we are descended from lemur-type primates, would this in fact alter the basic tenets of the theory of evolution? (if so, how?) Isn't this really just a case of science working as usual? Given that the field of paleoanthropology dates probably only to the late 19th century, then it's fairly obvious that there is still much to learn. These kinds of finds are to be expected, but I don't see how this alters the theory that homo sapiens are descended from earlier primates. Besides, what does ID have to say about this and how does it fit into the ID hypothesis? Are there in fact any ID-oriented paleoanthropologists?JTaylor_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

tribune7. Thank you! I haven't Googled "Missing link found", but I'm pretty sure there will be decades of missing link finds finally being found.russ_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Darwin Theory Is Proved True (New York Times)tribune7_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

So the answer must be that we are descended from neither?Lenoxus_{May 19, 2009
May
05
May
19
19
2009
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 10 11 12

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply